Skip to main content
Log in

When the Working Environment is Bad, you Take it out on the Animals – How Employees on Danish Farms Perceive Animal Welfare

  • Research article
  • Published:
Food Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Little is known about how employees on husbandry farms perceive animal welfare and the factors influencing the relationship between them and the animals they engage with in their daily work. Reporting the findings of qualitative interviews with 23 employees on five Danish farms (mink, dairy and pig production), this paper describes how the employees viewed animal welfare, and discusses how they dealt with animal welfare issues in their daily work. Four distinct rationales for animal welfare were identified. 1) Animal welfare was supported by concerns about production and health, and could be negotiated – especially when it came to the ability of the animals to perform natural behaviour. 2) Animal welfare was connected with the working conditions on the farm. 3) The employees’ views about animal welfare were affected by working conditions over which they had no influence. 4) An awareness of the condition of the animals was seen as obviously needed in relation to production, but a deeper attachment to some animals was also seen. A specific challenge is presented by the increasingly diverse workforce in farming, with one third of the employees on Danish farms coming from abroad. If farm owners are not able to integrate these employees, there is a risk of creating a second-tier of foreign workers who are isolated. Furthermore, it was seen that negative working conditions can be taken out on the animals, or that animal welfare can come to be seen as unimportant as compared with human welfare.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It is estimated that there are approx. 40,000 Danish farms (all types), with a total of approx. 30,000 employees (Anonymous 1 2018; Anonymous 2 2018); about a quarter of the farms specialise in livestock production. A Danish survey with 1119 farmers answering a questionnaire about their employees showed that the average number of employees were 3,9 per farm, with the highest average (5,6) at pig farms (Anneberg and Sørensen 2016).

  2. https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=176997

References

  • Anneberg, Inger and Jan Tind Sørensen. 2016. Medarbejderne i dansk husdyrbrug. Hvem er de, og hvad er deres rolle i sikring af god dyrevelfærd? DCA Rapport nr. 080, Aarhus University.

  • Anneberg, Inger, Peter Sandøe and Jesper Lassen. 2016. Kommunikation om dyrevelfærd. En undersøgelse af dyrevelfærds rolle på landbrugsuddannelsen. DCA Rapport nr. 072.Aarhus University.

  • Anonymous 1. 2018. Statistic Denmark. https://www.dst.dk/da/Statistik/nyt/NytHtml?cid=21902. Accessed 21 January 2019.

  • Anonymous 2. 2018. Statistic Denmark. https://www.statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a/SelectVarVal/Define.asp?MainTable=BDF7&PLanguage=0&PXSId=0&wsid=cftree. Accessed 28 September 2018.

  • Anonymous 3. 2018. On-Line courses, pig-production. SEGES. https://www.seges.dk/da-dk/akademi/digitalekurser/grise. Accessed 20 December 2018.

  • Anonymous 4. 2018 SEGES Academy, leader-education for pig producers https://svineproduktion.dk/aktuelt/nyheder/2018/09/250918_ledelsesfag_landmaend. Accessed 18 December 2018.

  • Bock, Bettina B., and Marjolein van Huik. 2007. Animal welfare: The attitudes and behavior of European pig farmers. British Food Journal 11: 931–944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Rooij, Sabine J.G., Caroline de Lauwere, and Jan Douwe van der Ploeg. 2010. Entrapped in group solidarity? Animal welfare, the ethical positions of farmers and the difficult search for alternatives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 12 (4): 341–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAWC, 2007. Farm animal welfare council, report. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/325176/FAWC_report_on_stockmanship_and_farm_animal_welfare.pdf. Accessed 21 Jan 2019.

  • Hastrup, Kirsten. 2011. Feltarbejde. I: Kvalitative metoder. En grundbog. Red.: Svend Brinkmann & Lene Tanggaard. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

  • Kaul, Adam. 2004. At work in the field: Problems and opportunities associated with employment during fieldwork. Anthropology Matters Journal 6 (2). https://www.anthropologymatters.com/index.php/anth_matters/article/view/99/194.

  • Kolstrup, Christina Lunner. 2012. What factors attract and motivate dairy farm employees in their daily work? Work 41: 5311–5316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lassen, Jesper, Peter Sandøe, and Bjørn Forkman. 2006. Happy pigs are dirty! – Conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science 103 (3): 221–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassen, Jesper, Peter Sandøe, and Inger Anneberg. 2016. For the sake of production. How agricultural colleges shape students’ views on animal welfare. In Food futures: ethics, science and culture, 126–136. Eds:. Anna S. Olsson, Sofia M. Araújo and M. Fátima Vieira.

  • Lønsmann, Louise, and Asger N. Jørgensen. 2017. News in the Danish Broadcast about lack of leadership education for Danish farmers. https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/regionale/nordjylland/landmaend-mangler-ledererfaring-det-er-nemmere-styre-800-koeer-end-16 (Accessed 8 February 2019).

  • Malterud, Kirsti. 2012. Systematic text condensation: A strategy for qualitative analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 40: 795–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porcher, Joy. 2011. The relationship between workers and animals in the pork industry: A shared suffering. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 1: 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, Alison, and Marc B. Schenker. 2016. Hired farmworkers in the US: Demographics, work organisation, and services. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 59: 644–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siudek, Tomasz and Aldona Zawojska. 2016. Foreign labour in agricultural sectors of some EU countries. Paper prepared for presentation at the 160th EAAE Seminar ‘rural jobs and the CAP’, Warsaw, Poland, December 1-2, 2016.

  • Te Velde, Hans, Noelle Aarts, and Cees Van Woerkum. 2002. Dealing with Ambivalence: Farmers' and Consumers' Perceptions of Animal Welfare in Livestock Breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15: 203–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhonacker, Filiep, Wim Verbeke, Els Van Poucke, and Frank A.M. Tuyttens. 2008. Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science 122: 126–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the employees at the farms for being willing to share their experiences. We would also like to thank Dr..Paul A. Robinson for his very useful suggestions in connection with the editing of the paper, and thanks for the valuable comments we received from participants, when the project was presented at the EurSafe Congress, Vienna 2016. A short and preliminary version of this paper was printed in the proceedings of that congress.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Inger Anneberg.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there are no conflicts of interest to report.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anneberg, I., Sandøe, P. When the Working Environment is Bad, you Take it out on the Animals – How Employees on Danish Farms Perceive Animal Welfare. Food ethics 4, 21–34 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41055-019-00044-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41055-019-00044-6

Keywords

Navigation