Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 538

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 access
Alonso, Marta E., González-Montaña, José R., Lomillos, Juan M.·2020·Animals

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/ani10030385

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 89 references

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. 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.
  2. Singer, P. (1975). Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals, New York Review/Random House.
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 2012, Consumer attitudes and perceptions towards sustainable animal production attributes in Mexico City, Vet. Mexico, 43, 87
  7. 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
  8. Sumner, L.W. (1996). Welfare, Happiness, and Ethics, Clarendon Press.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Jensen, 2006, Consumer issues and demand. The magazine of food, farm, and resource issues, Choices, 21, 165
  17. Buller, 2007, Eating well, eating fare: Farm animal welfare in France, Int. J. Sociol. Food Agric., 15, 45
  18. Abidoye, 2011, US consumers’ valuation of quality attributes in beef products, J. Agric. Appl. Econ., 43, 1, 10.1017/S1074070800004016 · doi:10.1017/s1074070800004016
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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

See all 538

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.