Animal Welfare Policies and their Effect on Livestock Productivity and Trade

Authors

  • Blessings Nkatekho Rhodes University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47941/ijlp.1967

Keywords:

Livestock Productivity, Public Awareness, Sustainability Frameworks, Ethical Treatment, Compliance, Policy Support

Abstract

Purpose: This study sought to explore animal welfare policies and their effect on livestock productivity and trade.

Methodology: The study adopted a desktop research methodology. Desk research refers to secondary data or that which can be collected without fieldwork. Desk research is basically involved in collecting data from existing resources hence it is often considered a low cost technique as compared to field research, as the main cost is involved in executive's time, telephone charges and directories. Thus, the study relied on already published studies, reports and statistics. This secondary data was easily accessed through the online journals and library.

Findings: The findings reveal that there exists a contextual and methodological gap relating to animal welfare policies and their effect on livestock productivity and trade. Preliminary empirical review revealed that implementing robust animal welfare policies significantly improved livestock productivity and enhanced marketability and trade. Improved welfare standards led to better animal health, reduced stress, and increased yields, translating to higher profitability for producers. Furthermore, products from high-welfare farms gained access to premium markets and fetched higher prices. However, the initial costs of adopting these standards and the need for more comprehensive studies on long-term economic impacts were identified as challenges. The study recommended policy support, financial incentives, and education to promote widespread adoption of high welfare practices

Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), Resource-Based View (RBV) and Stakeholder Theory may be used to anchor future studies on animal welfare policies. The study recommended integrating animal welfare into theoretical frameworks like Resource-Based View and Stakeholder Theory, emphasizing its strategic value and ethical importance. Practically, it suggested that livestock producers adopt comprehensive welfare practices to improve productivity and profitability. Policy recommendations included financial incentives and robust enforcement to support high welfare standards. It also highlighted the need for education and training programs for farmers and public awareness campaigns to drive demand for welfare-friendly products. Further research was advised to explore long-term economic impacts and the integration of welfare with sustainability frameworks.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Appleby, M. C., & Sandoe, P. (2018). Animal welfare: What is it and why does it matter? Veterinary and Animal Science, 5, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vas.2018.02.002

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108

Blokhuis, H. J., Veissier, I., Miele, M., & Jones, B. (2013). The welfare quality project and beyond: Safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A — Animal Science, 62(4), 152-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064702.2013.849564

Broom, D. M. (2016). Animal welfare complementing or conflicting with other societal aims. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 181, 121-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.05.002

Cramer, L., Thornton, P. K., & Loboguerrero, A. M. (2017). Adaptation to climate change in smallholder agriculture: Research priorities to support rural livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Climate and Development, 9(1), 68-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2015.1034231

DEFRA. (2020). Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2019. Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/agriculture-in-the-united-kingdom-2019

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9503271992

Ethiopian Ministry of Trade. (2020). Annual export report. Retrieved from http://www.mot.gov.et/reports

European Commission. (2019). Animal welfare market. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/food-farming-fisheries/animal_welfare/market_en.pdf

FAO. (2019). FAO animal welfare policy. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/ca7209en/CA7209EN.pdf

FAO. (2021). Livestock Primary. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QL

Filho, A. S., Miranda, D. D., & Maia, A. G. (2018). Climate change and agriculture: Adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices in Brazil. Climate Policy, 18(5), 636-651. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1359196

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203838020

Fraser, D., Mench, J. A., Millman, S. T., & Pajor, E. A. (2013). The welfare of animals in animal agriculture: Practices, research, and challenges. CAB International. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780641587.0000

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman.

Fujimoto, T., Kato, T., & Hasegawa, T. (2019). Adoption of climate-resilient rice varieties and its impact on rice productivity and farmers’ income in Japan. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Studies, 8(3), 45-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaes.2018.11.005

Grandin, T. (2014). Animal welfare and society concerns finding the missing link. Meat Science, 98(3), 461-469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.05.011

Hemsworth, P. H., Mellor, D. J., Cronin, G. M., & Tilbrook, A. J. (2015). Scientific assessment of animal welfare. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 63(1), 24-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2014.966167

Ingram, J., Mills, J., & Dibari, C. (2018). Integrating agri-environment schemes with climate change adaptation and mitigation: Lessons for policy design and implementation. Environmental Science & Policy, 87, 50-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.06.013

Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. (2020). Economic survey 2020. Retrieved from https://www.knbs.or.ke/?p=5621

Kimaru-Muchai, G., Mugwe, J., Mucheru-Muna, M., & Mugendi, D. (2020). Adoption and scaling up of climate-smart agriculture among smallholder farmers in Kenya. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 18(3), 233-245. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2020.1723646

MAFF. (2020). Statistical yearbook of agriculture, forestry and fisheries.### Conceptual Analysis of Animal Welfare Policies

Manning, R., Chaddad, F. R., & Harris, J. M. (2017). Animal welfare certification and international trade: Economic theory and evidence. Agricultural Economics, 48(2), 221-231. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12335

OIE. (2021). Terrestrial animal health code. World Organization for Animal Health. Retrieved from https://www.oie.int/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/

Sumner, D. A., Matthews, W. A., & Mench, J. A. (2020). Animal welfare and international trade: A regulatory approach. Food Policy, 91, 101832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101832

USDA. (2020). Animal welfare regulations. United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207

Downloads

Published

2024-06-05

How to Cite

Nkatekho, B. . (2024). Animal Welfare Policies and their Effect on Livestock Productivity and Trade. International Journal of Livestock Policy, 3(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.47941/ijlp.1967

Issue

Section

Articles