Special Issue "Proceedings of 7th International Conference on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level"

A special issue of Animals (ISSN 2076-2615).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (15 December 2017).

Special Issue Editors

Guest Editor
Dr. Paul Koene

Animal Welfare, Wageningen Livestock Research, Wageningen University & Research, De Elst 1, 6708 WD Wageningen, The Netherlands
Website | E-Mail
Interests: Animal behaviour, Animal ecology, Animal health and welfare, Farm and captive animals,
Guest Editor
Dr. Frank Tuyttens

Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research, Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
Website | E-Mail
Guest Editor
Dr. Inonge Reimert

Department of Animal Sciences, Adaptation Physiology Group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands
Website | E-Mail

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

This special issue is open for submissions of papers presented at 7th International Conference on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 5-8 September 2017.

Dr. Paul Koene
Dr. Frank Tuyttens
Dr. Inonge Reimert
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All papers will be peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Animals is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1200 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Published Papers (14 papers)

View options order results:
result details:
Displaying articles 1-14
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review, Other

Open AccessArticle
Operationalizing Principle-Based Standards for Animal Welfare—Indicators for Climate Problems in Pig Houses
Animals 2018, 8(4), 44; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8040044
Received: 14 November 2017 / Revised: 1 March 2018 / Accepted: 19 March 2018 / Published: 23 March 2018
PDF Full-text (11271 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
The Dutch animal welfare law includes so-called principle-based standards. This means that the objective is described in abstract terms, enabling farmers to comply with the law in their own way. Principle-based standards are, however, difficult for the inspection agency to enforce because strict [...] Read more.
The Dutch animal welfare law includes so-called principle-based standards. This means that the objective is described in abstract terms, enabling farmers to comply with the law in their own way. Principle-based standards are, however, difficult for the inspection agency to enforce because strict limits are missing. This pilot project aimed at developing indicators (measurements) to assess the climate in pig houses, thus enabling the enforcement of principle-based standards. In total, 64 farms with weaners and 32 farms with growing–finishing pigs were visited. On each farm, a set of climate-related measurements was collected in six pens. For each of these measurements, a threshold value was set, and exceeding this threshold indicated a welfare risk. Farm inspections were carried out during winter and spring, thus excluding situations with heat stress. Assessment of the variation and correlation between measurements reduced the dataset from 39 to 12 measurements. Using a principal components analysis helped to select five major measurements as warning signals. The number of exceeded thresholds per pen and per farm was calculated for both the large (12) and small (five) sets of measurements. CO2 and NH3 concentrations were related to the outside temperature. On colder days, there was less ventilation, and thus CO2 and NH3 concentrations increased. Air quality, reflected in the CO2 and NH3 concentrations, was associated with respiratory problems. Eye scores were positively correlated with both pig and pen fouling, and pig and pen fouling were closely related. We selected five signal indicators: CO2, NH3, and tail and eye score for weaners and finishers, and added ear score for weaners and pig fouling for growing–finishing pigs. The results indicate that pig farms can be ranked based on five signal indicators related to reduced animal welfare caused by climatic conditions. This approach could be adopted to other principle-based standards for pigs as well as for other species. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessFeature PaperArticle
Exploring the Framing of Animal Farming and Meat Consumption: On the Diversity of Topics Used and Qualitative Patterns in Selected Demographic Contexts
Animals 2018, 8(2), 17; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8020017
Received: 15 October 2017 / Revised: 13 January 2018 / Accepted: 18 January 2018 / Published: 24 January 2018
Cited by 2 | PDF Full-text (1006 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text | Supplementary Files
Abstract
In various contexts, people talk about animal farming and meat consumption using different arguments to construct and justify their (non-)acceptability. This article presents the results of an in-depth qualitative inquiry into the content of and contextual patterns in the everyday-life framing regarding this [...] Read more.
In various contexts, people talk about animal farming and meat consumption using different arguments to construct and justify their (non-)acceptability. This article presents the results of an in-depth qualitative inquiry into the content of and contextual patterns in the everyday-life framing regarding this issue, performed among consumers in various settings in two extremes in the European sphere: the Netherlands and Turkey. We describe the methodological steps of collecting, coding, and organizing the variety of encountered framing topics, as well as our search for symbolic convergence in groups of consumers from different selected demographic contexts (country, urban-rural areas, gender, age, and education level). The framing of animal farming and meat consumption in everyday-life is not a simple one-issue rational display of facts; people referred to a vast range of topics in the categories knowledge, convictions, pronounced behaviour, values, norms, interests, and feelings. Looking at framing in relation to the researched demographic contexts, most patterns were found on the level of topics; symbolic convergence in lines of reasoning and composite framing was less prominent in groups based on single demographic contexts than anticipated. An explanation for this lies in the complexity of frame construction, happening in relation with multiple interdependent contextual features. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Genetic Selection to Enhance Animal Welfare Using Meat Inspection Data from Slaughter Plants
Animals 2018, 8(2), 16; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8020016
Received: 14 November 2017 / Revised: 11 January 2018 / Accepted: 19 January 2018 / Published: 24 January 2018
Cited by 3 | PDF Full-text (1576 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Animal health and welfare are monitored during meat inspection in many slaughter plants around the world. Carcasses are examined by meat inspectors and remarks are made with respect to different diseases, injuries, and other abnormalities. This is a valuable data resource for disease [...] Read more.
Animal health and welfare are monitored during meat inspection in many slaughter plants around the world. Carcasses are examined by meat inspectors and remarks are made with respect to different diseases, injuries, and other abnormalities. This is a valuable data resource for disease prevention and enhancing animal welfare, but it is rarely used for this purpose. Records on carcass remarks on 140,375 finisher pigs were analyzed to investigate the possibility of genetic selection to reduce the risk of the most prevalent diseases and indicators of suboptimal animal welfare. As part of this, effects of some non-genetic factors such as differences between farms, sexes, and growth rates were also examined. The most frequent remarks were pneumonia (15.4%), joint disorders (9.8%), pleuritis (4.7%), pericarditis (2.3%), and liver lesions (2.2%). Joint disorders were more frequent in boars than in gilts. There were also significant differences between farms. Pedigree records were available for 142,324 pigs from 14 farms and were used for genetic analysis. Heritability estimates for pneumonia, pleuritis, pericarditis, liver lesions, and joint disorders were 0.10, 0.09, 0.14, 0.24, and 0.17 on the liability scale, respectively, suggesting the existence of substantial genetic variation. This was further confirmed though genome wide associations using deregressed breeding values as phenotypes. The genetic correlations between these remarks and finishing traits were small but mostly negative, suggesting the possibility of enhancing pig health and welfare simultaneously with genetic improvement in finishing traits. A selection index based on the breeding values for these traits and their economic values was developed. This index is used to enhance animal welfare in pig farms. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessFeature PaperArticle
Understanding Tail-Biting in Pigs through Social Network Analysis
Animals 2018, 8(1), 13; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8010013
Received: 13 November 2017 / Revised: 18 December 2017 / Accepted: 11 January 2018 / Published: 15 January 2018
Cited by 2 | PDF Full-text (239 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate the association between social structure and incidence of tail-biting in pigs. Pigs (n = 144, initial weight = 7.2 ± 1.57 kg, 4 weeks of age) were grouped based on their litter origin: littermates, [...] Read more.
The objective of this study was to investigate the association between social structure and incidence of tail-biting in pigs. Pigs (n = 144, initial weight = 7.2 ± 1.57 kg, 4 weeks of age) were grouped based on their litter origin: littermates, non-littermates, and half-group of littermates. Six pens (8 pigs/pen) of each litter origin were studied for 6 weeks. Incidence of tail injury and growth performance were monitored. Behavior of pigs was video recorded for 6 h at 6 and 8 weeks of age. Video recordings were scanned at 10 min intervals to register pigs that were lying together (1) or not (0) in binary matrices. Half weight association index was used for social network construction. Social network analysis was performed using the UCINET software. Littermates had lower network density (0.119 vs. 0.174; p < 0.05), more absent social ties (20 vs. 12; p < 0.05), and fewer weak social ties (6 vs. 14, p < 0.05) than non-littermates, indicating that littermates might be less socially connected. Fifteen percent of littermates were identified as victimized pigs by tail-biting, and no victimized pigs were observed in other treatment groups. These results suggest that littermates might be less socially connected among themselves which may predispose them to development of tail-biting. Full article
Open AccessArticle
An Indication of Reliability of the Two-Level Approach of the AWIN Welfare Assessment Protocol for Horses
Animals 2018, 8(1), 7; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8010007
Received: 12 October 2017 / Revised: 2 January 2018 / Accepted: 3 January 2018 / Published: 5 January 2018
Cited by 2 | PDF Full-text (232 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
To enhance feasibility, the Animal Welfare Indicators (AWIN) assessment protocol for horses consists of two levels: the first is a visual inspection of a sample of horses performed from a distance, the second a close-up inspection of all horses. The aim was to [...] Read more.
To enhance feasibility, the Animal Welfare Indicators (AWIN) assessment protocol for horses consists of two levels: the first is a visual inspection of a sample of horses performed from a distance, the second a close-up inspection of all horses. The aim was to analyse whether information would be lost if only the first level were performed. In this study, 112 first and 112 second level assessments carried out on a subsequent day by one observer were compared by calculating the Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient (RS), Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC), Smallest Detectable Changes (SDC) and Limits of Agreements (LoA). Most indicators demonstrated sufficient reliability between the two levels. Exceptions were the Horse Grimace Scale, the Avoidance Distance Test and the Voluntary Human Approach Test (e.g., Voluntary Human Approach Test: RS: 0.38, ICC: 0.38, SDC: 0.21, LoA: −0.25–0.17), which could, however, be also interpreted as a lack of test-retest reliability. Further disagreement was found for the indicator consistency of manure (RS: 0.31, ICC: 0.38, SDC: 0.36, LoA: −0.38–0.36). For these indicators, an adaptation of the first level would be beneficial. Overall, in this study, the division into two levels was reliable and might therewith have the potential to enhance feasibility in other welfare assessment schemes. Full article
Open AccessArticle
Private Animal Welfare Standards—Opportunities and Risks
Animals 2018, 8(1), 4; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8010004
Received: 10 October 2017 / Revised: 15 December 2017 / Accepted: 28 December 2017 / Published: 2 January 2018
Cited by 4 | PDF Full-text (252 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
The current shift moves the governance of animal welfare away from the government towards the private market and the consumers. We have studied the intentions, content, and on-farm inspection results from different sets of animal welfare legislation and private standards with an aim [...] Read more.
The current shift moves the governance of animal welfare away from the government towards the private market and the consumers. We have studied the intentions, content, and on-farm inspection results from different sets of animal welfare legislation and private standards with an aim to highlight the most important opportunities and risks identified in relation to the trend of increasingly relying on private standards for safeguarding or improving farm animal welfare. Our results show that different focuses, intentions, animal welfare requirements, inspection methods (i.e., methods for measuring and evaluating the compliance with a regulation), and inspection results, together with the use of vague wordings and a drive towards more flexible regulations does certainly not facilitate the interpretation and implementation of animal welfare regulations, especially not in relation to each other. Since farmers today often have to comply with several animal welfare regulations, including private standards, it is important to stress that a given regulation should never be seen as a single, stand-alone phenomenon, and the policymakers must hence consider the bigger picture, and apply the standards in relation to other existing regulations. This is especially relevant in relation to the legislation, a level that a private standard can never ignore. Full article
Open AccessArticle
Impact of Daily Grazing Time on Dairy Cow Welfare—Results of the Welfare Quality® Protocol
Animals 2018, 8(1), 1; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8010001
Received: 14 October 2017 / Revised: 5 December 2017 / Accepted: 18 December 2017 / Published: 22 December 2017
Cited by 4 | PDF Full-text (205 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Grazing provides livestock better opportunities to act out their species-specific behavior compared to restrictive stable conditions. The aim of the present study was to examine the effects of daily grazing time on welfare of dairy cows in organic and conventional farms based on [...] Read more.
Grazing provides livestock better opportunities to act out their species-specific behavior compared to restrictive stable conditions. The aim of the present study was to examine the effects of daily grazing time on welfare of dairy cows in organic and conventional farms based on the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for dairy cattle (WQ®). Therefore, we applied the WQ® on 32 dairy farms (classified in 3 groups: Group 0, minor/zero grazing, n = 14; Group 1, medium grazing, n = 10; Group 2, high grazing, n = 8). We assessed the status of animal welfare once in winter and once in summer. For statistical analyses we used mixed models for repeated measures, with group, season, and their interaction as fixed factors. At the WQ® criteria level, five out of nine examined criteria improved in farms with grazing between winter and summer. In contrast, the welfare situation in minor/zero grazing farms remained largely unchanged. At the level of WQ® measures, only the individual parameters “% of cows with hairless patches” and “% of lame cows” were affected positively by high grazing. Grazing offers a potential to enhance welfare of dairy cows during the summer season, while beneficial effects are not guaranteed when management does not satisfy the animals´ needs. Full article
Open AccessFeature PaperArticle
Assessment of Plumage and Integument Condition in Dual-Purpose Breeds and Conventional Layers
Animals 2017, 7(12), 97; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7120097
Received: 15 October 2017 / Revised: 28 November 2017 / Accepted: 6 December 2017 / Published: 12 December 2017
Cited by 4 | PDF Full-text (1767 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text | Supplementary Files
Abstract
The assessment of plumage and integument condition in laying hens provides useful information about the occurrence of feather pecking and cannibalism. Although feather loss and skin injuries can result from mechanical abrasion or clinical diseases, they are valid animal-based indicators for behavioural disorders. [...] Read more.
The assessment of plumage and integument condition in laying hens provides useful information about the occurrence of feather pecking and cannibalism. Although feather loss and skin injuries can result from mechanical abrasion or clinical diseases, they are valid animal-based indicators for behavioural disorders. This particularly applies to damage on the back and tail region of the hens. The aim was to evaluate the behaviour of dual-purpose breeds (Lohmann Dual, LD) and conventional layer hybrids (Lohmann Brown plus, LB+), and to compare a mere visual assessment (Visual Scoring, VSc), with a method involving the handling of individual animals (Hands-on Scoring, HSc). During weekly VSc, the hens’ plumage and integument were scored on five body parts. HSc was carried out on seven study days applying the same scoring scale as for VSc. In LB+ hens, minor plumage damage started at 25 weeks and increased to the 71st week. With 99.5% of LB+ showing feather loss to a different extent, the back was the most severely affected body part. In contrast, only between 4.5% and 7% of LD showed minor feather loss at the end of the study. Integument damage reached a peak, with 6% affected LB+ in week 66. Injuries were found only sporadically in LD hens. Spearman’s rho for the comparison of plumages scores given in VSc and HSc was >0.90 (p < 0.01) in both hybrids for most of the tested body regions and weeks, except for the breast/belly region. However, VSc and HSc were equally valid for detecting skin injuries of all of the body regions (rs > 0.86, p < 0.01). Damaging behaviour only occurred in the LB+ flocks, though both of the genetic strains were kept under the same conditions. The visual scoring method was suitable for detecting both plumage and integument damage. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessFeature PaperArticle
Should the Contribution of One Additional Lame Cow Depend on How Many Other Cows on the Farm Are Lame?
Animals 2017, 7(12), 96; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7120096
Received: 15 October 2017 / Revised: 27 November 2017 / Accepted: 1 December 2017 / Published: 11 December 2017
Cited by 3 | PDF Full-text (1056 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text | Supplementary Files
Abstract
Welfare Quality® proposes a system for aggregation according to which the total welfare score for a group of animals is a non-linear effect of the prevalence of welfare scores across the individuals within the group. Three assumptions serve to justify this: (1) [...] Read more.
Welfare Quality® proposes a system for aggregation according to which the total welfare score for a group of animals is a non-linear effect of the prevalence of welfare scores across the individuals within the group. Three assumptions serve to justify this: (1) experts do not follow a linear reasoning when they assess a welfare problem; (2) it serves to prevent compensation (severe welfare problems hidden by scoring well on other aspects of welfare); (3) experts agree on the weight of different welfare measures. We use two sources of data to examine these assumptions: animal welfare data from 44 Danish dairy farms with Danish Holstein Friesian cows, and data from a questionnaire study with a convenience sample of 307 experts in animal welfare, of which we received responses from over 50%. Our main results were: (1) the total group-level welfare score as assigned by experts is a non-linear function of the individual animal welfare states within the group; (2) the WQ system does not prevent what experts perceive as unacceptable compensation; (3) the level of agreement among experts appears to vary across measures. Our findings give rise to concerns about the proposed aggregation system offered by WQ. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Selection of Meat Inspection Data for an Animal Welfare Index in Cattle and Pigs in Denmark
Animals 2017, 7(12), 94; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7120094
Received: 27 September 2017 / Revised: 27 November 2017 / Accepted: 5 December 2017 / Published: 6 December 2017
Cited by 1 | PDF Full-text (779 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
National welfare indices of cattle and pigs are constructed in Denmark, and meat inspection data may be used to contribute to these. We select potentially welfare-relevant abattoir recordings and assess the sources of variation within these with a view towards inclusion in the [...] Read more.
National welfare indices of cattle and pigs are constructed in Denmark, and meat inspection data may be used to contribute to these. We select potentially welfare-relevant abattoir recordings and assess the sources of variation within these with a view towards inclusion in the indices. Meat inspection codes were pre-selected based on expert judgement of having potential animal welfare relevance. Random effects logistic regression was then used to determine the magnitude of variation derived at the level of the farm or abattoir, of which farm variation might be associated with welfare, whereas abattoir variation is most likely caused by differences in recording practices. Codes were excluded for use in the indices based on poor model fit or a large abattoir effect. There was a large abattoir effect for most of the codes modelled and these codes were deemed to be not appropriate to be carried forward to the welfare index. A few were found to be potentially useful for a welfare index: Eight for slaughter pigs, 15 for sows, five for cattle <18 months of age, and six for older cattle. The absolute accuracy of each code/combination could not be assessed, only the relative variation between farms and abattoirs. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Brazilian Citizens: Expectations Regarding Dairy Cattle Welfare and Awareness of Contentious Practices
Animals 2017, 7(12), 89; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7120089
Received: 31 October 2017 / Revised: 18 November 2017 / Accepted: 22 November 2017 / Published: 26 November 2017
Cited by 7 | PDF Full-text (266 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
The primary aim of this study was to explore attitudes of urban Brazilian citizens about dairy production. A secondary aim was to determine their knowledge and attitudes about four potentially contentious routine dairy cattle management practices: early cow-calf separation; zero-grazing; culling of newborn [...] Read more.
The primary aim of this study was to explore attitudes of urban Brazilian citizens about dairy production. A secondary aim was to determine their knowledge and attitudes about four potentially contentious routine dairy cattle management practices: early cow-calf separation; zero-grazing; culling of newborn male calves; and dehorning without pain mitigation. To address the first aim 40 participants were interviewed using open-ended semi-structured questions designed to probe their views and attitudes about dairy production in Brazil, and 300 participants answered a questionnaire that included an open-ended question about the welfare of dairy cattle. Primary concerns reported by the participants centered on milk quality, which included the rejection of any chemical additives, but also animal welfare, environmental and social issues. The interviewees rarely mentioned animal welfare directly but, when probed, expressed several concerns related to this topic. In particular, participants commented on factors that they perceived to influence milk quality, such as good animal health, feeding, clean facilities, and the need to avoid or reduce the use of drugs, hormones and pesticides, the avoidance of pain, frustration and suffering, and the ability of the animals to perform natural behaviors. To address our second aim, participants were asked questions about the four routine management practices. Although they self-reported being largely unaware of these practices, the majority of the participants rejected these practices outright. These data provide insight that animal welfare may be an important issue for members of the public. Failure to consider this information may increase the risk that certain dairy production practices may not be socially sustainable once lay citizens become aware of them. Full article
Open AccessArticle
Influence of Professional Affiliation on Expert’s View on Welfare Measures
Animals 2017, 7(11), 85; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7110085
Received: 14 October 2017 / Revised: 5 November 2017 / Accepted: 8 November 2017 / Published: 15 November 2017
PDF Full-text (1119 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
The present study seeks to investigate the influence of expert affiliation in the weighing procedures within animal welfare assessments. Experts are often gathered with different backgrounds with differing approaches to animal welfare posing a potential pitfall if affiliation groups are not balanced in [...] Read more.
The present study seeks to investigate the influence of expert affiliation in the weighing procedures within animal welfare assessments. Experts are often gathered with different backgrounds with differing approaches to animal welfare posing a potential pitfall if affiliation groups are not balanced in numbers of experts. At two time points (2012 and 2016), dairy cattle and swine experts from four different stakeholder groups, namely researchers (RES), production advisors (CONS), practicing veterinarians (VET) and animal welfare control officers (AWC) were asked to weigh eight different welfare criteria: Hunger, Thirst, Resting comfort, Ease of movement, Injuries, Disease, Human-animal bond and Emotional state. A total of 54 dairy cattle experts (RES = 15%, CONS = 22%, VET = 35%, AWC = 28%) and 34 swine experts (RES = 24%, CONS = 35%, AWC = 41%) participated. Between—and within—group differences in the prioritization of criteria were assessed. AWC cattle experts differed consistently from the other cattle expert groups but only significantly for the criteria Hunger (p = 0.04), and tendencies towards significance within the criteria Thirst (p = 0.06). No significant differences were found between expert groups among swine experts. Inter-expert differences were more pronounced for both species. The results highlight the challenges of using expert weightings in aggregated welfare assessment models, as the choice of expert affiliation may play a confounding role in the final aggregation due to different prioritization of criteria. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Research, Other

Open AccessFeature PaperReview
The Weak Spots in Contemporary Science (and How to Fix Them)
Animals 2017, 7(12), 90; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7120090
Received: 15 October 2017 / Revised: 19 November 2017 / Accepted: 23 November 2017 / Published: 27 November 2017
Cited by 8 | PDF Full-text (908 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
In this review, the author discusses several of the weak spots in contemporary science, including scientific misconduct, the problems of post hoc hypothesizing (HARKing), outcome switching, theoretical bloopers in formulating research questions and hypotheses, selective reading of the literature, selective citing of previous [...] Read more.
In this review, the author discusses several of the weak spots in contemporary science, including scientific misconduct, the problems of post hoc hypothesizing (HARKing), outcome switching, theoretical bloopers in formulating research questions and hypotheses, selective reading of the literature, selective citing of previous results, improper blinding and other design failures, p-hacking or researchers’ tendency to analyze data in many different ways to find positive (typically significant) results, errors and biases in the reporting of results, and publication bias. The author presents some empirical results highlighting problems that lower the trustworthiness of reported results in scientific literatures, including that of animal welfare studies. Some of the underlying causes of these biases are discussed based on the notion that researchers are only human and hence are not immune to confirmation bias, hindsight bias, and minor ethical transgressions. The author discusses solutions in the form of enhanced transparency, sharing of data and materials, (post-publication) peer review, pre-registration, registered reports, improved training, reporting guidelines, replication, dealing with publication bias, alternative inferential techniques, power, and other statistical tools. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Other

Jump to: Research, Review

Open AccessConcept Paper
Marketing Animal-Friendly Products: Addressing the Consumer Social Dilemma with Reinforcement Positioning Strategies
Animals 2017, 7(12), 98; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7120098
Received: 13 October 2017 / Revised: 1 December 2017 / Accepted: 8 December 2017 / Published: 14 December 2017
Cited by 1 | PDF Full-text (1014 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
This article presents a conceptual framework that aims to encourage consumer animal-friendly product choice by introducing positioning strategies for animal-friendly products. These strategies reinforce the animal welfare with different types of consumption values and can therefore reduce consumers’ social dilemma, which is a [...] Read more.
This article presents a conceptual framework that aims to encourage consumer animal-friendly product choice by introducing positioning strategies for animal-friendly products. These strategies reinforce the animal welfare with different types of consumption values and can therefore reduce consumers’ social dilemma, which is a major barrier to animal-friendly consumer choices. The article suggests how animal-friendly products can use various types of consumption values (functional, sensory, emotional, social, epistemic and situational) to create an attractive position relative to their competitors. It also explains why some consumer segments, such as those with a specific thinking style, may experience a stronger effect of some strategies, giving directions on how to approach different types of consumers. Finally, building on research asserting that animal welfare is a credence product attribute, the article proposes moderating effects of two factors that help consumers to evaluate the credibility of animal welfare claims, namely corporate social responsibility strategy and the role of stakeholders. Here it concludes that companies selling animal-friendly products need to be aware of the impact of their overall strategy on the effectiveness of positioning strategies for individual products and that, to gain consumer trust, they may need to collaborate with relevant stakeholders, such as media or animal-interest organizations. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Animals EISSN 2076-2615 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top