Welfare-friendly outdoor poultry husbandry systems are associated with potentially higher public health risks for certain hazards, which results in a dilemma: whether to choose a system that improves chicken welfare or a system that reduces these public health risks. We studied the views of citizens and poultry farmers on judging the dilemma, relevant moral convictions and moral arguments in a practical context. By means of an online questionnaire, citizens and poultry farmers judged three practical cases, which illustrate the dilemma of (...) improving chicken welfare or reducing public health risks for Campylobacter, avian influenza and dioxin. Furthermore, they scored the importance of moral arguments and to what extend they agreed with moral convictions related to humans and chickens. Citizens were more likely than farmers to choose a system that benefits chicken welfare at the expense of public health. These different judgments could be explained by differing moral convictions and valuations of moral arguments. Judgments of citizens and farmers were associated with moral arguments and convictions, predominantly with those regarding the value of chickens and naturalness. Citizens agreed stronger with moral convictions regarding the intrinsic value of chickens and regarding naturalness than farmers did, while farmers agreed stronger with conviction regarding fairness. We argue that opinions of citizens and farmers are context-dependent, which may explain the differences between these groups. It implies that opinions of different stakeholder groups should be considered in order to achieve successful innovations in poultry husbandry, which are supported by society. (shrink)

Welfare-friendly outdoor poultry husbandry systems are associated with potentially higher public health risks for certain hazards, which results in a dilemma: whether to choose a system that improves chicken welfare or a system that reduces these public health risks. We studied the views of citizens and poultry farmers on judging the dilemma, relevant moral convictions and moral arguments in a practical context. By means of an online questionnaire, citizens (n = 2259) and poultry farmers (n = 100) judged three practical (...) cases, which illustrate the dilemma of improving chicken welfare or reducing public health risks for Campylobacter, avian influenza and dioxin. Furthermore, they scored the importance of moral arguments and to what extend they agreed with moral convictions related to humans and chickens. Citizens were more likely than farmers to choose a system that benefits chicken welfare at the expense of public health. These different judgments could be explained by differing moral convictions and valuations of moral arguments. Judgments of citizens and farmers were associated with moral arguments and convictions, predominantly with those regarding the value of chickens and naturalness. Citizens agreed stronger with moral convictions regarding the intrinsic value of chickens and regarding naturalness than farmers did, while farmers agreed stronger with conviction regarding fairness. We argue that opinions of citizens and farmers are context-dependent, which may explain the differences between these groups. It implies that opinions of different stakeholder groups should be considered in order to achieve successful innovations in poultry husbandry, which are supported by society. (shrink)

Veterinarians are increasingly confronted with new technologies, such as Precision Livestock Farming (PLF), which allows for automated animal monitoring on commercial farms. At the same time, we lack information on how veterinarians, as stakeholders who may play a mediating role in the public debate on livestock farming, perceive the use and the impact of such technologies. This study explores the meaning veterinarians attribute to the application of PLF in the context of public concerns related to pig production. Semi-structured interviews were (...) carried out with pig veterinarians located in the Netherlands and Germany. By using an inductive and semantic approach to reflexive thematic analysis, we developed four main themes from the interview data: (1) the advisory role of the veterinarian, which is characterized by a diverse scope, including advice on PLF, generally positive evaluations and financial dependencies; (2) the delineation of PLF technologies as supporting tools, which are seen as an addition to human animal care; (3) the relationship between veterinarian and farmer, which is context-related, ranging from taking sides with to distancing oneself from farmers; and (4) the distance between agriculture and society, in the context of which PLF has both a mitigating and reinforcing potential. The present findings indicate that veterinarians play an active role in the emerging field of PLF in livestock farming. They are aware of and reflect on competing interests of different groups in society and share positions with different stakeholders. However, the extent to which they are able to mediate between stakeholder groups in practice seems to be constrained by external factors, such as financial dependencies. (shrink)

The job of veterinarians is often described as morally challenging. This online survey (n = 123) investigated how farm veterinarians in Germany perceive these challenges. Most participants described their job in accordance with the literature: as a profession that regularly has to deal with morally difficult decisions. The majority assumed that their moral challenges were greater than the ones of small animal practitioners. The results indicate that the typical moral challenges are (a) situations in which the farm veterinarians are convinced (...) to know what is morally right, however, specific external obstacles prevent them from implementing their convictions. Therefore, the central moral problem from the veterinarians’ point of view can be described with the following words: “I would like to, but I can’t.” Other ideal types of moral challenges like (b) open ethical questions, (c) ethical dilemmas or (d) “duty vs. inclination” conflicts play a less prominent role. With regard to dealing with these challenges, the study shows that farm veterinarians are looking for exchange, for example with colleagues. Most participants see the current social debate about livestock farming as something that stresses them, arguing that their university’s curriculum did not adequately prepare them to participate in these controversies. (shrink)