The DOI matches its Crossref record; 89 of the 89 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Consumers’ Concerns and Perceptions of Farm Animal Welfare
Open accessAbstract
In this paper, we explore the evolution of consumers’ perceptions and concerns about the effects that intensification of production systems could have on the welfare of farm animals. Despite the differences in definitions of animal welfare that make perceptions about this complex subject extremely variable, there is a growing perception that farm animal welfare should be protected and improved. There is an increasing appreciation of animal welfare parameters over other quality attributes, and animal-friendly products are considered healthier, safer, tastier, more hygienic, authentic, environmentally friendly, and traditional by many consumers. The willingness to pay for the increases in price that higher levels of farm animal welfare could produce could be promoted by means of adequate information about management and housing conditions of the different farming species. Welfare-friendly products that are properly labeled with clear information provided by an internationally accepted, transparent, and traceable monitoring system will increase consumers’ confidence in the food chain participants. Both consumers and citizens have the opportunity to improve the welfare of millions of farmed animals now and in the future, consumers by assuming their responsibility at the buying point, purchasing welfare-friendly products, and citizens by driving legislation to achieve some minimum standard of welfare conditions that could meet animals’ needs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN: CONCEPTUAL DEFINITIONS, MEASUREMENT METHODS, AND RESEARCH FINDINGS
FRANSSON, N., & GÄRLING, T. (1999) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1006/jevp.1999.0141 · Cited by 1,149
Food security and sustainable intensification
Godfray, H. C. J., & Garnett, T. (2014) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0273 · Cited by 1,100
Broom, D. M. (1986) · British Veterinary Journal · doi:10.1016/0007-1935(86)90109-0 · Cited by 970
Updating Animal Welfare Thinking: Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” towards “A Life Worth Living”
Mellor, D. (2016) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani6030021 · Cited by 948
Yiridoe, E. K., Bonti-Ankomah, S., & Martin, R. C. (2005) · Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems · doi:10.1079/raf2005113 · Cited by 753
Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare
Harper, G. C., & Makatouni, A. (2002) · British Food Journal · doi:10.1108/00070700210425723 · Cited by 730
Harrison, R., Newholm, T., & Shaw, D. (2005) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781446211991 · Cited by 628
Consumer perception and the role of science in the meat industry
Troy, D. J., & Kerry, J. P. (2010) · Meat Science · doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.05.009 · Cited by 533
Game and venison – meat for the modern consumer
Hoffman, L. C., & Wiklund, E. (2006) · Meat Science · doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.04.005 · Cited by 451
Research works printed but not linked: 22
- Miele, M. (2016, January 6–8). Public attitudes and understanding of animal welfare standards: Could one welfare help? Animal welfare for a better world. Proceedings of the 4th OIE Global Conference on Animal Welfare, Guadalajara, Mexico. Available online: https://www.oie.int/eng/animal-welfare-conf2016/PTT/2.2.%20Miele.pdf.
- Singer, P. (1975). Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals, New York Review/Random House.
- Ryan, 1997, Meat avoidance and body weight concerns: Nutritional implications for teenage girls, Proc. Nutr. Soc., 56, 519, 10.1079/PNS19970052 · doi:10.1079/pns19970052
- Bejaei, 2011, Influences of demographic characteristics, attitudes, and preferences of consumers on table egg consumption in British Columbia, Canada, Poult. Sci., 90, 1088, 10.3382/ps.2010-01129 · doi:10.3382/ps.2010-01129
- Schnettler, 2008, Consumer perception of animal welfare and livestock production in the Araucania Region, Chile, Chil. J. Agric. Res., 68, 80, 10.4067/S0718-58392008000100008 · doi:10.4067/s0718-58392008000100008
- 2012, Consumer attitudes and perceptions towards sustainable animal production attributes in Mexico City, Vet. Mexico, 43, 87
- Riveros, 2017, Chilean consumers’ perception about animal welfare in dairy production systems: Short communication, Anim. Prod. Sci., 57, 147, 10.1071/AN14968 · doi:10.1071/an14968
- Sumner, L.W. (1996). Welfare, Happiness, and Ethics, Clarendon Press.
- Webb, 2013, The ethics of meat production and quality—A South African perspective, S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci., 43, S2, 10.4314/sajas.v43i5.1 · doi:10.4314/sajas.v43i5.1
- Krissoff, B., Bohman, M., and Caswell, J.A. (2002). Potential implications of animal welfare concerns and public policies in industrialized countries for international trade. Global Food Trade and Consumer Demand for Quality, Springer. · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-5329-5
- Gellynck, 2006, Pathways to increase consumer trust in meat as a safe and wholesome food, Meat Sci., 74, 161, 10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.04.013 · doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.04.013
- Martelli, 2009, Consumers’ perception of farm animal welfare: An Italian and European perspective, Ital. J. Anim. Sci., 8, 31, 10.4081/ijas.2009.s1.31 · doi:10.4081/ijas.2009.s1.31
- Bennett, 2012, A method for the economic valuation of animal welfare benefits using a single welfare score, Anim. Welf., 21, 125, 10.7120/096272812X13345905674006 · doi:10.7120/096272812x13345905674006
- Fearne, 2001, The management of perceived risk in the food supply chain: A comparative study of retailer-led beef quality assurance schemes in Germany and Italy, Int. Food Agribus. Man., 4, 19
- Grandin, 2014, Animal welfare and society concerns finding the missing link, Meat Sci., 98, 461, 10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.05.011 · doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.05.011
- Jensen, 2006, Consumer issues and demand. The magazine of food, farm, and resource issues, Choices, 21, 165
- Buller, 2007, Eating well, eating fare: Farm animal welfare in France, Int. J. Sociol. Food Agric., 15, 45
- Abidoye, 2011, US consumers’ valuation of quality attributes in beef products, J. Agric. Appl. Econ., 43, 1, 10.1017/S1074070800004016 · doi:10.1017/s1074070800004016
- Veissier, 2008, European approaches to ensure good animal welfare, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 113, 279, 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.008 · doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.008
- Barnett, 2007, Effects of confinement and research needs to underpin welfare standards, J. Vet. Behav., 2, 213, 10.1016/j.jveb.2007.08.006 · doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2007.08.006
- Toma, 2011, A structural equation model of the factors influencing British consumers’ behaviour toward animal welfare, J. Food Prod. Mark., 17, 261, 10.1080/10454446.2011.548748 · doi:10.1080/10454446.2011.548748
- Gracia, A., Loureiro, M.L., and Nayga, R.M. (2009, January 16–22). Valuing animal welfare labels with experimental auctions: What do we learn from consumers?. Proceedings of the International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, Beijing, China.
Cited by
Meat Consumption and Sustainability
Parlasca, M. C., & Qaim, M. (2022) · Annual Review of Resource Economics · doi:10.1146/annurev-resource-111820-032340 · Cited by 357
de Araújo, P. D., Araújo, W. M. C., Patarata, L., & Fraqueza, M. J. (2022) · Meat Science · doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108952 · Cited by 186
Carrigan, M., Wells, V., & Athwal, N. (2023) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-10-2021-0804 · Cited by 41
Current Knowledge on the Transportation by Road of Cattle, including Unweaned Calves
Buckham-Sporer, K., Earley, B., & Marti, S. (2023) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani13213393 · Cited by 31
Garner, I. W., McFeeters, D., Guy, A., Hopley, R., & Galbraith, N. (2025) · Journal of Rural Studies · doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2025.103648 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Alonso, M. E., González-Montaña, J. R., & Lomillos, J. M.
- Venue
- Animals
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2020-02-27
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 385
- ISSN
- 2076-2615 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3009941357
- Cited by
- 538
- References
- 89
- FWCI
- 49.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Consumers’ Concerns and Perceptions of Farm Animal Welfare. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/ani10030385
- The paper
- Alonso, M. E., González-Montaña, J. R., & Lomillos, J. M. (2020). Consumers’ Concerns and Perceptions of Farm Animal Welfare. Animals. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030385
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.