ABSTRACT
A concerning by-product of producing laying hen chicks are the hatched male layer chicks. As a consequence of their inability to lay eggs, these male chicks are culled as day-old chicks in the hatchery. To find an alternative for this ethical dilemma (generally), three alternatives are under study, namely, in ovo sex determination, using dual-purpose breeds, and the rearing of layer cockerels. In order to assess the awareness of this practice and preference for one of the alternatives, we conducted an online survey of the Dutch public. Most of the 259 respondents completing the survey were highly educated woman (HEW, n = 143) versus others (REST, n = 86). The questionnaire was divided into six topics: (1) general knowledge of the poultry industry, (2) awareness of culling male layer chicks (CMC), and (3) its acceptability, (4) alternatives to CMC, (5) willingness to pay (WTP) for eggs without CMC, and (6) WTP for cockerel meat. Awareness about CMC was 52%, and its acceptability was rejected by 78% (HEW) and 67% (REST). The level of acceptability increased when more salient facts were given, and almost all respondents agreed that an alternative was needed (90% HEW, 84% REST). For both groups of respondents, more than 50% preferred in ovo sex determination over keeping the current practice or using dual-purpose breeds or male layers. Furthermore, the majority of respondents were willing to pay more than double the price for eggs without CMC being involved. Roughly 40% would not buy processed cockerel meat burgers, most likely due to their vegan or vegetarian diet. Of the remaining respondents, half were willing to pay the current price or 1 euro more for processed cockerel meat burgers. The most important factors when buying poultry meat or eggs without CMC were food safety, animal friendliness (welfare), and the environment; price was the least important factor. Despite the skewed respondents' background, the results of our survey show that consumers are willing to pay more for poultry products that do not require culling day-old male chicks.
ABSTRACT
When non-human animals are labeled as 'pests', their moral status and welfare seem relatively unimportant. In a multi-stakeholder project, we develop an assessment frame for a more responsible rodent management that includes animal welfare. An online survey among 129 Dutch pest controllers was carried out in order to find out more about pest controllers' attitudes about animal welfare. Respondents indicate to consider animal welfare in their job. They see differences in the welfare impact of different rodent control methods. A dilemma may occur when methods with a high impact, such as rodenticides, are ofttimes used in practice. Respondents also indicate that in different real-life scenarios (the hospital kitchen vs. the private backyard), a different weight may be attributed to the importance of animal welfare. Almost half of the respondents encounter difficulties when weighing animals against human interests. The problems are mainly related to clients who are not willing to invest sufficient money in preventive methods, where respondents do believe in. Some differences were found between respondents depending on membership of a professional association for pest controllers. The results of this study are relevant input for focus groups with pest controllers and their clients and for the development of the aforementioned assessment frame.
