Consumer Perceptions, Preferences, and Attitudes Regarding Broiler Chicken Catching MethodsABSTRACT
Pre-slaughter phases of broiler chickens can significantly compromise animal welfare, as conventional catching methods often raise ethical, physical, and moral concerns. Mechanized catching has been emerging as a viable alternative with potential to reduce these issues and improve animal treatment. This study aimed to assess the Brazilian population’s perception of broiler chicken welfare and identify factors influencing preferences for manual or mechanized catching methods, focusing on socioeconomic, demographic, and cultural aspects. A structured questionnaire was administered to a sample of 508 individuals. Variables examined included socioeconomic class, demographic profile, diet type, involvement in poultry farming, and willingness to pay more for products with certified animal welfare. Data were analyzed using Chi-square tests to assess associations between categorical variables. The findings revealed a strong preference for mechanized catching, which was perceived as more comfortable and less physically harmful to chickens. However, it was also associated with perceptions of increased fear and emotional distress. Concerns related to animal welfare and confidence in preserving bird health during and after catching were significantly affected by the place of residence, but not by diet. Although animal welfare is not a primary factor for most consumers at the time of purchase, many respondents (62%) expressed a willingness to pay more for products with certified animal welfare. Mechanized catching remains relatively unfamiliar to Brazilian consumers, but the study suggests that increasing awareness of its benefits could enhance understanding and support the development of public policies and communication strategies to promote better welfare practices in the poultry industry.
Keywords:
Pre-slaughter management; manual harvesting; mechanized harvesting; chicken meat
INTRODUCTION
There are various reasons why individuals choose not to consume meat. These include the availability of alternative ingredients on the market, the environmental impact associated with animal production (Vasconcelos et al., 2018; Shafiullah et al., 2021), and ethical concerns related to animal suffering in the meat industry (Anil et al. 2002; Thomsen et al., 2012; Norring et al. 2014; Randler et al., 2021a, b). These factors, among others, influence the growing trend of consuming plant-based products as an alternative to animal meat (Godfray et al., 2018).
In the poultry production agroindustry, animal welfare has become a prominent issue. Specifically, the handling of broilers during pre-slaughter phases, particularly during the catching process, has received considerable attention due to the stress it imposes on birds (Monleón, 2013; Lima et al., 2019; Mellor et al., 2020).
Mechanized catching as a replacement for traditional manual procedures has the potential to reduce the negative impacts on the birds’ integrity and address ethical concerns in poultry production (Delezie et al., 2006; Monleón, 2013; Wolff et al., 2019).
While the adoption of mechanized catching may have implications for production costs, it could help mitigate criticisms related to animal welfare in the agroindustry (Broom, 2019; Tonsor & Wolf, 2019). Such criticisms not only influence public perception but also affect the acceptability and consumption of meat and meat products (Alonso et al., 2020).
The shift from human-animal interaction in handling procedures to machine-based methods often evokes varying concerns among the public (Clifton et al., 2020). For instance, research suggests that certain demographics, particularly women of specific ages and educational levels, may feel more vulnerable and anxious about replacing manual labor with machinery (Millington, 2017; Lordan & Neumark, 2018). A pertinent question remains: what is the response of male participants in these surveys?
This study is guided by the following research questions:
-
a) How do Brazilian citizens perceive animal welfare in manual versus mechanized broiler harvesting?
-
b) What is the preferred method of collection among Brazilian citizens?
-
c) Do Brazilians consider animal welfare when purchasing poultry products?
-
d) Are Brazilians willing to pay more for products that ensure better animal welfare?
Filling this knowledge gap is crucial for stakeholders in poultry production chains, as it can reduce uncertainties, facilitate decision-making, support marketing strategies, and enhance consumer purchase intentions. Additionally, it could encourage the adoption of technological alternatives that improve animal welfare both upstream and downstream of the farm (Cornish et al., 2020; Alonso et al., 2020).Despite the growing interest in animal welfare, this area of research remains underexplored, highlighting a significant gap in the literature (Ahmad et al., 2006; Danielson, 2010).
The aim of this research is to evaluate Brazilian citizens’ perceptions of animal welfare in broiler chicken production, with a focus on how these perceptions and preferences vary across different demographic and socioeconomic groups. The study also seeks to understand how these factors relate to consumers’ willingness to pay more (WPM) and the consideration of animal welfare at the time of purchase.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Construction and application of the research instrument
To identify and scale perceptions of animal welfare, the following indicators were used: pain, fear, injury, comfort, and preference for a catching method (manual or mechanized). These indicators were derived from Duncan’s (2004) welfare framework and further validated by Mellor et al. (2020). The research instrument was developed by incorporating questions based on these frameworks, with a focus on human-animal and machine-animal interactions. Additionally, some questions were created to assess respondents’ opinions on the subjective experiences faced by birds during both catching methods.
A total of 508 people watched the video. The respondents were not identified, thus the questionnaire included questions to categorize them according to their social profile, which includes gender, age group, education, family income, place of residence, and diet adopted. For the place of residence, the questions were prepared to allow a categorization of respondents according to three criteria: a) residence in rural or urban areas, b) capital, metropolitan region, and countryside, and c) geographic regions of Brazil (south, southeast, Midwest, north, and northeast).
An audiovisual tool (a 5-minute video) was edited and integrated into the questionnaire to allow a comparison of both catching methods at the stage preceding the shipment of birds destined for slaughter. The video did not contain narration or emotional music, focusing solely on a visual comparison of the catching methods. It is available at the following web address: https://youtu.be/e6ulXh82xRc.
Data analysis
For a general analysis of the results, the percentages indicated by the majority of respondents were analyzed. The statistical test used was the association test (Chi-square) at 5% significance, which can be used to verify significant deviations from the observed and expected frequency of a sample, or to compare the distribution of several events from different samples with the objective of evaluating deviations in proportion between the analyzed groups.
In this test, the null hypothesis (H0) represents to equality in the proportions of responses between categories of respondents (i.e., the category does not matter; p>0.05). For the null hypothesis, the observed frequencies do not differ from the expected frequencies; therefore, the groups are not associated. Regarding the alternative hypothesis (H1), there are differences in the proportions of responses between the categories of respondents, meaning that the observed frequencies differ from the expected frequency; thereby indicating an association between groups (Callegari-Jacques, 2009).
The calculation of divergence between the observed and expected values is given by the following formula:
∑ (sigma) represents the sum of all cells in the table (categories or groups). O is the observed frequency. E is the expected frequency if the null hypothesis (H0) is true (e.g., independence between variables or a specific distribution). R is the number of columns. C is the number of rows. Degrees of freedom are calculated based on R (number of rows) and C (number of columns).
Thus, in each question, the response options were considered nominal with a polynomial distribution, and the analysis tested whether the variability in response proportions (e.g., level of pain, level of fear, attitude of considering animal welfare, willingness to pay more) between categories of respondents had a random pattern (p>0.05), or whether responses varied depending on socioeconomic, demographic, degree of involvement, and diet of respondents.
During the data quality control stages (checking values and responses across different questions - spreadsheet columns), the categories for age group and income were combined based on the number of respondents. The age groups were divided into: Young (up to 24 years), Middle-aged (25 to 39 years), and Older (over 40 years). The income categories were: Low (up to R$2,200), Medium (from R$2,201 to R$11,000), and High (over R$11,001). All analyses were conducted using Jamovi software, version 2.2.5, which is available for free.
RESULTS
The results are presented below according to the study’s hypotheses, categorized by perception, preference, willingness to pay more (WPM), and attitudes regarding animal welfare in purchasing decisions. A total of 508 Brazilian citizens participated in the questionnaire. Table 1 presents the main socioeconomic and demographic variables.
Upon analyzing the perception of animal welfare, several significant associations (p<0.05) were identified between welfare indicators and respondents’ socioeconomic or gender categories (Table 1). For instance, respondents with higher education levels perceived lower levels of pain during manual catching. In contrast, female and lower-income respondents reported higher perceived pain during mechanized catching. The level of fear during manual catching was perceived as more intense among respondents with lower education, while mechanized catching elicited higher fear responses, particularly among female respondents and those with lower education Additionally, women tended to report lower levels of perceived comfort during catching procedures. Although effect sizes varied, these associations suggest consistent patterns where gender and education influence the perception of welfare risks. For other animal welfare indicators, variations in response percentages were random (p>0.05) in relation to socioeconomic and demographic aspects.
For most respondents, both catching methods were perceived to cause “little” pain and “little” fear. Regarding pain levels, the “little” pain option was marked more frequently than expected among men for both manual and mechanized catching (p<0.05). Men also marked the options “no” fear and “little” fear more often than expected for mechanized catching (p<0.05). Low-income respondents more frequently selected “no pain,” while high-income respondents more frequently selected “little pain” for both catching methods (Tables 2 and 3).
Overall, pain and fear perceptions were low, but the majority of respondents indicated that mechanized catching caused more pain and fear, though the differences between the two techniques were small. When asked which method results in fewer injuries and greater comfort for birds, most respondents favored mechanized catching.
Regarding comfort, men rated ‘mechanized’ above expectations and ‘manual’ below expectations, while women were more likely to select ‘I don’t know’ above expectations. This may be due to a higher level of risk aversion or unfamiliarity with mechanized catching methods. Women, particularly in rural areas, may have had less exposure to mechanized farming techniques, making them more uncertain when evaluating the comfort and welfare of the birds in this context. This uncertainty may reflect a general lack of familiarity with the technology, which has been shown to influence perceptions in other agricultural settings.
Regardless of their place of residence, most respondents considered the level of pain and fear to be “little” for both catching methods. Significant differences (p<0.05) were observed in Tables 2 and 3, showing that rural residents indicated “little pain” and “little fear” more frequently than expected. For both manual and mechanized catching, rural respondents reported “a lot of pain” and “very afraid” less often than expected, and more frequently selected “no pain” and “no fear” (Tables 2 and 3). Notably, the difference in perception of pain between manual (33.9%) and mechanized catching (33.5%) was minimal, suggesting no clear dominance in perceived discomfort between the methods.
Variability in responses regarding the preference for the catching method was not associated with dietary preferences (omnivores vs. non-omnivores) (x²=1.28; p>0.05). Among both omnivores and non-omnivores, preference for mechanized catching prevailed.
The willingness to pay more for animal welfare products was statistically significant across gender (x²=14.10; p<0.05), age group (x²=16.10; p<0.05), education level (x²=39.30; p<0.05), and income (x²=24.10; p<0.05). No statistical difference was found for geographic region (x²=23.10; p>0.05) or between residents of capitals, metropolitan areas, and rural areas (x²=4.01; p>0.05) or between urban and rural residents (x²=4.48; p>0.05).
Regardless of gender, most respondents indicated a willingness to pay up to 5% more (28.3%), followed by “unwilling” (26.3%), with fewer respondents willing to pay up to 10% (15.5%) or more than 10% (8.0%). Differences between men and women (p<0.05) were explained by contrasting frequencies (fe vs. fo) for most response options.
In terms of age, regardless of group, the predominant responses were WPM of up to 5% or less, including unwillingness to pay more. Among younger respondents, WPM of up to 1% (31.5%) was most frequent, followed by 5% (29.6%). Among middle-aged respondents, WPM options for up to 5%, “unwilling,” and up to 1% were predominant. Older respondents were the only group where “unwilling” and “more than 10%” were marked more frequently than expected.
Regarding income, the majority of low-income respondents (29.5%) were unwilling to pay more for animal welfare products. Among respondents with intermediate income, 27.8% were willing to pay up to 5% more, while 33.3% of high-income respondents were willing to pay up to 10% more.
Among respondents with primary and secondary education (45.2% and 29.4%, respectively), the majority indicated they were unwilling to pay more for animal welfare products. Respondents with technical education (30.3%) were willing to pay up to 1% more, while individuals with higher and postgraduate education (28.1% and 34.1%, respectively) were more willing to pay up to 5% more. Regarding place of residence, the most common responses for WPM were up to 5%, 1%, or unwillingness to pay more.
DISCUSSION
There is a global trend toward the consumption of meat produced with greater attention to animal welfare, a trend influenced by socioeconomic and demographic factors, familiarity with production methods, lifestyles, and information on product labels (Cornish et al., 2020; Randler et al., 2021b).
There is substantial skepticism toward certification among Brazilian consumers. However, a contrast with countries where such labeling has proven effective would strengthen this point. In Brazil, however, studies have documented resistance and skepticism even when labeling and certification stamps are present. This skepticism may be attributed to insufficient knowledge about production methods and animal welfare practices, suggesting that Brazilian consumers require more time to trust and assimilate practices that ensure higher animal welfare standards. It is important to consider that this situation differs from countries where such certifications have been more widely accepted and effective in shaping consumer behavior (Toni et al., 2015; Hötzel & Vandresen, 2022).
In this context, it is crucial to develop reliable communication channels and conduct effective information campaigns about farm animal welfare (Miranda-De La Lama et al., 2019; Neves et al., 2020). Such campaigns could help foster a well-informed public that makes purchasing decisions aligned with animal welfare principles (Cornish et al., 2020).
The results discussed here are organized according to the study’s hypotheses and are divided into four main sections: perception, preference, willingness to pay more (WPM), and attitudes toward considering animal welfare when purchasing.
Despite small percentage differences, most respondents perceived mechanized catching as causing more pain and fear, yet also viewed it as leading to fewer injuries. This suggests that, in line with prior research, pain, fear, comfort, and physical injuries are perceived and weighted differently by individuals. These variations contribute to the broader understanding of how perceptions of animal welfare can differ among consumers (Ahmad et al., 2006; Danielson, 2010; Weary & Robbins, 2019).
Age was not a significant factor in the variability of perceptions regarding animal welfare. Similarly, income, except for the perception of pain in mechanized catching, did not influence how respondents perceived animal welfare. Thus, neither age nor income appear to be critical factors in determining marketing strategies for promoting animal welfare in the Brazilian market.
While a trend in the literature suggests that older individuals tend to show less concern for animal welfare (Binngiesser et al., 2013), there is no clear consensus on this relationship (Martens & Hansart, 2019). Other factors such as local culture, geographic specificity, or sample size may have more influence than age alone (Randler et al., 2021a). In contrast, schooling and gender were more strongly linked to variability in perceptions.
Gender, in particular, has long been recognized as an important demographic factor influencing attitudes toward animal welfare. Studies have consistently demonstrated a tendency for greater concern among women; however, the extent and manifestation of this concern can be shaped by cultural factors, as evidenced across diverse literature (Herzog, 2007; Mazas & Fernández-Manzanal, 2019).
Among respondents, the perception of “little” pain predominated for both catching methods. In manual catching, the perception of “no pain” was most common among individuals with lower education levels, whereas respondents with higher education tended to acknowledge some level of pain. This suggests that education influences perceptions of animal welfare, likely because higher education provides individuals with the tools to develop a more critical view. Public awareness campaigns could leverage educational strategies to foster more critical views on animal welfare, potentially influencing consumer purchasing decisions and supporting welfare standards (Toma et al., 2012).
In line with Boaitey & Minegishi (2020), international studies have shown a positive association between education levels and awareness of animal welfare issues. They note that in lower-income countries, lower levels of education are often associated with reduced concern for animal welfare, likely due to lower purchasing power and less awareness of animal welfare regulations.
The greater fear associated with mechanized catching may be due to the images respondents saw in a video during the survey, which showed birds being captured and moved using rotors and mats. The perception of increased fear in mechanized catching may also stem from a lack of awareness that manual catching, which takes longer, could result in heightened fear for the birds (Duncan et al., 1986).
Regarding respondents’ perceptions based on place of residence, the study revealed that, generally speaking, location did not significantly influence animal welfare perceptions, with two exceptions. For most respondents, mechanized catching was associated with higher levels of bird comfort and fewer injuries. In these cases, the level of pain and fear was perceived as low for both methods. This suggests that promoting mechanized harvesting in advertising could enhance consumer perceptions of animal welfare, rather than negatively affecting them.
The two exceptions to this pattern were rural respondents, who tended to perceive both pain and fear as low or even nonexistent. This could be attributed to the rural population’s closer ties to agricultural practices and a greater familiarity with production systems, including the stages leading to pre-slaughter (Kendall et al., 2006). Urban populations, on the other hand, may have become less familiar with the reality of agricultural production systems, which could explain their different perceptions of animal welfare.
The literature shows that dietary preferences such as vegetarianism and veganism influence perceptions of animal welfare, particularly when animals are anthropomorphized (Díaz, 2016; Plante et al., 2019), which is supported by the results of this study. Among those who choose not to consume meat, concerns about animal suffering (Randler et al., 2021a), the availability of plant-based food alternatives (Kahn, 2020), and the environmental impact of livestock production (Vasconcelos et al., 2018; Shafiullah et al., 2021) are significant drivers.
Social movements advocating for reduced meat consumption and better animal welfare have become influential in shaping contemporary attitudes, often driving moral considerations in purchasing decisions (Hepting et al., 2014; Eat-Lancet Commission, 2019). The fact that most respondents, whether omnivores or not, perceived mechanized catching as better for reducing injury incidence and improving bird comfort suggests that transitioning to mechanized catching could positively impact both moral acceptance and meat consumption.
The results also suggest that mechanized harvesting could be promoted as a positive aspect of marketing strategies within the poultry industry. This could help mitigate the moral concerns and criticisms directed at poultry farming and meat products, aligning more closely with consumers’ expectations of animal welfare.
Interestingly, respondents with a technical education stood out from those with other educational backgrounds by showing a preference for manual catching. A possible explanation lies in this group’s more pronounced perception of the risks of human labor being replaced by machinery. Professionals with a technical education may have a sharper understanding of the labor market transformations driven by technology, which could lead them to value activities requiring manual skills and that are less susceptible to automation. However, while this interpretation aligns with existing studies in labor economics (Millington, 2017; Lordan & Neumark, 2018; Clifton et al., 2020), it is important to acknowledge that other factors, such as personal values or the specific labor market context, may also play a role in shaping these preferences.
Moreover, the concern around automation replacing manual labor, especially in specific demographics, has been linked to factors such as gender and education (Clifton et al. 2020). Studies have noted that older worker in particular may be more vulnerable to the impacts of labor automation (Lordan & Neumark, 2018). However, in the case of Brazilian respondents, age and income did not seem to influence preferences for the catching method.
Data from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE, 2015) highlight the urban-rural divide in the sample. In 2015, 84.72% of Brazilian citizens lived in urban areas, and only 15.28% resided in rural areas. This demographic skew is reflected in the sample, particularly in terms of the rural-urban criterion.
It is difficult to pinpoint why respondents from urban areas were more uncertain about their preferred catching method, while those in rural areas displayed a clearer preference for mechanized catching. This uncertainty could be related to a lack of familiarity with agricultural production systems, especially the stages preceding slaughter, to which urban residents may be less exposed (Kendall et al., 2006).
Preferences for mechanized catching were consistent across both dietary groups. In a study by Delezie et al. (2007), non-omnivores showed no clear preference for a particular method of catching, likely because their opposition to animal slaughter outweighed concerns about catching methods.
Regarding WPM, place of residence did not significantly influence respondents’ willingness to pay more for products with better animal welfare. While no clear patterns emerged for WPM based on gender, the majority of respondents were either unwilling or only willing to pay up to 5% more. This trend was also evident across different age groups, with the highest percentages indicating a reluctance to pay more, particularly among older respondents. This aligns with previous research suggesting that older individuals tend to show less willingness to pay for higher animal welfare standards (Clark et al. 2017).
Additionally, the analysis revealed that higher income and education levels were associated with a greater willingness to pay more for animal welfare (Clark et al. 2017). This finding can be understood in light of the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991), which suggests that favorable attitudes and perceived behavioral control (influenced by economic resources and knowledge) increase the intention to act, in this case, to pay more for animal welfare-focused products. This further corroborates the idea that economic and educational factors play a significant role in consumer behavior related to animal welfare.
CONCLUSION
This study compared manual and mechanized catching methods for broiler chickens, finding that while both were perceived to cause minimal pain and fear, mechanized catching was seen as slightly more distressing, but resulting in fewer injuries and greater comfort for the animals. Despite limited awareness in Brazil, mechanized catching was preferred by respondents. These findings suggest that mechanized catching could reduce ethical concerns in poultry handling and, with better information dissemination, may gain broader public support. From a policy standpoint, promoting animal welfare practices through education and incorporating mechanized catching into welfare standards could be beneficial. Future research should focus on the long-term effects of mechanized catching on animal welfare and its economic viability in Brazil, as well as exploring how demographic factors shape perceptions of animal welfare in poultry farming.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for granting the Junior Postdoctoral Fellowship under the PDJ Scholarship Program (Call No. 32/2023, 177286/2023-7), as well as for the PQ scholarships (304806/2022-6, 303934/2021-2, and 83/026.844/2024). We also express our gratitude to the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) for their financial support, and to the Fundação de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento do Ensino, Ciência e Tecnologia do Estado de Mato Grosso do Sul (Fundect) for their funding through the Fundect/CAPES Special Call.
REFERENCES
-
AbAhmad RA, Bailey J, Bornik Z, et al. A web-based instrument to model social norms: NERD design and results. Integrated Assessment 2006;6:9-36. https://iaj.journals.publicknowledgeproject.org/index.php/iaj/article/view/1083
» https://iaj.journals.publicknowledgeproject.org/index.php/iaj/article/view/1083 -
Ajzen I. The rheory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1991;50(2):179-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
» https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T -
Alonso ME, González-Montaña JR, Lomillos JM, et al. Consumers' concerns and perceptions of farm animal welfare. Animals 2020;10:385. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030385
» https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030385 -
Anil SS, Anil L, Deen J, et al. Challenges of pain assessment in domestic animals. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 2002;220:313-319. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.2002.220.313
» https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.2002.220.313 -
Binngiesser J, Wilhelm C, Randler C, et al. Attitudes toward animals among German children and adolescents. Anthrozoös 2013;26:325-339. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303713X13697429463475
» https://doi.org/10.2752/175303713X13697429463475 -
Boaitey A, Minegishi K, et al. Who are farm animal welfare conscious consumers? British Food Journal 2020;122:3779-96. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-08-2019-0634
» https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-08-2019-0634 -
Breidert C, Hahsler M, Reutterer T, et al. A review of methods for measuring willingness-to-pay. Innovative Marketing 2006;2:8-32. https://www.reutterer.com/papers/breidert&hahsler&reutterer_2006.pdf
» https://www.reutterer.com/papers/breidert&hahsler&reutterer_2006.pdf -
Broom DM, et al. Animal welfare complementing or conflicting with other sustainability issues. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2019;219:104829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2019.06.010
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2019.06.010 -
Buller H, Roe E, et al. Modifying and commodifying farm animal welfare: the economisation of layer chickens. Journal of Rural Studies 2014;33:141-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.01.005
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.01.005 - Callegari-Jacques SM. Bioestatística: princípios e aplicações. Porto Alegre: Artmed Editora; 2009.
-
Cao YJ, Cranfield J, Chen C, et al. Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems. Food Policy 2021;99:101979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101979
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101979 -
Clark B, Panzone LA, Stewart GB, et al. Consumer attitudes towards production diseases in intensive production systems. Plos One 2019;14:e0210432. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210432
» https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210432 -
Clark B, Stewart GB, Panzone LA, et al. Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies. Food Policy 2017;68:112-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.01.006
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.01.006 -
Clifton J, Glasmeier A, Gray M, et al. When machines think for us: the consequences for work and place. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 2020;13:3-23. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsaa004
» https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsaa004 -
Cornish AR, Briley D, Wilson BJ, et al. The price of good welfare: Does informing consumers about what on-package labels mean for animal welfare influence their purchase intentions? Appetite 2020;148:104577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104577
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104577 -
Danielson P. Designing a machine to learn about the ethics of robotics: the N-reasons platform. Ethics and Information Technology 2010;12:251-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-009-9214-x
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-009-9214-x -
Delezie E, Verbeke W, De Tavernier J, et al. Consumers' preferences toward techniques for improving manual catching of poultry. Poultry Science 2006;85:2019-27. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/85.11.2019
» https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/85.11.2019 -
Díaz EM. Animal humanness, animal use, and intention to become ethical vegetarian or ethical vega. Anthrozoös 2016;29:263-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2016.1152720
» https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2016.1152720 -
Duncan IJH, Slee GS, Kettlewell P, et al. Comparison of the stressfulness of harvesting broiler chickens by machine and by hand. British Poultry Science 1986;27:109-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668608416861
» https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668608416861 -
Duncan IJH. A Concept of welfare based on feelings. In: Benson GJ, Rollin BE, editoss. The well-being of farm animals. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell; 2004. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470344859.ch5
» https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470344859.ch5 - Eat-Lancet Commission. Summary report of the EAT-Lancet commission: can we feed a future population of 10 billion people a healthy diet within planetary boundaries? Washington: The EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet, Health; 2022. Available from: https://eatforum.org/content/uploads/2019/01/EAT-Lancet_Commission_Summary_Report.pdf
-
Escobedo Del Bosque CI, Spiller A, Risius A, et al. Who wants chicken? Uncovering consumer preferences for produce of alternative chicken product methods. Sustainability 2021;13:2440. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052440
» https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052440 -
Estévez-Moreno LX, María GA, Sepúlveda WS, et al. Attitudes of meat consumers in Mexico and Spain about farm animal welfare: A cross-cultural study. Meat Science 2021;173:108377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2020.108377
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2020.108377 - Gameiro AH. Análise econômica e bem-estar animal em sistemas de produção alternativos: uma proposta metodológica. In: Anais do 45th Congresso da Sober; 2007 Jul 22-25; Londrina: Sociedade Brasileira de Economia, Administração e Sociologia Rural; 2007. p.1-10.
-
Godfray HCJ, Aveyard P, Garnett T, et al. Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science 2018;361(6399):5324. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5324
» https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5324 -
Hepting DH, Jaffe J, Maciag T, et al. Operationalizing ethics in food choice decisions. Journal of Agricultura and Environmental Ethics 2014;27:453-69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9473-8
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9473-8 -
Herzog HA. Gender differences in human-animal interactions: a review. Anthrozoös 2007;20:7-21. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279307780216687
» https://doi.org/10.2752/089279307780216687 -
Hötzel MJ, Vandresen B. Brazilians' attitudes to meat consumption and production: present and future challenges to the sustainability of the meat industry. Meat Science. 2022;192:108893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108893
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108893 -
IBGE. Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios - PNAD. Rio de Janeiro; 2015. Available from: https://educa.ibge.gov.br/jovens/conheca-o-brasil/populacao/18313-populacao-rural-e-urbana.html
» https://educa.ibge.gov.br/jovens/conheca-o-brasil/populacao/18313-populacao-rural-e-urbana.html -
Kahn S. Veganism, animal welfare, and causal impotence. Journal of Animal Ethics 2020;10:161-76. https://doi.org/10.5406/janimalethics.10.2.0161
» https://doi.org/10.5406/janimalethics.10.2.0161 -
Kendall HA, Lobao LM, Sharp JS, et al. Public concern with animal well-being: place, social structural location, and individual experience. Rural Sociology 2006;71:399-428. https://doi.org/10.1526/003601106778070617
» https://doi.org/10.1526/003601106778070617 -
Kokoski MF. An empirical analysis of intertemporal and demographic variations in consumer preferences. American Journal Agricutural Economics 1986;68:894-907. https://doi.org/10.2307/1242136
» https://doi.org/10.2307/1242136 -
Lagerkvist CJ, Hess S, et al. A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. European Review of Agricultural Economics 2011;38:55-78. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbq043
» https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbq043 -
Leinonen I, Williams AG, Wiseman J, et al. Predicting the environmental impacts of chicken systems in the United Kingdom through a life cycle assessment: broiler production systems. Poultry Science 2012;91:8-25. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2011-01634
» https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2011-01634 -
Lima VA, Ceballos MC, Gregory NG, et al. Effect of different catching practices during manual upright handling on broiler welfare and behavior. Poultry Science 2019;98:4282-9. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pez284
» https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pez284 -
Lordan G, Neumark D, et al. People versus machines: The impact of minimum wages on automatable jobs. Labour Economics 2018;52:40-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2018.03.006
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2018.03.006 -
Lund TB, Denver S, Nordström J, et al. Moral convictions and meat consumption-a comparative study of the animal ethics orientations of consumers of pork in Denmark, Germany, and Sweden. Animals 2021;11:329. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11020329
» https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11020329 -
Martens P, Hansart C, Su B, et al. Attitudes of young adults toward animals-the case of high school students in Belgium and The Netherlands. Animals 2019;9:88. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9030088
» https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9030088 -
Mazas B, Fernández-Manzanal R, et al. A more fine-grained measure towards animal welfare: a study with regards to gender differences in Spanish students. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2019;26:844-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3537-2
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3537-2 - McInerney J. Animal welfare, economics and policy. Report on a study undertaken for the Farm Animal Health Economics Division of Defra 2004;68:1.
-
Mellor DJ, Beausoleil NJ, Littlewood KE, et al. The 2020 five domains model: including human-animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare. Animals 2020;10:1870. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101870
» https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101870 - Millington AK. How changes in technology and automation will affect the labour market in Africa. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies; 2017.
-
Miranda-De La Lama GC, Estévez-Moreno LX, Sepulveda WS, et al. Mexican consumers' perceptions and attitudes towards farm animal welfare and willingness to pay for welfare friendly meat products. Meat Science 2017;125:106-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.12.001
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.12.001 -
Miranda-de la Lama GC, Estévez-Moreno LX, Villarroel M, et al. Consumer attitudes toward animal welfare-friendly products and willingness to pay: exploration of mexican market segments. Journal of Applied and Animal Welfare Science 2019;22:13-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2018.1456925
» https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2018.1456925 - Monleón DR. Manejo de pré-abate em frangos de corte. Aviagen 2013;1:1-8.
-
Neves MF, Marques VN, Martinez LF, et al. O modelo markalim para oportunidades no marketing de alimentos. Revista Agronomia Brasileira 2020;4:1-8. https://doi.org/10.29372/rab202023
» https://doi.org/10.29372/rab202023 -
Norring M, Wikman I, Hokkanen AH, et al. Empathic veterinarians score cattle pain higher. The Veterinary Journal 2014;200:186-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.02.005
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.02.005 -
Ostovic M, Mikus T, Pavicic Z, et al. Influence of socio-demographic and experiential factors on the attitudes of Croatian veterinary students towards farm animal welfare. Veterinary Medicine 2017;62:417-28. https://doi.org/10.17221/172/2016-VETMED
» https://doi.org/10.17221/172/2016-VETMED -
Plante CN, Rosenfeld DL, Plante M, et al. The role of social identity motivation in dietary attitudes and behaviors among vegetarians. Appetite 2019;141:104307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.05.038
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.05.038 -
Randler C, Adan A, Antofie MM, et al. Animal welfare attitudes: effects of gender and diet in university samples from 22 countries. Animals 2021;11:1893. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11071893
» https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11071893 -
Randler C, Ballouard JM, Bonnet X, et al. Attitudes toward animal welfare among adolescents from Colombia, France, Germany, and India. Anthrozoös 2021;34:359-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2021.1898212
» https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2021.1898212 -
Scherer L, Tomasik B, Rueda O, et al. Framework for integrating animal welfare into life cycle sustainability assessment. The International Journal Life Cycle Assessment 2018;23:1476-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1420-x
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1420-x -
Shafiullah M, Khalid U, Shahbaz M, et al. Does meat consumption exacerbate greenhouse gas emissions? Evidence from US data. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2021;28:11415-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11331-9
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11331-9 -
Thomas EF, Bury SM, Louis WR, et al. Vegetarian, vegan, activist, radical: Using latent profile analysis to examine different forms of support for animal welfare. Group Processes Intergroup Relations 2019;22:836-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430218824407
» https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430218824407 -
Thomsen PT, Anneberg I, Herskin MS, et al. Differences in attitudes of farmers and veterinarians towards pain in dairy cows. Veterinary Journal 2012;194:94-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2012.02.025
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2012.02.025 -
Toma L, Stott AW, Revoredo-Giha C, Kupiec-Teahan B. Consumers and animal welfare. a comparison between European Union countries. Appetite 2012;58(2):597-607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.11.015
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.11.015 -
Tomasevic I, Bahelka I, Čítek J, et al. Attitudes and beliefs of eastern european consumers towards animal welfare. Animals 2020;10:1220. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10071220
» https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10071220 -
Toni D, Reche RA, Larentis F, et al. Influência da imagem e percepção de valor na intenção de compra de carne de frango: um estudo quantitativo. RACE 2015;14:1005. https://doi.org/10.18593/race.v14i3.6865
» https://doi.org/10.18593/race.v14i3.6865 -
Tonsor GT, Wolf CA, Wolf CA. US Farm animal welfare: an economic perspective. Animals 2019;9:367. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9060367
» https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9060367 -
Vasconcelos K, Farinha M, Bernardo L, et al. Livestock-derived greenhouse gas emissions in a diversified grazing system in the endangered Pampa biome, Southern Brazil. Land Use Policy 2018;75:442-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.03.056
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.03.056 -
Weary D, Robbins J, et al. Understanding the multiple conceptions of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 2019;28:33-40. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.28.1.033
» https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.28.1.033 -
Wolff I, Klein S, Rauch E, et al. Harvesting-induced stress in broilers: Comparison of a manual and a mechanical harvesting method under field conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2019;221:104877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2019.104877
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2019.104877
-
FUNDING
None.
-
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data will be available upon request to the corresponding author.
-
DISCLAIMER/PUBLISHER’S NOTE
The published papers’ statements, opinions, and data are those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s). The editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions, or products referred to in the content.
Data will be available upon request to the corresponding author.
