The Effect of Husbandry System Information on Consumer Willingness to Pay for Dairy Products From Cow-Calf-Contact Systems
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52825/gjae.v74i.1268Keywords:
WTP, Animal Welfare, Cow-Calf-Contact System, Contingent Valuation, Consumption Values, Communication StrategiesAbstract
This study investigates consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for dairy products from a production system with cow-calf-contact (CCC) based calf management. Our results provide insights into the extent to which consumer-driven change towards such a more animal friendly production practice is viable in Germany. We test the influence of three communication strategies on the WTP for dairy products from a CCC-based calf management production system using a hypothetical contingent valuation survey on a sample of the German internet-using population. We apply a between-subject design with random exposure to one of the communication strategies. Results indicate that consumers are willing to pay an average 20% markup for dairy products from a CCC-based production with a minimum of three months of suckling. Additional information on the benefits of cow-calf interaction for the calf increases the probability of consumers expressing a positive WTP by 8 percentage points and, given a positive WTP, increases stated markups by 16% on average. Information on other consumers’ purchase behaviour or the innovativeness of the production system did not affect stated WTP in our sample. The results offer a potential upper bound for other CCC production systems, e.g., using foster cows. We conclude that information on livestock benefits in consumer communication could raise acceptance and support transitions towards more animal friendly production systems.
Downloads
References
Alonso, M.E., González-Montaña, J.R., Lomillos, J.M. (2020): Consumers' Concerns, Percep-tions of Farm Animal Welfare. Animals 10 (3). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030385. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030385
Andor, M., Frondel, M., Vance, C. (2014): Mitigating Hypothetical Bias Evidence on the Effects of Correctives from a Large Field Study. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.1515/pwp-2014-0029. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2471481
Barth, K. (2020): Effects of suckling on milk yield, milk composition of dairy cows in cow-calf contact systems. Journal of Dairy Research 87 (S1): 133-137. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022029920000515. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029920000515
Barth, K. (2022): Ein System mit vielen Gesichtern. https://www.thuenen.de/de/themenfelder/nutztierhaltung-und-aquakultur/kuhgebundene-kaelberaufzucht/ein-system-mit-vielen-gesichtern, accessed January 12, 2023.
Belotti, F., Deb, P., Manning, W.G., Norton, E.C. (2015): Twopm: Two-Part Models. The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata 15 (1): 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X150150010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1501500102
Bouman, T., Steg, L., Kiers, H.A.L. (2018): Measuring Values in Environmental Research: A Test of an Environmental Portrait Value Questionnaire. Frontiers in psychology 9: 564. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00564. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00564
Buller, H., Blokhuis, H., Jensen, P., Keeling, L. (2018): Towards Farm Animal Welfare and Sustainability. Animals: an open access journal from MDPI 8 (6). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8060081. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8060081
Busch, G., Weary, D.M., Spiller, A., Keyserlingk, M.A.G. von (2017): American and German attitudes towards cow-calf separation on dairy farms. PloS one 12 (3): e0174013. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174013
Cummings, R.G., Taylor, L.O. (1999): Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method. American Economic Review 89 (3): 649–665. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.3.649.
Caniëls, M.C.J., Lambrechts, W., Platje, J., Motylska-Kuźma, A., Fortuński, B. (2021): 50 Shades of Green: Insights into Personal Values and Worldviews as Drivers of Green Pur-chasing Intention, Behaviour, and Experience. Sustainability 13 (8): 4140. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084140
Cembalo, L., Caracciolo, F., Lombardi, A., Del Giudice, T., Grunert, K.G., Cicia, G. (2016): Determinants of Individual Attitudes Toward Animal Welfare-Friendly Food Products. Jour-nal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29 (2): 237-254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9598-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9598-z
Clark, B., Stewart, G.B., Panzone, L.A., Kyriazakis, I., Frewer, L.J. (2017): Citizens, consum-ers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies. Food Policy 68: 112-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.01.006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.01.006
Cohen, J. (1988): Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Hillsdale, NJ.
Cornish, A., Raubenheimer, D., McGreevy, P. (2016): What We Know about the Public's Level of Concern for Farm Animal Welfare in Food Production in Developed Countries. Animals: an open access journal from MDPI 6 (11). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani6110074. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani6110074
Cragg, J.G. (1971): Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods. Econometrica 39 (5): 829-844. https://doi.org/10.2307/1909582. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1909582
Cummings, R.G., Taylor, L.O. (1999): Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method. American Economic Review 89, 649-665. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.3.649. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.3.649
de Groot, J.I.M., Steg, L. (2008): Value Orientations to Explain Beliefs Related to Environmen-tal Significant Behavior. Environment and Behavior 40 (3): 330-354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506297831. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506297831
DESTATIS (2023a): Auszubildende: Deutschland, Stichtag, Nationalität, Geschlecht, Ausbil-dungsbereich. Berufsbildungsstatistik 21211-0001. Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden.
DESTATIS (2023b): Bevölkerung ab 15 Jahren in Hauptwohnsitzhaushalten: Deutschland, Jahre, Geschlecht, Altersgruppen, Allgemeine Schulausbildung. Mikrozensus 12211-0100. Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden.
DESTATIS (2023c): Bevölkerung nach Nationalität und Geschlecht. Ergebnisse der Bevölke-rungsfortschreibung auf Grundlage des Zensus. Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden.
DESTATIS (2023d): Hauptwohnsitzhaushalte: Deutschland, Jahre, Haushaltsgröße, Haus-haltsnettoeinkommensklassen. Mikrozensus 12211-0300. Statistisches Bundesamt, Wies-baden.
DESTATIS (2024a): Bevölkerung nach dem Gebietsstand und Durchschnittsalter 1990 bis 2023. Ergebnisse der Bevölkerungsfortschreibung auf Grundlage des Zensus 2022. Statis-tisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden.
DESTATIS (2024b): Sozialversicherungspflichtig Beschäftigte am Arbeitsort: Deutschland, Stichtag, Geschlecht, Beschäftigungsumfang, Wirtschaftsabschnitte. Auswertungen aus der Beschäftigtenstatistik der 13111-0004. Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden.
DESTATIS (2024c): Studierende insgesamt und Studierende Deutsche nach Geschlecht. Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden.
Dow, W.H., Norton, E.C. (2003): Choosing Between and Interpreting the Heckit and Two-Part Models for Corner Solutions. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology 4 (1): 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025827426320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025827426320
D'Souza, C. (2022): Game meats: Consumption values, theory of planned behaviour, and the moderating role of food neophobia/neophiliac behaviour. Journal of Retailing and Consum-er Services 66: 102953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.102953. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.102953
Duan, N. (1983): Smearing Estimate: A Nonparametric Retransformation Method. Journal of the American Statistical Association 78 (383): 605-610. https://doi.org/10.2307/2288126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1983.10478017
Eriksson, H., Fall, N., … , Alvåsen, K. (2022): Strategies for keeping dairy cows and calves together - a cross-sectional survey study. Animal: an international journal of animal biosci-ence 16 (9): 100624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2022.100624. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2022.100624
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., Lang, A.-G. (2009): Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods 41 (4): 1149-1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
Gierse-Westermeier, K. (2021): Verbraucherpreise: Weidemilch im August teurer. https://www.topagrar.com/rind/news/verbraucherpreise-weidemilch-im-august-teurer-12707900.html, accessed December 26, 2024.
Gross, S., Waldrop, M.E., Roosen, J. (2021): How does animal welfare taste? Combining sen-sory and choice experiments to evaluate willingness to pay for animal welfare pork. Food Quality and Preference 87 (issue?): 104055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104055. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104055
Henchion, M.M., Regan, Á., Beecher, M., MackenWalsh, Á. (2022): Developing ‘Smart’ Dairy Farming Responsive to Farmers and Consumer-Citizens: A Review. Animals: an open ac-cess journal from MDPI 12 (3): 360. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12030360. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12030360
Hur, W.-M., Yoo, J.-J., Chung, T.-L. (2012): The consumption values and consumer innova-tiveness on convergence products. Industrial Management & Data Systems 112 (5): 688-706. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571211232271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571211232271
Klinkmann, D. (2021): Kalkulatorische Kosten einer muttergebundenen Kälberhaltung in der Milchproduktion. Thünen Pi x Daumen"-Papier 2. Braunschweig.
Knierim, U., Wicklow, D., Ivemeyer, S., Möller, D. (2020): A framework for the socio-economic evaluation of rearing systems of dairy calves with or without cow contact. Journal of Dairy Research 87 (S1): 128-132. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029920000473. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029920000473
Kühl, S., Gassler, B., Spiller, A. (2017): Labeling strategies to overcome the problem of niche markets for sustainable milk products: The example of pasture-raised milk. Journal of dairy science 100 (6): 5082-5096. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-11997. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-11997
Kühl, S., Gauly, S., Spiller, A. (2019): Analysing public acceptance of four common husbandry systems for dairy cattle using a picture-based approach. Livestock Science 220: 196-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2018.12.022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2018.12.022
Langer, G., Mehlhose, C., Knöpfel, T., Brümmer, B., Spiller, A., Busch, G. (2023): Der Markt für Milch und Milcherzeugnisse 2022. German Journal of Agricultural Economics 72 (Sup-plement). https://doi.org/10.30430/gjae.2023.5.Milch. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30430/gjae.2023.5.Milch
Lin, W. (2023): The effect of product quantity on willingness to pay: A meta‐regression analy-sis of beef valuation studies. Agribusiness, 39 (3). https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21798. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21798
Liu, L., Shih, Y.-C.T., Strawderman, R.L., Zhang, D., Johnson, B.A., Chai, H. (2019): Statisti-cal Analysis of Zero-Inflated Nonnegative Continuous Data: A Review. Statistical Science 34 (2): 253-279. https://doi.org/10.1214/18-STS681. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1214/18-STS681
Manning, W.G., Mullahy, J. (2001): Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform? Journal of Health Economics 20 (4): 461-494. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-6296(01)00086-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00086-8
Markova-Nenova, N., Wätzold, F. (2018): Fair to the cow or fair to the farmer? The preferences of conventional milk buyers for ethical attributes of milk. Land Use Policy 79 (C): 223-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.07.045. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.07.045
McDonald, R.P. (1999): Test Theory: A Unified Treatment. Psychology Press, New York. . https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410601087. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410601087
McKinsey (2021): Die Krise und die neuen Konsumenten. Corona hat Europas Lebensmittel-handel verändert. Auf welche Trends die Branche reagieren muss. McKinsey, Köln.
McNeish, D. (2018): Thanks coefficient alpha, we'll take it from here. Psychological methods 23 (3): 412-433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144
Meade, A.W., Craig, S.B. (2012): Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological methods 17 (3): 437-455. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028085. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028085
Meagher, R.K., Beaver, A., Weary, D.M., Keyserlingk, M.A.G. von (2019): Invited review: A systematic review of the effects of prolonged cow-calf contact on behavior, welfare, and productivity. Journal of dairy science 102 (7): 5765-5783. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-16021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-16021
Naspetti, S., Mandolesi, S., Buysse, J., Latvala, T., Nicholas, P., Padel, S., van Loo, E.J., Za-noli, R. (2021): Consumer perception of sustainable practices in dairy production. Agricul-tural and Food Economics 9 (1): 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-020-00175-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-020-00175-z
Nocella, G., Hubbard, L., Scarpa, R. (2010): Farm Animal Welfare, Consumer Willingness to Pay, and Trust: Results of a Cross‐National Survey. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 32 (2): 275-297. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppp009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppp009
Ohlau, M., Mörlein, D., Risius, A. (2023): Taste of green: Consumer liking of pasture-raised beef hamburgers as affected by information on the production system. Food Quality and Preference 107: 104839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104839. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104839
Ojea, E., Loureiro, M.L. (2007): Altruistic, egoistic and biospheric values in willingness to pay (WTP) for wildlife. Ecological Economics 63 (4): 807-814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.003
Placzek, M., Christoph-Schulz, I., Barth, K. (2021): Public attitude towards cow-calf separation and other common practices of calf rearing in dairy farming - a review. Organic Agriculture 11 (1): 41-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-020-00321-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-020-00321-3
Rahnama, H., Rajabpour, S. (2017): Factors for consumer choice of dairy products in Iran. Appetite 111 (issue?): 46-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.12.004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.12.004
Riemsdijk, L., Ingenbleek, P.T.M., Veen, G., Trijp, H.C.M. (2019): Positioning Strategies for Animal‐Friendly Products: A Social Dilemma Approach. Journal of Consumer Affairs 54 (1): 100-129. https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12240
Schulze, M., Kühl, S., Busch, G. (2023): We have Some Calves left! Socially Accepted Alter-natives to the Current Handling of Male Calves from Dairy Production. Food Ethics 8 (11): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41055-023-00122-w. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41055-023-00122-w
Schwartz, S.H. (1994): Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents of Human Values? Journal of Social Issues 50 (4): 19-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01196.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01196.x
Schwartz, S.H. (2021): A Repository of Schwartz Value Scales with Instructions and an Intro-duction. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2 (2). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1173. DOI: https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1173
Shashi, Kottala, S.Y., Singh, R. (2015): A review of sustainability, deterrents, personal values, attitudes and purchase intentions in the organic food supply chain. Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences 1 (3): 114-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psrb.2016.09.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psrb.2016.09.003
Shaw, B.P. (2021): Meeting assumptions in the estimation of reliability. The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata 21 (4): 1021-1027. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X211063407. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X211063407
Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I., Gross, B.L. (1991): Why we buy what we buy: A theory of con-sumption values. Journal of Business Research 22 (2): 159-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(91)90050-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(91)90050-8
Sirovica, L.V., Ritter, C., Hendricks, J., Weary, D.M., Gulati, S., Keyserlingk, M.A.G. von (2022): Public attitude toward and perceptions of dairy cattle welfare in cow-calf manage-ment systems differing in type of social and maternal contact. Journal of dairy science 105 (4). https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2021-21344. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2021-21344
Stampa, E., Schipmann-Schwarze, C., Hamm, U. (2020): Consumer perceptions, preferences, and behavior regarding pasture-raised livestock products: A review. Food Quality and Pre-ference 82: 103872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103872. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103872
Statistisches Bundesamt (2021): Wirtschaftsrechnungen: Einkommens- und Verbrauchsstich-probe Aufwendungen privater Haushalte für Nahrungsmittel, Getränke und Tabakwaren. Wirtschaftsrechnungen 15. Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden.
Steg, L., Groot, J.I.M. de (2012): Environmental Values. In: Clayton, S.D. (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology. Oxford University Press, Ox-ford: 81-92. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199733026.013.0005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199733026.013.0005
Steg, L., Perlaviciute, G., van der Werff, E., Lurvink, J. (2014): The Significance of Hedonic Values for Environmentally Relevant Attitudes, Preferences, and Actions. Environment and Behavior 46 (2): 163-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512454730. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512454730
Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N. (2001): Consumer perceived value: The development of a multi-ple item scale. Journal of Retailing 77 (2): 203-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00041-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00041-0
Thiele, S., Thiele, H. (2020): Zusatzkosten in der Milcherzeugung und -verarbeitung unter Ein-haltung verschiedener Tierwohlstandards. https://idw-online.de/de/attachmentdata85678.pdf, accessed December 18, 2022.
Uehleke, R., Hüttel, S. (2018): The free-rider deficit in the demand for farm animal welfare-labelled meat. European Review of Agricultural Economics 46 (2): 291-318. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jby025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jby025
van Riemsdijk, L., Ingenbleek, P.T., Houthuijs, M., van Trijp, H.C. (2017): Strategies for posi-tioning animal welfare as personally relevant. British Food Journal 119 (9): 2062-2075. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-10-2016-0514. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-10-2016-0514
Waiblinger, S., Wagner, K., Hillmann, E., Barth, K. (2020): Play and social behaviour of calves with or without access to their dam and other cows. Journal of Dairy Research 87 (S1): 144-147. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029920000540. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029920000540
Winkelmann, R., Boes, S. (2006): Analysis of Microdata. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Zinke, O. (2022): Aldi erhöht Milchpreise drastisch: Zum ersten Mal müssen Verbraucher beim Discounter Aldi für die Vollmilch der Eigenmarken mehr als einen Euro zahlen. Land&Forst, 175 (02.07.2022).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Reinhard Uehleke, Jeanette Klink-Lehmann, Silke Hüttel
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Accepted 2025-02-06
Published 2025-05-28