A good taste in the meat, a good taste in the mouth: animal welfare as an aspect of pork quality in three European countries

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Standard

A good taste in the meat, a good taste in the mouth : animal welfare as an aspect of pork quality in three European countries. / Thorslund, Cecilie Agnete H; Sandøe, Peter; Aaslyng, Margit Dall ; Lassen, Jesper.

I: Livestock Science, Bind 193, 11.2016, s. 58-65.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Harvard

Thorslund, CAH, Sandøe, P, Aaslyng, MD & Lassen, J 2016, 'A good taste in the meat, a good taste in the mouth: animal welfare as an aspect of pork quality in three European countries', Livestock Science, bind 193, s. 58-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2016.09.007

APA

Thorslund, C. A. H., Sandøe, P., Aaslyng, M. D., & Lassen, J. (2016). A good taste in the meat, a good taste in the mouth: animal welfare as an aspect of pork quality in three European countries. Livestock Science, 193, 58-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2016.09.007

Vancouver

Thorslund CAH, Sandøe P, Aaslyng MD, Lassen J. A good taste in the meat, a good taste in the mouth: animal welfare as an aspect of pork quality in three European countries. Livestock Science. 2016 nov.;193:58-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2016.09.007

Author

Thorslund, Cecilie Agnete H ; Sandøe, Peter ; Aaslyng, Margit Dall ; Lassen, Jesper. / A good taste in the meat, a good taste in the mouth : animal welfare as an aspect of pork quality in three European countries. I: Livestock Science. 2016 ; Bind 193. s. 58-65.

Bibtex

@article{a1d6a370135a4f5da1a5c8807a294d50,
title = "A good taste in the meat, a good taste in the mouth: animal welfare as an aspect of pork quality in three European countries",
abstract = "Welfare standards for farm animals in Europe are managed by two main strategies: a legislative and a market-driven strategy. The former imposes common minimum standards of animal welfare; it offers little or no help for consumers favoring welfare initiatives above the legal requirements. The latter can be used as a lever for improving welfare beyond baseline standards through initiatives supporting {\textquoteleft}welfare-friendly{\textquoteright} products that are sold at a premium. However, if this second strategy is to be successful the higher levels of welfare secured will need to reflect what consumers think is important. Using focus group interviews in three European countries, the study presented here looks at the way consumers perceive meat and meat consumption practices in relation to animal welfare. Regarding animal welfare as a quality attribute – something worth paying a premium for – the analysis shows that animal welfare is definitely a quality for which some consumers are prepared to pay as such, but that other consumers do not regard welfare as an important quality attribute. Another group of consumers consider welfare important and valuable given its positive link with attractive quality attributes such as taste. The results points to some striking national differences: little concern or action linked to animal welfare was expressed by English consumers; their Swedish counterparts displayed more concern and action; consumers in Denmark were similar to those in Sweden, but showed more variation in their attitudes and an awareness of barriers.",
author = "Thorslund, {Cecilie Agnete H} and Peter Sand{\o}e and Aaslyng, {Margit Dall} and Jesper Lassen",
year = "2016",
month = nov,
doi = "10.1016/j.livsci.2016.09.007",
language = "English",
volume = "193",
pages = "58--65",
journal = "Livestock Science",
issn = "1871-1413",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - A good taste in the meat, a good taste in the mouth

T2 - animal welfare as an aspect of pork quality in three European countries

AU - Thorslund, Cecilie Agnete H

AU - Sandøe, Peter

AU - Aaslyng, Margit Dall

AU - Lassen, Jesper

PY - 2016/11

Y1 - 2016/11

N2 - Welfare standards for farm animals in Europe are managed by two main strategies: a legislative and a market-driven strategy. The former imposes common minimum standards of animal welfare; it offers little or no help for consumers favoring welfare initiatives above the legal requirements. The latter can be used as a lever for improving welfare beyond baseline standards through initiatives supporting ‘welfare-friendly’ products that are sold at a premium. However, if this second strategy is to be successful the higher levels of welfare secured will need to reflect what consumers think is important. Using focus group interviews in three European countries, the study presented here looks at the way consumers perceive meat and meat consumption practices in relation to animal welfare. Regarding animal welfare as a quality attribute – something worth paying a premium for – the analysis shows that animal welfare is definitely a quality for which some consumers are prepared to pay as such, but that other consumers do not regard welfare as an important quality attribute. Another group of consumers consider welfare important and valuable given its positive link with attractive quality attributes such as taste. The results points to some striking national differences: little concern or action linked to animal welfare was expressed by English consumers; their Swedish counterparts displayed more concern and action; consumers in Denmark were similar to those in Sweden, but showed more variation in their attitudes and an awareness of barriers.

AB - Welfare standards for farm animals in Europe are managed by two main strategies: a legislative and a market-driven strategy. The former imposes common minimum standards of animal welfare; it offers little or no help for consumers favoring welfare initiatives above the legal requirements. The latter can be used as a lever for improving welfare beyond baseline standards through initiatives supporting ‘welfare-friendly’ products that are sold at a premium. However, if this second strategy is to be successful the higher levels of welfare secured will need to reflect what consumers think is important. Using focus group interviews in three European countries, the study presented here looks at the way consumers perceive meat and meat consumption practices in relation to animal welfare. Regarding animal welfare as a quality attribute – something worth paying a premium for – the analysis shows that animal welfare is definitely a quality for which some consumers are prepared to pay as such, but that other consumers do not regard welfare as an important quality attribute. Another group of consumers consider welfare important and valuable given its positive link with attractive quality attributes such as taste. The results points to some striking national differences: little concern or action linked to animal welfare was expressed by English consumers; their Swedish counterparts displayed more concern and action; consumers in Denmark were similar to those in Sweden, but showed more variation in their attitudes and an awareness of barriers.

U2 - 10.1016/j.livsci.2016.09.007

DO - 10.1016/j.livsci.2016.09.007

M3 - Journal article

VL - 193

SP - 58

EP - 65

JO - Livestock Science

JF - Livestock Science

SN - 1871-1413

ER -

ID: 169416354