Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How to Consider the Value of Farm Animals in Breeding Goals. A Review of Current Status and Future Challenges

  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to outline challenges associated with the inclusion of welfare issues in breeding goals for farm animals and to review the currently available methodologies and discuss their potential advantages and limitations to address these challenges. The methodology for weighing production traits with respect to cost efficiency and market prices are well developed and implemented in animal breeding goals. However, these methods are inadequate in terms of assessing proper values of traits with social and ethical values such as animal welfare, because such values are unlikely to be readily available from the product prices and costs in the market. Defining breeding goals that take animal welfare and ethical concerns into account, therefore, requires new approaches. In this paper we suggest a framework and an approach for defining breeding goals, including animal welfare. The definition of breeding goals including values related to animal welfare requires a multidisciplinary approach with a combination of different methods such as profit equations, stated preference techniques, and selection index theory. In addition, a participatory approach involving different stakeholders such as breeding organizations, food authorities, farmers, and animal welfare organizations should be applied. We conclude that even though these methods provide the necessary tools for considering welfare issues in the breeding goal, the practical application of these methods is yet to be achieved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The problem of reduction in selection response in production when there is increasing emphasis on non-production traits was explained in “Challenges when Incorporating Animal Welfare in the Breeding Goal.”

References

  • Alfnes, F., Guttormsen, A. G., Steine, G., & Kolstad, K. (2006). Consumers’ willingness to pay for the color of salmon: A choice experiment with real economic incentives. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88, 1050–1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amer, P. R. (1999). Economic accounting of numbers of expressions and delays in sheep genetic improvement. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 42, 325–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, I., & Willis, K. G. (1999). Valuing environmental preferences. Theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries. Oxford, UK and New York, USA: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergsma, R., Kanis, E., Knol, E. F., & Bijma, P. (2008). The contribution of social effects to heritable variation in finishing traits of domestic pigs (Sus scrofa). Genetics, 178, 1559–1570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bijma, P., Muir, W. M., & Arendonk, J. A. M. (2007). Multilevel selection 1: Quantitative genetics of inheritance and response to selection. Genetics, 175, 277–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brascamp, E. W., Smith, C., & Guy, D. R. (1985). Derivation of economic weights from profit equations. Animal Production, 40, 175–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broom, D. M. (1991). Animal welfare: Concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science, 69, 4167–4175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, T., Poe, G., Either, R., & Schulze, W. (2002). Alternative nonmarket value-elicitation methods: Are revealed and stated preferences the same? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44, 391–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, F., & Martinsson, P. (2001). Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 41, 179–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, L. G. (1998). Possibilities for genetic improvement of disease resistance, functional traits and animal welfare. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica. Section A, Animal Science, Supplement, 28, 77–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, R. G., Harrison, G. W., & Rustrom, E. E. (1995). Homegrown value and hypothetical surveys: Is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible? American Economic Review, 85, 260–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekkers, J. C. M., & Gibson, J. P. (1998). Applying breeding objectives to dairy cattle improvements. Journal of Dairy Science, 81, 9–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desvousges, W. H., Smith, V. K., & Fisher, A. (1987). Option price estimates for water quality improvements: A contingent valuation study for the monongahela river. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 14, 248–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, A., O’Brien, B., & Gafni, A. (1998). Health care contingent valuation studies: A review and classification of the literature. Health Economics, 7, 313–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edel, C., Dempfle, L. (2006). The use of the contingent valuation method to define breeding objectives: Experiences from two studies on horse breeds. In Proc. 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. 13–18 Aug 2006, Belo Horizonte, Brazil. CD-ROM: 31_368-1668.pdf. pp. 4.

  • Ellen, E. D., Visscher, J., van Arendonk, J. A. M., & Bijma, P. (2008). Survival of laying hens: Genetic parameters for direct and associative effects in three purebred layer lines. Poultry Science, 87, 233–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D. (2003). Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: The interplay of science and values. Animal Welfare, 12, 433–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamborg, C., & Sandøe, P. (2005). Sustainability in farm animal breeding: A review. Livestock Production Science, 92, 221–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, S., Harou, P., Montagné, C., & Stenger, A. (2009). Models for sample selection bias in contingent valuation: Application to forest biodiversity. Journal of Forest Economics, 15, 59–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. P., & Wilton, J. W. (1998). Defining multiple-trait objectives for sustainable genetic improvement. Journal of Animal Science, 76, 2303–2307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goddard, M. E. (1998). Consensus and debate in the definition of breeding objectives. Journal of Dairy Science, 81, 6–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groen, A. F. (1989). Economic values in cattle breeding. I. Influences of production circumstances in situations without output limitations. Livestock Production Science, 22, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groen, A. F., Steine, T., Colleau, J., Pedersen, J., Pribyl, J., & Reinsch, N. (1997). Economic values in dairy cattle breeding with special reference to functional traits. Report of an EAAP-working groups. Livestock Production Science, 49, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazel, L. N. (1943). The genetic basis for constructing selection indexes. Genetics, 28, 476–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., & Ruane, J. M. (2000). Selection for mastitis resistance in dairy cattle: A review with focus on the situation in the Nordic countries. Livestock Production Science, 64, 95–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hersleth, E. (2005). NRF Norwegian red breed—a source for crossbreeding. Paper presented at the Red cow symposium: Breeding to meet the changing economics of the dairy industry. South Afrika.

  • Horgan, R., & Gavinelli, A. (2006). The expanding role of animal welfare within EU legislation and beyond. Livestock Production Science, 103, 303–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Just, R., Hueth, D., Schmitz, A. (1982). Applied welfare economics and public policy. New York, US.

  • Kanis, E., de Greef, K. H., Hiemstra, A., & van Arendonk, J. A. M. (2005). Breeding for societally important traits in pigs. Journal of Animal Science, 83, 948–957.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanis, E., van den Belt, H., Groen, A. F., Schakel, J., & de Greef, K. H. (2004). Breeding for improved welfare in pigs: A conceptual framework and its use in practise. Animal Science, 78, 315–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kjærnes, U., Lavik, R., Kjørstad, I. (2005). Animal friendliness and food consumption practices. Preliminary results from population surveys in 7 countries. In A. Butterworth (Ed.), Science and society improving animal welfare. Welfare Quality conference proceedings, 17–18 Nov 2005, Brussels, Belgium, pp. 26–33.

  • Kjørstad, I. (2005). Welfare quality. WP1.1 consumers literature review country report Norway. SIFO, National Institute for Consumer Research, P.O.Box 4682 Nydalen, N-0405 Oslo Norway. pp. 60.

  • Lawrence, A. B., Conington, J., & Simm, G. (2004). Breeding for animal welfare: Practical and theoretical advantages of multi-trait selection. Animal Welfare, 13, 191–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • List, J. A. (2001). Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportcards. American Economic Review, 91, 1498–1507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List, J. A., & Gallet, G. A. (2001). What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environmental Resource Economics, 20, 241–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusk, J. L., & Schroeder, T. C. (2004). Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86, 467–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McInerney, J. (2004). Animal welfare, economics and policy. Report on a study undertaken for the Farm & Animal Health Economics Division of Defra. pp. 68.

  • Mitchell, R., & Carson, R. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Navrud, S., Strand, J. (2002). Social cost and benefits of preserving and restoring the Nidaros Cathedral. In S. Navrud & R. C. Ready (Eds.) Valuing cultural heritage: Applying environmental valuation techniques to historic buildings, moments and artifacts. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.

  • Nielsen, H. M. (2004). Economic values for production and functional traits in dairy cattle breeding goals derived by stochastic simulation. Ph.D. Thesis, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark.

  • Nielsen, H. M., & Amer, P. R. (2007). An approach to derive economic weights in breeding objectives using partial profile choice experiments. Animal, 1, 1254–1262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, H. M., Christensen, L. G., & Groen, A. F. (2005). Derivation of sustainable breeding goals for dairy cattle using selection index theory. Journal of Dairy Science, 88, 1882–1890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, H. M., Christensen, L. G., & Ødegård, J. (2006). A method to define breeding goals for sustainable dairy cattle production. Journal of Dairy Science, 89, 3615–3625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, H. M., Groen, A. F., Pedersen, J., & Christensen, L. G. (2004). Stochastic simulation of economic values and their standard deviations for production and functional traits in dairy cattle under current and future Danish production circumstances. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, 54, 113–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olesen, I., Alfnes, F., Røra, M. B., & Kolstad, K. (2010). Eliciting consumers’ willingness to pay for organic and welfare-labelled salmon in a non-hypothetical choice experiment. Livestock Science, 127, 218–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olesen, I, Gjerde, B., & Groen, A. F. (1999). Methodology for deriving non-market trait values in animal breeding goals for sustainable production systems. In Proceedings International Workshop on EU Concerted Action on Genetic Improvement of Functional Traits in Cattle (GIFT); Breeding Goals and Selection Schemes, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 7–9th Nov 1999. Interbull Bulletin No. 23 (1999), pp. 13–21.

  • Olesen, I., Groen, A. F., & Gjerde, B. (2000). Definition of animal breeding goals for sustainable production systems. Journal of Animal Science, 78, 570–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olesen, I., Navrud, S. & Kolstad, K. (2006). Economic values of animal welfare in breeding goals. In Proc. 8th World Cong. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod. 13–18 Aug 2006, Belo Horizonte, Brazil. CD-ROM: 31_538-1710.pdf. pp. 5.

  • Philipsson, J., & Lindhé, B. (2003). Experiences of including reproduction and health traits in Scandinavian dairy cattle breeding programmes. Livestock Production Science, 83, 99–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quedrago, A. P. (2003). Symbolic goods in the market place. Public perceptions of farm animal breeding and reproduction in France and United Kingdom. In A. E. Liinamo & A. M. Neeteson-van Niewenhoven (Eds.) Pages 36–46 in SEFABAR (Sustainable European Farm Animal Breeding and Reproduction), Final Workshop, Rome, Italy.

  • Randall, A. (1987). Resource economics (p. 434). New York: John Wiley & Son.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauw, W. M., Kanis, E., Noordhuizen, E. N., & Grommers, F. J. (1998). Undesirable side effects of selection for high production efficiency in farm animals: A review. Livestock Production Science, 56, 13–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sagoff, M. (1988). The economy of the earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. A. (1954). The pure theory of public expenditure. Review of Economics and Statistics, 36, 387–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandøe, P., Christiansen, S. B., & Appleby, M. C. (2003). Farm animal welfare: The interaction of ethical questions and animal welfare science. Animal Welfare, 12, 469–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandøe, P., Nielsen, B. L., Christensen, L. G., & Sørensen, P. (1999). Staying good while playing god—the ethics of breeding farm animals. Animal Welfare, 8, 313–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shogren, J. F., Shin, S. Y., Hayes, D. J., & Kliebenstein, J. B. (1994). Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept. American Economic Review, 84, 255–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, L., Ellen, E. D., Uitdehaag, K., & Brom, F. W. A. (2008). A plea to implement robustness into a breeding goal: Poultry as an example. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21, 109–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steine, G., Alfnes, F., & Rørå, M. B. (2005). The effect of color on consumer WTP for farmed salmon. Marine Resource Economics, 20, 211–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timesonline. (2009). http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article5535331.ece. Accessed 10 April 2010.

  • Torp Donner, H., & Juga, J. (1997). Sustainability-a challenge to animal breeding. Agricultural Food Science Finland, 6, 229–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Train, K. E. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dorp, T. E., Dekkers, J. C. M., Martin, S. W., & Noordhuizen, J. P. T. M. (1998). Genetic parameters of health disorders, and relationships with 305-Day milk yield and conformation traits of registered Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 81, 2264–2270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vickrey, W. (1961). Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed bids. Journal of Finance, 16, 8–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Rohr, P., Hofer, A., & Kunzi, N. (1999). Economic values for meat quality traits in pigs. Journal of Animal Science, 77, 2633–2640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wurzinger, M., Ndumu, D., Baumung, R., Drucker, A. G., Okeyo, A. M., Semambo, D. K., Sölkner, J. (2006). Assessing stated preferences through the use of choice experiments: Valuing (re)production versus aesthetics in the breeding goals of Ugandan Ankole cattle breeders. In Proc. 8th World Cong. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod. 13–18 Aug 2006, Belo Horizonte, Brazil. CD-ROM: 31_439-608.pdf. pp. 4.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study was financed by The Research Council of Norway, grant no. 143045/140 (Future Animal Breeding Goals) and grant no. 190457/S40 (Breeding for Improved Fish Welfare in Aquaculture). We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers of a previous version of this paper for their helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nofima Marin, P.O. Box 5010, 1432, Ås, Norway

    H. M. Nielsen, I. Olesen & K. Kolstad

  2. Department of Economics and Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, P.O. Box 5003, 1432, Ås, Norway

    S. Navrud

  3. AbacusBio Limited, P.O. Box 5585, Dunedin, 9058, New Zealand

    P. Amer

Authors
  1. H. M. Nielsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. I. Olesen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Navrud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K. Kolstad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P. Amer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. M. Nielsen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nielsen, H.M., Olesen, I., Navrud, S. et al. How to Consider the Value of Farm Animals in Breeding Goals. A Review of Current Status and Future Challenges. J Agric Environ Ethics 24, 309–330 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9264-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9264-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation