Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T01:44:52.664Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Characterization, typification and holistic consumer perception of welfare in laying poultry in Brazil: a machine learning approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2023

Alessandra Arno Open the ORCID record for Alessandra Arno [Opens in a new window] ,
Robson Mateus Freitas Silveira Open the ORCID record for Robson Mateus Freitas Silveira [Opens in a new window]  and
Iran José Oliveira da Silva Open the ORCID record for Iran José Oliveira da Silva [Opens in a new window]
Alessandra Arno
Affiliation:
Department of Biosystems Engineering, “Luiz de Queiroz” College of Agriculture, University of São Paulo, Piracicaba, Brazil
Robson Mateus Freitas Silveira*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, “Luiz de Queiroz” College of Agriculture, University of São Paulo, Piracicaba, Brazil
Iran José Oliveira da Silva
Affiliation:
Department of Biosystems Engineering, “Luiz de Queiroz” College of Agriculture, University of São Paulo, Piracicaba, Brazil
*
Corresponding author: Robson Mateus Freitas Silveira; Email: robsonsilveira@usp.br
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The intensification of production systems raises concerns about animal welfare. In egg production, the use of cages is the main reason for discussion. The current transition from the production system to cage-free systems raises questions about consumer perception. The objective of this study was to typify, characterize and differentiate the profile of Brazilian consumers regarding animal welfare in laying poultry. For this, a questionnaire with 28 questions, addressing questions about sociodemographic indicators (SOC), eating habits (HAB), knowledge about the production chain (CON), general perception of animal welfare in egg production (HPW) and about eggs with an animal welfare guarantee (PEAWG) was answered by 1415 consumers. Machine learning techniques were applied to characterize; typify and holistic perception. Three groups of consumers were defined: interested, emerging and indifferent. All indicators under study showed discriminatory power (P < 0.001). The indicators that showed the greatest importance for the classification of the three profiles were HPW < EHAB < COM < PEAWG < SOC. The results indicate the potential of interested and emerging groups to become consumers of cage-free eggs and also indicate the need to inform the population about animal welfare in egg production. The results reinforce the need to create specific public policies for the production chain, in order to value egg production and reaffirm interest in the area, especially in specific niches such as production in cage-free systems.

Keywords

animal welfareconsumer attitudeegg productionmultivariate analysis
Type
Animal Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 161 , Issue 5 , October 2023 , pp. 743 - 753
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Universidade de São Paulo, 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

ABPA. Associação Brasileira de Proteína Animal. Relatório anual (2021) Disponível em. Available at http://abpa-br.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ABPA_Relatorio_Anual_2021_web.pdf (Acesso em: 10 ago).Google Scholar
Alonso, ME, González-Montaña, JR and Lomillos, JM (2020) Consumers’ concerns and perceptions of farm animal welfare. Animals 10, 385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amaral, G, Guimarães, D, Nascimento, JC and Custodio, S (2016) Avicultura de postura: estrutura da cadeia produtiva, panorama do setor no Brasil e no mundo e o apoio do BNDES. BNDES Setorial 43, 167–207.Google Scholar
Bastian, B, Loughnan, S, Haslam, N and Radke, HR (2012) Don't mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Review 38, 247–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cao, Y, Cranfield, J, Chen, C and Widowski, T (2021) Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems. Food Policy 99, 101979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, JB, Lusk, JL and Norwood, FB (2010) The price of happy hens: a hedonic analysis of retail egg prices. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 35, 406–423.Google Scholar
De la Fuente, MF, Souto, A, Caselli, C and Schiel, N (2017) People's perception on animal welfare: why does it matter? Ethnobiology and Conservation 6, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.15451/ec2017-10-6.18-1-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franco, BMR, Sans, ECO, Schnaider, MA, Soriano, VS and Molento, CFM (2018) Atitude de consumidores brasileiros sobre o bem-estar animal. Revista Acadêmica Ciência Animal 16, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelasakis, AI, Rose, G, Giannakou, R, Valergakis, GE, Theodoridis, A, Fortomaris, P and Arsenos, G (2017) Typology and characteristics of dairy goat production systems in Greece. Livestock Science 197, 22–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hair, Jr JF, Black, WC, Babin, BJ and Anderson, RE (2009) Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 761 p.Google Scholar
Heng, Y, Peterson, HH and Li, X (2013) Consumer attitudes toward farm-animal welfare: the case of laying hens. Journal of Agricultural Economics 38, 418–434.Google Scholar
Hong, E, Kang, H, Park, K, Jeon, J, Kim, H, Kim, C and Kim, S (2018) A survey of Korean consumers’ awareness on animal welfare of laying hens. Korean Journal of Poultry Science 45, 219–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IBM Corp. Released (2011) IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.Google Scholar
Kaiser, HF (1960) The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagerkvist, CJ and Hess, S (2011) A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. European Review of Agricultural Economics 38(1), 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbq043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin-Schilstra, L, Backus, G, Snoek, H and Mörlein, D (2022) Consumers’ view on pork: consumption motives and production preferences in ten European Union and four non-European Union countries. Meat Science 187, 108736.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loeb, S, Dynarski, S, McFarland, D, Morris, P, Reardon, S and Reber, S (2017) Descriptive Analysis in Education: A Guide for Researchers. (NCEE 2017–4023). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.Google Scholar
Lusk, JL and Norwood, FB (2011) Animal welfare economics. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 33, 463–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
María, GA (2006) Public perception of farm animal welfare in Spain. Livestock Science 103, 250–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, WA and Sumner, DA (2015) Effects of housing system on the costs of commercial egg production. Poultry Science 94, 552–557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayfield, LE, Bennett, R, Tranter, R and Wooldridge, MJ (2007) Consumption of welfare-friendly food products in Great Britain, Italy and Sweden, and how it may be influenced by consumer attitudes to, and behavior towards, animal welfare attributes. The International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 15, 59–73.Google Scholar
Miranda-De La Lama, GC, Estévez-Moreno, LX, Sepulveda, WS, Estrada-Chavero, MC, Rayas-Amor, AA, Villarroel, M and María, GA (2017) Mexican consumers’ perceptions and attitudes towards farm animal welfare and willingness to pay for welfare friendly meat products. Meat Science 125, 106–113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morales, N, Ugaz, C and Cañon-Jones, H (2021) Perception of animal welfare in laying hens and willingness-to-pay of eggs of consumers in Santiago, Chile. Proceedings 73, 2.Google Scholar
Ochs, DS, Wolf, CA, Widmar, NJO and Bir, C (2018) Consumer perceptions of egg-laying hen housing systems. Poultry Science 97, 3390–3396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pal, M and Molnár, J (2021) The role of eggs as an important source of nutrition in human health. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 5, 180–182.Google Scholar
Pettersson, IC, Weeks, CA, Wilson, LRM and Nicol, CJ (2016) Consumer perceptions of free-range laying hen welfare. British Food Journal 118, 1999–2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pouta, E, Heikkilä, J, Forsman-Hugg, S, Isoniemi, M and Mäkelä, J (2010) Consumer choice of broiler meat: the effects of country of origin and production methods. Food Quality and Preference 21, 539–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Queiroz, MLV, Barbosa Filho, JAD, Albiero, D, Brasil, DF and Melo, RP (2014) Percepção dos consumidores sobre o bem-estar dos animais de produção em fortaleza. Ceará. Cienc. Agron 45, 379–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahmani, D, Kallas, Z and Gil, J (2019) Are consumers’ egg preferences influenced by animal-welfare conditions and environmental impacts? Sustainability 11, 6218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, IJO (2019) Sistemas de produção de galinhas poedeiras no Brasil. Alinhamento da estratégia nacional de bem-estar dos animais de produção, adotando o conceito proposto pela OIE (“one world, one health, one welfare”). Diálogos União europeia – Brasil.Google Scholar
Silva, IJO, de Abreu, PG and Mazzuco, H (2020) Manual de Boas Práticas Para O bem-Estar de Galinhas Poedeiras Criadas Livres de Gaiolas Criadas Livres de Gaiola, 1st Edn. Concórdia: Suínos e Aves, 40 p.Google Scholar
Silveira, RMF, Façanha, DAE, McManus, C, Ferreira, J and da Silva, JI (2023) Machine intelligence applied to sustainability: A systematic methodological proposal to identify sustainable animals. Journal of Cleaner Production 420, 138292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teixeira, DL, Larraín, R and Hotzel, MJ (2018) Are views towards egg farming associated with Brazilian and Chilean egg consumers’ purchasing habits? PLoS One 13, e0203867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonsor, GT, Wolf, C and Olynk, N (2009) Consumer voting and demand behavior regarding swine gestation crates. Food Policy 34, 492–498. Available at https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:34:y:2009:i:6:p:492-498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanhonacker, F, Verbeke, W, Poucke, EV and Tuyttens, FAM (2008) Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science 116, 126–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veljković, S, Stojanović, Ž and Filipovic, J (2015) Attitudes toward farm animals welfare and consumer's buying intentions: case of Serbia. Ekonomika Poljoprivrede 62, 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WAP. World Animal Protection (2016) Consumo às cegas: percepção do consumidor brasileiro sobre o bem-estar animal. 45 p. Disponível em. Available at https://www.worldanimalprotection.org.br/sites/default/files/media/br_files/consumo_as_cegas_latam.pdf (Acesso em: 20 jan. 2021).Google Scholar
Ward, JH (1963) Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association 58, 236–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaheer, K (2015) An updated review on chicken eggs: production, consumption, management aspects and nutritional benefits to human health. Food Science & Nutrition 6, 1208–1220.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Arno et al. supplementary material

Arno et al. supplementary material
Download Arno et al. supplementary material(File)
File 14.7 KB