Livestock Science 140 (2011) 189–200

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Livestock Science
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l i v s c i

Socio-cultural sustainability of pig production: Citizen perceptions in the

Netherlands and Denmark
B.K. Boogaard a,⁎, L.J.S. Boekhorst b, S.J. Oosting b, J.T. Sørensen c
a
Rural Sociology Group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 8130, 6700 EW Wageningen, The Netherlands
b
Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
c
Department of Animal Health and Bioscience, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences University of Aarhus, P.O. 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Many sustainability studies of animal production consider three pillars: the economic,
Received 25 November 2010 environmental and socio-cultural. Farmers and animal scientists tend to put most emphasis on
Received in revised form 11 March 2011 the economic and environmental pillar and largely ignore the socio-cultural pillar. Socio-cultural
Accepted 21 March 2011
sustainability refers to social perceptions of animal farming, including social appreciations and
concerns of animal production systems. Integration of social demands and values in the
Keywords: production sector is a prerequisite to justify animal production within a society. The objective of
Citizens the present study was therefore to gain further insights into socio-cultural sustainability of pig
Real life experience
production. Many citizens may not know what contemporary pig production actually entails. To
Social perceptions
give people a real life experience with pig production, we conducted farm visits with citizen panels
Values
with 18 respondents in the Netherlands and 8 respondents in Denmark. In both countries,
respondents were divided over two panels and each panel visited a conventional and an organic
pig farm. During the farm visits respondents noted their sensory experiences — what do you smell,
hear, see and feel? In addition, each respondent made pictures of six positive and six negative
aspects on the farms for which they had to write a motivation. The qualitative analysis resulted in
seven socio-cultural themes (SCT) of pig production namely: 1) meat production, 2) farm
activities, 3) farm income, 4) animals, 5) housing system, 6) environment and nature, and
7) culture and landscape. Each SCT included several socio-cultural aspects (appreciations, SCA)
and socio-cultural issues (concerns, SCI). We identified 31 SCAs in the Netherlands and 33 SCAs in
Denmark, of which 29 were SCIs in both countries. Although many issues were associated with
animal welfare, the results also showed that social concerns of pig production extended beyond
animal welfare. In general it can be stated that citizens are strongly concerned about
overexploitation of animals in contemporary pig production systems, but at the same time they
appreciate the dynamism in a pig farm including certain modern developments.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction agricultural production systems was to produce a maximum

1.1. Demand for sustainable animal production
After the Second World War, agricultural production systems
in Western societies increased in terms of scale, intensity and
specialisation. From the 1950s to the mid-1970s the main aim of
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 31 317 485918; fax: + 31 317 485475.
E-mail address: Birgit.Boogaard@wur.nl (B.K. Boogaard).
amount of products at low costs and with a minimal labour input
(Bieleman, 1998). Hence, efficiency and productivity were strong
focus points driven by a process of mechanisation and large-scale
production (Meerburg et al., 2009). After the mid-1970s, societal
organisations raised their voices about unwanted effects of
intensified agricultural systems on environment and nature, such
as pollution, decreased biodiversity and poor animal welfare. At
the same time, the number of people involved in agriculture
decreased and Western societies became more urbanised. Hence,

1871-1413/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2011.03.028
190 B.K. Boogaard et al. / Livestock Science 140 (2011) 189–200
people's spatial and social distance to agriculture in present times
is relatively large compared to several decades ago. As a
consequence many people have limited knowledge about the
way food is produced (Cloke, 2003; Fauconnier et al., 1992;
Frouws, 1998; Wiskerke 2009).
Of the sustainability pillars economy, environment (e.g.
Cornelissen, 2003; Mollenhorst, 2005; Thomassen, 2008; Van
Calker, 2005) and society farmers and animal scientists tend
to put emphasis on the economic and environmental pillar
and largely ignore the socio-cultural pillar. Socio-cultural
sustainability is about values i.e. aspects that matter to people
which are often aspects that are appreciated or that are
subject of concern (Boogaard et al., 2008). Over the last
decade (2000–2010), the socio-cultural pillar gained more
importance, as animal production was confronted with
increased societal criticism about animal welfare issues,
outbreaks of animal diseases and environmental pollution.
Consequently, it has become important to know what citizens
appreciate and what they are concerned about; for example,
the search and realisation of animal welfare improvements is
strongly driven by citizen expectations (Vanhonacker et al.,
2008). McGlone (2001) and Boogaard et al. (2008) concluded
that social concerns of animal farming extend beyond animal
welfare issues. A study about social perceptions of dairy
farming in which Dutch dairy farms were visited with citizen
panels identified ten socio-cultural themes of dairy farming
(Boogaard et al., 2008). Integration of such social demands
and values in the production sector is a prerequisite to justify
animal production within society and government (Verbeke
et al., 2010). The objective of the present study is therefore to
gain further insights into the socio-cultural sustainability
pillar of animal production.
1.2. Social perceptions of animal production
Considering the fact that most citizens have little direct
experiences with contemporary animal farming they can be
referred to as ‘lay people’. Many studies about lay people's
perceptions of animal production and animal welfare focused
on the consumer (e.g. Eurobarometer, 2005; Frewer et al.,
2005; Weatherell et al., 2003). However, it has been widely
studied that a discrepancy exists between what people think
in their role as citizen and how they behave in their consumer
role (e.g. Aarts and Te Velde, 2001; Dagevos and Sterrenberg,
2003; Kanis et al., 2003; Krystallis et al., 2009). Moreover,
citizens may have different concerns than consumers. For
example, consumers consider quality, price and taste of
animal products of major importance, whereas citizens
express their concern about other issues such as the way
animals are treated and environmental pollution (Beekman,
2003). The present study thus focused on people in their role
of citizen instead of their consumer role.
It can be stated that many citizens have a romantic view of
animal farming on the one hand – referring to the ‘rural idyll’
in which humans and animals live in perfect harmony – but
on the other hand citizens are also confronted with images in
the media about intensified animal production, including
issues about poor animal welfare (e.g. Boogaard et al., 2010a,
2010b; Kanis et al. 2003). Studies of Hall and Sandilands
(2007) and Lassen et al. (2006) showed that citizens strongly
base their perception of animal farming on what they have
seen on television ‘I've seen a TV documentary’ and ‘I watched
TV the other day…’. The media often show negative images of
farm animal welfare (Te Velde et al., 2002; Vanhonacker et al.,
2008).
In contrast, real life experiences with animal farming
could influence people's perception of animal production and
welfare. Studies about social perceptions of dairy farming
showed that people with more agricultural experience were
more positive about contemporary dairy farming and were
accepting modern developments in dairy farming more than
people without such experiences (Boogaard et al., 2006,
2010b). However, when lay people are confronted with the
actual intensive pig production systems, they may react
negatively and negative feelings about farming might emerge
(Krystallis et al., 2009). Yet, studies of people's perceptions on
the basis of real-life pig farms are lacking (Krystallis et al.,
2009).
Hence, there is a need to better understand citizens'
perceptions of pig production based on real-life experiences
(Krystallis et al., 2009). The present study therefore focused
on social perceptions of pig production in the Netherlands
and Denmark and addressed the following research ques-
tions: 1) What do citizens notice on a pig farm? 2) Which of
these aspects of pig production do they appreciate and
consider as important to preserve for the future? 3) Which of
these aspects of pig production are they concerned about and
consider as important to change in the future? 4) Do citizens
of different countries, in this case the Netherlands and
Denmark, differ in their perception of pig production?
The paper is divided into five sections. After the Introduction,
we describe pig production in the Netherlands and Denmark
and discuss social issues on the basis of literature. The third
section describes the methodology — farm visits with citizen
panels. Thereafter, we present the results in which we identified
socio-cultural aspects, issues and themes of pig production in the
Netherlands and Denmark. In the final section we reflect on the
results and methodology and discuss the findings in relation to
the literature and the debate of sustainable animal farming.
2. Pig production and society
2.1. Pig production in the Netherlands and Denmark
The present study focused on pig production in the
Netherlands and Denmark. These are North-West European
countries with comparable pig production systems. Denmark,
with a population density of 127 inhabitants/km2, can be
described as more ‘rural’ compared to the Netherlands which
is strongly urbanised, with a population density of 401 in-
habitants/km2 (United Nations, 2010). We expected that this
difference in population density can affect citizens' percep-
tion of pig production, in the sense that Danish people might
be more connected to agricultural production compared to
Dutch citizens.
In 2008, Denmark is at the fifth position on the list of
largest pig populations in Europe with 13.6 million pigs
closely followed by the Netherlands at the sixth position
with 11.2 million pigs (Christensen et al., 2008). In both
countries, the number of pig farms decreased over the last
decades, whereas the number of pigs per farm increased. Pig
production in the Netherlands and Denmark discerns three
 B.K. Boogaard et al. / Livestock Science 140 (2011) 189–200
farm types: farms with breeding sows, farms with fattening
pigs and integrated farms (including both breeding sows and
fattening pigs). In both countries, most pig farms are
conventional pig production systems. Only a few farms are
organic. Dutch organic pig production comes from 60 farms
with together approximately 3500 sows and a production of
about 60,000 fatting pigs per year (Hoste et al., 2007). In
Denmark about 60,000 organic fattening pigs are produced
from 4000 organic sows in about 100 farms (Hermansen et al.,
2008). Although conventional pig production systems in
Denmark and the Netherlands are comparable, the housing
of sows and piglets in organic production systems differs. In
Denmark sows and piglets are housed outside in sheds in the
field, whereas in the Netherlands sows and piglets are housed
in sheds with outdoor access.
Pork consumption is relatively high in both countries: Dutch
and Danish citizens consume 41 and 79 kg/person/year, respec-
tively (Eurostat, 2007). In Denmark, pork is a traditional product
and 72% of pork consuming citizens eat pork at least once a week
(Bryhni et al., 2002). In the Netherlands, about half of the meat
consumption consists of pork products (PVE, 2010). The major
part of Danish (93%, FVM, 2010) and Dutch (70%, PVE, 2010) pork
is exported. The organic market in both countries can be
considered as a niche market. Only 0.5% of Danish (Oosterkamp
et al., 2009) and 0.4% of Dutch meat consumption are organic
pork (Bio-Monitor, 2008). Nevertheless, the organic pork market
is growing: from 2007 to 2008, the Danish market increased with
60% (FVM, 2010) and the Dutch market with 15% (Bio-monitor,
2008).
2.2. Social concerns of pig production
Over the last 30 years, public concerns about animal
farming have grown and people became more critical about
modern animal production systems, especially about animal
welfare (Lassen et al., 2006). Animal welfare is probably one
of the most discussed social issues of pig production. There is
not one definition of ‘good’ animal welfare, but it differs
between perspectives (Fraser, 2008; Vanhonacker et al.,
2008; Sørensen and Fraser, 2010). For example, production
scientists and farmers tend to translate good animal welfare
with healthy and productive animals, whereas lay people
emphasise ‘naturalness’ – i.e. living a natural life – as an
essential part of good animal welfare (Lassen et al., 2006;
Fraser, 2008; Verbeke, 2009). From the citizens' perspective,
pigs should have the freedom to live in a natural way, to show
natural behaviour (Sørensen and Fraser, 2010) and to fulfil
natural desires (Te Velde et al., 2002).
More specifically, pig welfare is part of current public and
political debates and discussions which predominantly
concern farming practices such as castration and tail cutting
of piglets and fixed housing system for sows. The latter will be
banned; under European Union legislation all sows have to be
housed in groups in 2013. The main reason to castrate male
piglets is the prevention of boar taint when cooking pork. In
Europe, surgical castration without anaesthesia is heavily
under discussion. Consequently, many alternatives are being
investigated and in the Netherlands, Germany, Norway and
Switzerland surgical castration with anaesthesia is already
put into practice (Vanhonacker et al., 2009).
191
In addition, citizens value intensive and regular farmer–
animal contact because this shows that farmers take good
care of their animals, (Boogaard et al., 2008). However, the
type of farmer–animal contact differs between farmers and
depends on several factors such as animal species, housing
system, level of mechanisation, stocking density, production
purpose and life span (Bock et al., 2007). For example,
farmers felt more attached to breeding sows than to fattening
pigs. Little attachment to fattening pigs is possibly related to
the large number of animals, the housing system – group
housing gives little opportunity to bond with the individual
animal – and the short life span (Bock et al., 2007).
To conclude, the present study contributes to debates
about social concerns and acceptability of pig production in
two ways. Firstly, it elaborates on the concept of animal
welfare from the citizens' perspective on the basis of real life
experiences. Secondly, many of the above-mentioned social
concerns about pig production relate to animal welfare issues,
but there are more social concerns. The present study
therefore identifies different aspects people noticed when
visiting a pig farm.
3. Research methodology
The research methodology entailed pig farm visits with
citizen panels and adapted the methodology of earlier studies
with dairy farm visits (Boogaard et al., 2008). Farm visits give
people a real life experience with pig production, rather than
relying on second-hand information of for example newspa-
pers, television or the internet. In the present study, two
citizen panels visited two pig farms – a conventional and an
organic farm – in each country. Below, we describe the
procedure of the farm visits, selection criteria of the pig farms,
composition of the Dutch and Danish citizen panels and
analysis of the qualitative data.
3.1. Farm visits
Before the farm visits, respondents filled in a question-
naire about their expectations of a pig farm. The set-up of a
farm visit was as follows: at the start the farmer welcomed
the panel members on his farm and introduced his farm
followed by a walk around the farm yard and pig sheds.
Subsequently respondents walked around the pig farm
individually and filled in the questionnaire. The questionnaire
focused on sensory perceptions – what do you smell, hear, see
and feel? – and gave respondents the opportunity to address
issues on the basis of their real life experience. Respondents
wrote down their judgments of the sounds, smells and
feelings – positive, negative or neutral – and motivated their
judgements. In addition to the question ‘what do you see?’
respondents made pictures with digital cameras and
recorded, for each farm, six appreciated aspects – to preserve
for the future – and six concerns — to be changed in the
future. At home, each respondent selected for each farm three
pictures with the most appreciated aspects and three pictures
with the most concern-evoking aspects. Each respondent sent
the selected pictures and written motivation back to the
researcher by e-mail in a text document. Immediately after
the visits, respondents answered questions to what extent
the farm, farmer and landscape had met their expectations.
192 B.K. Boogaard et al. / Livestock Science 140 (2011) 189–200
This questionnaire included an additional question if re-
spondents considered pig production as important charac-
teristic of the Dutch or Danish landscape.
In both countries, pig production requires strong hygienic
regulations to reduce the risk of disease spreading. The panel
members therefore had to wear overalls and overshoes
during the visits. In the Netherlands, all panel members had
to take a shower between the two visits and to put on new
overalls and overshoes. In Denmark, a 24 hour interval
between two farm visits is compulsory. Consequently, the
visits in Denmark took place with a few days interval.
3.2. Farm selection
We selected pig farms on the basis of three criteria:
1) Integrated pig production, because such systems give
people the opportunity to see breeding sows as well as
fattening pigs rather than a specialised farm with either
sows or pigs.
2) Conventional and organic, because each system repre-
sents rather different ways of pig production in the
Netherlands and Denmark (see also Section 2.1).
3) Region, because panel members should see pig production
in the region where they live and – more practically – be
able to visit both farms on one day (in the Netherlands).
In the Netherlands, the farms were located in the province
of Gelderland; the organic farm in Buren and the conven-
tional farm in Horssen. In Denmark both farms were located
in Holstebro (Jutland). Table 1 gives characteristics of the
Danish and Dutch farms.
The first Dutch panel visited the conventional farm in the
morning and the organic farm in the afternoon, whereas the
second panel visited the organic farm first followed by the
conventional farm. Similarly in Denmark, the second panel
visited the farms in the reversed order of the first panel farm
visit. The aim of the reversed order of the visits was to avoid a
possible farm-effect. The visits were conducted in the winter
of 2009 in the Netherlands and in spring of 2010 in Denmark.
3.3. Citizen panels
A panel should preferable consist of eight respondents,
who live in a radius of about 60 km around the farms. In the
Netherlands, we approached possible participants for the
research with flyers in supermarkets and at the university, as
well as via personal networks of the researchers. Twenty-five
Table 1
Selected conventional and organic farms in the Netherlands (NL) and Denmark
(DK).
Farm characteristics Conventional Organic farm
farm
NL DK NL
Sows (#) 500 170 160
Fattening pigs (#) 8000 2200 1100
Pigs delivered (# per year) 18,000 5000 3100
Size of farm (ha) 49 90 13
Labour on the farm (FTE) 4 2 2.5
Other farm activities none none 5 ha of fruit
people responded of which 19 were selected on the basis of
age, gender, urbanisation degree of place of residence and
educational level to compose panels which represented a
variety in Dutch society. In Denmark, respondents were
approached in two ways. Firstly, people in the region of
Holstebro were randomly selected via Google maps in Viborg,
Holstebro and villages between the two cities. In total, 120
letters were sent, but only four people responded. Secondly, a
flyer was spread by e-mail and at the railway station and the
football club to approach younger people, which resulted in
five participants.
As such, the actual Danish panels consisted of five and four
respondents – seven less than intended – and the actual
Dutch panels consisted of nine and ten respondents — three
more than intended. One Danish and one Dutch respondent
did not return the selected pictures and motivation. These
respondents were not included in the analyses, which
resulted in 18 Dutch and 8 Danish respondents. In both
countries the age category of 20 to 40 years was overrepre-
sented as well as the higher education level, since 89% of
Dutch respondents and 50% of Danish respondents had a
Bachelor degree or higher (Table 2).
3.4. Data analysis
The aim of the analysis was to identify socio-cultural
themes, aspects and issues of pig production. A socio-cultural
aspect (SCA) was defined as an aspect of a livestock
production system which is mentioned by society as being
appreciated to preserve for the future (Boogaard et al., 2008).
A socio-cultural issue (SCI) is a socio-cultural aspect that
evokes concern and is either perceived negatively at present
time, or respondents express their concern about a SCA with
regard to developments in the future (Boogaard et al., 2008).
Socio-cultural aspects and issues which covered a common
topic were clustered into socio-cultural themes (SCT) of pig
production.
The data for the present study consisted of text docu-
ments. For analyses parts of the texts were labelled and
grouped with the ATLAS/ti 5.0 program(2009) which helps to
do the labelling and grouping in a structured and repeatable
Table 2
Panel composition in the Netherlands and Denmark.
Selection criteria The Netherlands Denmark
Number of citizens 18 8
(divided over two panels)
Gender (# female) 10 5
Urbanisation degree a (# urban) 13 7
Age distribution b (#) b 20 years 3 0
20–40 years 7 2
40–65 years 6 3
65 yearsN 2 3
Education level c (#higher education) 16 4
a
DK Based on respondents' residence. In the Netherlands categorised
according to RIVM (2007): Non- and slightly urbanised areas b1000 ad-
190 dresses/km2; Moderate to highly urbanised N 1000 addresses/km2 (CBS,
1000 2010). In Denmark: village b200 inhabitants; urban areas N 200 inhabitants
2300 (Danmarks Statistik, 2010).
160 b
According to Statistics Netherlands(CBS, 2009).
3 c
Higher educated equals Bachelor degree or higher; respectively 25.0% in the
none Netherlands (CBS, 2008) and 24.0% in Denmark (Danmarks Statistik, 2008).
 B.K. Boogaard et al. / Livestock Science 140 (2011) 189–200 193

way.1 The same Dutch researcher analysed the data of both Table 3
countries. The Danish texts were first translated into English Socio-cultural themes (SCT), aspects (SCA) and issues (SCI) of pig production
according to Dutch and Danish respondents.
by a Danish researcher and the Dutch texts were analysed in
Dutch. The method of analysis for the Dutch and Danish data Socio-cultural themes (SCT) Socio-cultural aspects (SCA)
was similar. We combined all answers – including hearing, (including 29 SCI's a)
smelling, seeing and feeling – of one respondent into one text 1. Meat production 1.1 Production system*
document2 and imported these text documents into Atlas/ti 1.2 Consumer awareness*
as ‘primary documents’ (PD). We imported the text docu- 1.3 Pigs for production*
2. Farming practices 2.1 Working conditions*
ments into one dataset – Hermaneutic Unit (HU) – of Atlas/ti. 2.2 Automation and mechanisation*
In total, the HU included 18 Dutch PDs (nr. 1 to 18) and 2.3 Hygiene and cleanness*
8 Danish PDs (nr. 19 to 26). 2.4 Farm management*
Analysis of both datasets consisted of two steps in Atlas/ti 2.5 Care for the animals*
2.6 The farmer*
(based on Boogaard et al., 2008): 1) to identify socio-cultural
3. Farm income 3.1 Financial profitability*
aspects and group these into socio-cultural themes, 2) to 3.2 Efficiency*
identify socio-cultural issues. In the first step we labelled 3.3 Economic conditions*
socio-cultural aspects in respondents’ texts with ‘codes’ in 4. Farm animals 4.1 Animal nutrition*
Atlas/ti. These ‘codes’ were adapted from the SCAs of a similar 4.2 Animal health*
4.3 Animal wellbeing*
study on dairy farming (Boogaard et al., 2008). When the texts 4.4 Animal behaviour*
entailed a new aspect of farming – which was not mentioned 4.5 Animal handling*
in dairy farming – we adjusted the name of the code or added 4.6 Animal transport*
new codes as SCAs. Thereafter, we grouped SCAs which 5. Housing system 5.1 Stocking density*
5.2 Freedom to move*
covered a similar topic into socio-cultural themes (SCT) and
5.3 Outside access*
composed an overview (see Table 3). This grouping was also 5.4 Distraction material*
done on the basis of the SCTs of the earlier study on dairy 5.5 Straw*
farming (Boogaard et al. 2008). Again, we adjusted or added a 5.6 Climate*
new SCT when necessary. The identification as well as the 5.7 Ventilation*
5.8 Daylight*
grouping of SCA's was a subjective process, in the sense that 5.9 Atmosphere in the sheds
we identified and grouped the SCA's on the basis of results of 6. Environment and nature 6.1 Environmental load*
earlier research on dairy farming, research experience and 6.2 Nature (only in Denmark)
relevant literature with the aim to compose a list of logical and 7. Culture and landscape 7.1 Farm characteristics
7.2 Countryside
understandable SCAs and SCTs. The categories of SCAs and
7.3 Nostalgia (only in Denmark)
SCTs are not mutually exclusive, but may overlap at times. 7.4 Landscape*
Hence, categories of SCAs and SCTs should not be considered a
Socio-cultural aspects marked with * were identified as socio-cultural
separately, but are related to each other. In the second step, we issues (SCI).
looked back at respondents' motivations to identify SCIs.
When respondents' appointed their perception as ‘negative’,
the SCA entailed a concern — a SCI. SCIs applies to all respondents, Dutch and Danish. Only when
explicitly mentioned otherwise, the results are applicable for
4. Results: Socio-cultural themes, aspects and issues of pig one of the country groups. In respondents' quotations, the
production code between brackets (e.g. NL13-c) refers to respondents'
nationality (NL = Dutch, DK = Danish), respondent number
To answer the four research questions we identified socio- (e.g. 13) and – if applicable – the farming system (c =
cultural themes (SCT), aspects (SCA) and issues (SCI) of pig conventional, o = organic). The section ends with respon-
production in the Netherlands and Denmark. We found seven dents' expectations and experiences of the farm visits.
SCTs of pig production, namely: 1) meat production, 2) farm-
ing activities, 3) farm income, 4) farm animals, 5) housing 4.1. Meat production
system, 6) environment and nature, and 7) culture and
landscape. Under these SCTs we identified 31 SCAs in the In general, respondents experienced three main concerns
Netherlands and 33 SCAs in Denmark (Table 3). Almost all (29 with regard to meat production. Firstly, respondents gave
of 33) SCAs entailed SCIs, which means that almost all aspects consideration to what would be the best way to keep pigs, i.e.
were a mixture of appreciations and concerns. Hence, one which type of production system (SCA 1.1). Secondly, several
aspect often had two faces — a positive and a negative one. In respondents considered their role as a consumer of pork (SCA
the following part of this paper, the description of SCAs and 1.2). And finally, some respondents considered whether
humans should keep pigs for meat production at all (SCA 1.3).
1
Atlas/ti facilitates the analysis of qualitative data by helping to create, All respondents mentioned something about the produc-
attach and group labels (‘codes’) to text documents. The labels, however, tion system (SCA 1.1). Most frequently, they compared the
still have to be created, attached and grouped by the researcher. Hence, the organic and the conventional system. In general, respondents
program does not perform the analysis — it merely helps to categorise (large expressed more concerns (SCI) about the conventional then
amounts of) texts.
2
We used the photographs as means to gain insight into people's
about the organic system. “It always has to be the maximum,
perception of pig production. We therefore did not analyse the pictures, but with all its consequences. In the end, the whole story is about the
instead we analysed the written motivation with the pictures. handling of animals…living beings! In my opinion something is
194 B.K. Boogaard et al. / Livestock Science 140 (2011) 189–200
going wrong in this field with (conventional) pig production”
(NL16-c). In general the organic farm was more appreciated. “[I
feel] happy, that there are people who breed and fatten pigs in
this [organic] way” (NL3-o). However, other respondents were
also concerned about the organic system. “[I feel] pessimistic. It
[the organic system] is still a kind of ‘bio-industry’, despite better
conditions.” (NL1-o).
Although we did not specifically address people in their
consumer role, the confrontation with real-life pig production
made respondents considering their consumption and pur-
chase behaviour (SCA 1.2). “Is this the price we pay for a chop
of meat as cheap as possible?” (NL7-c). Several respondents
were shocked by the conventional system (SCI): “Too much a
factory. Everything is very rationalised. We are moving away
from what is reasonable. In the future I'll feel bad eating
animals from such production systems” (DK22-c). The
conventional farm evoked feelings of guilt among respon-
dents. Some of them, however, mentioned that they actually
knew that pork is produced like this, but they still buy (the
cheapest) meat. Most respondents preferred the organic
system, as it reduced their feelings of guilt. “When I walk
around [on the organic farm], I realize that when you eat
organic meat, you should feel less guilty. I have the feeling
that the animals have good living circumstances, although
their life is short” (NL2-o). Danish respondents seemed to be
less shocked about pig production and suggested it was good
to raise more social awareness about the production of pork.
“We must have proteins — but it would be a good idea to tell
the story how the pork loin with crackling is produced.”
(DK21). The effect of the farm visits extended beyond
awareness-raising as some respondents considered shifting
from conventional to organic meat consumption.
Most respondents agreed that pigs may be used for human
consumption (SCA 1.3), but they were concerned about the
way pigs – as living beings – were treated in the contempo-
rary systems (SCI). “[I feel] sad and disappointed, because
actually it is not so much about the animals. But it is all about
the production of meat. I wonder mostly why and how
humans have become like this, that this is necessary” (NL6).
In addition, respondents were concerned about the short life
span of fattening pigs due to the production purpose. On the
other hand, a Danish respondent noted that pigs should not to
be treated like pets, because pets are not meant for human
consumption whereas pigs are “The farm was characterised
as a place where people work […] it is about production
animals, not pets” (DK24-o).
4.2. Farming practices
Respondents' main concerns with regard to farmers'
working conditions (SCA 2.1) were dust and ammonia smell
(SCI), which create an unpleasant and unhealthy working
environment. “I cannot imagine that this smell does not have
any influence on one's health. For the working conditions this
can be considered as a negative point” (NL2-c). Automation and
mechanisation (SCA 2.2) were mentioned by half of Dutch (9)
and half of Danish (4) respondents. Most respondents
evaluated developments like automatic feeding system, climate
control system, ventilation system and computer registration of
the animals positively as long as these contributed to higher
efficiency, increased animal health and welfare (see also SCT 4).
“[nice to see that modern systems are used for example for
feeding and pregnancy control” (NL15-c). In contrast respon-
dents were concerned about the noise of machines (SCI), as
these “really give you the feeling you are in a factory” (NL14-c).
For one respondent, automation could have been more: “I
thought it was a bit out-dated, probably things do not change
that fast on a pig farm.... I expected more modernization”
(NL2-c).
Fourteen Dutch and seven Danish respondents mentioned
something about hygiene and cleanness on the farm yard and
in the sheds (SCA 2.3). In general, clean and tidy sheds, pigs
and farm yards were appreciated, just as clean air and water
supply: “clean and nice everywhere — seems well organized”
(DK22-c). Dirty and dusty sheds, dirty troughs, flies, a messy
and untidy farm yard, and dirty pigs raised concerns (SCI).
“Many pens and troughs were extremely dirty. Up to a point
that it is not even acceptable for pigs anymore, which are not
averse to a bit of dirt” (NL13-o). Respondents associated
hygienic and clean farming practices with better conditions
for the animals and low risks of disease spreading to animals
and humans, whereas dirt was associated with unhygienic
food production and animal diseases. “Everywhere there are
spider webs and dust. People worry about the spread of
animal diseases, while the hygiene level looks poor” (NL1-c).
According to the participants, the level of hygiene depends
on the farm management (SCA 2.4), the way the farm and
(daily) activities are organised, including the animal man-
agement. Respondents appreciated a well-organised, well
thought-out, modern and structured way of working, such as
the registration of data of e.g. medicine use. “[I appreciated]
controlled production. Everything is recorded – feed, medi-
cine, caring – minimizing damage” (DK22-c). Respondents
expressed their concerns about farm management which was
considered (too) business-like with too little attention for the
animals (SCI). However, several respondents appreciated
efficient and modern management as it was considered to be
a necessity (see SCA 3.2 and 3.3).
Seven Dutch and three Danish respondents emphasised
the importance of ‘care’ for the animals (SCA 2.5). ‘Care’ was
translated with regular farmer–animal contact, checking for
ill and injured animals, treating and looking after ill animals,
paying special attention to the little piglets and talking with
love about the pigs. “[I feel] happy! You can tell by the
appearance of the animals that they are handled by the
farmer in a valuable way” (NL16-o). Respondents were
concerned about (too) much focus on production at the cost
of contact with and attention for the animals (SCI). “The
farmer told that at least once a day the animals were checked.
I think this is far too less. A ‘farmer’ should be in the shed and
look after his animals” (NL16-c).
Respondents appreciated many different aspects of the
farmers (SCA 2.6) such as hard working, well thought-out farm
management, continuous innovation, engagement with the farm,
their relaxed and open attitude, their hospitality, the pleasure in
and the commitment to their work. The farmers were described
as competent and sympathetic people and in general respon-
dents showed sympathy for the farmers. “You can hear that both
farmers are very dedicated to their work. They know their job and
like to tell about it” (DK20). However, respondents were
concerned about the fact that the farmers were production and
money oriented, distant and hard towards (ill) animals, and that
 B.K. Boogaard et al. / Livestock Science 140 (2011) 189–200
they had become businessmen and managers with little love for
the animals (SCI).
4.3. Farm income
Respondents emphasised the importance of farmers' income
(SCA 3.1), a farm should be financially profitable and give
sufficient income to the farmer (SCI). “Money-making is of course
one of the most important goals. […] Money is for both farmers
very important; the organic farmer also did not only farm from an
ideological perspective.” (NL2). Several respondents mentioned
that in order to gain sufficient income, farmers have to produce as
efficiently as possible (SCA 3.2). “[I appreciated that] it is a
business that is driven with high expertise. That controls
everything because it is about being profitable” (DK19-c). With
regard to economic conditions (SCA 3.3), a few respondents
expressed their concerns about the pressure of the market, which
demands for high efficiency and low costs (SCI). “The harsh
reality is that a farmer has to survive in financial circumstances
which are getting more difficult. Therefore it is important that he
manages his farm in an efficient way” (NL4-c).
4.4. Farm animals
All respondents addressed at least one of the following
aspects: animal nutrition (SCA 4.1), animal health (SCA 4.2),
animal wellbeing (SCA 4.3), animal behaviour (SCA 4.4),
animal handling (SCA 4.5) and animal transport (SCA 4.6).
With regard to animal nutrition (SCA 4.1), the most
important issue was natural feed. According to the re-
spondents, natural feed referred to feed of vegetable origin,
sow's milk instead of milk powder, varied feed, and unlimited
access so that the pigs can eat whenever they want. In
Denmark it was also appreciated that the feed was produced
on farm. Respondents were concerned about unvaried feed,
dirt in the feeding troughs and little space around the
drinking water (SCI). “The feed consists of pellets. Is there
no natural alternative?” (NL1-o).
Respondents mentioned the importance of healthy ani-
mals (SCA 4.2). Several concerns were animal-based as
respondents were shocked about the large number of injured
and ill animals (SCI). “This is for sure the worst I have seen
today. It was really awful that there was a whole pen with
pigs with bleeding or inflamed ears” (NL13-c). Other
concerns about health were resource-based as respondents
associated limited possibilities to move (see SCA 5.2) and
dusty air (see SCA 5.7) with unhealthy situations (SCI).
Hence, they appreciated fresh air, daylight and freedom to
move, for the benefit of the pigs' health. “I think it is very
positive that the pigs can go outside. I think this is very
important for the health of the pigs” (NL5-c). In order to
maintain healthy animals, respondents appreciated treat-
ment of ill animals with medicines, vaccinations, and the
controlled use of penicillin and antibiotics. “Disease cannot be
totally avoided. [I appreciated that] ill animals are isolated
and treated. Medicine use is recorded” (DK20-c).
Fifteen Dutch and all Danish respondents mentioned
something about animal wellbeing (SCA 4.3). With ‘animal
wellbeing’ we mean the subjective observation of respon-
dents how well the animals are doing. It is a resultant of many
other aspects and in general respondents referred to ‘happy
195
pigs’, which they described as satisfied, calm, relaxed, curious,
grunting and running pigs. “[I feel] good and happy. The
animals look healthy, good body, beautiful, steady on their
feet, attentive, satisfied, and no injuries” (NL10-o) and “It
seems like the pigs are comfortable and make ‘happy’ sounds.
Pigs should make pig sounds and run around” (DK19-o). On
the other hand, poor animal wellbeing was associated with
scared, stressed and injured animals (SCI). “I believe that pigs
are relatively intelligent animals which can experience
feelings like pain and fear” (NL4-c) and “Pigs are intelligent
animals. It is okay that we keep them for their meat. But their
life should be free from suffering. To my feeling, it [the
conventional farm] crosses a border here” (NL19-c).
Seventeen Dutch and seven Danish respondents mentioned
something about the way the pigs behaved (SCA 4.4). The
possibility to express natural behaviour was the most important
issue surrounding animal behaviour. Natural behaviour referred
to the freedom to move around, the possibility to go outside in
the pasture, to root, to play, to sleep in a natural rhythm, to lie in
the mud and to give parental care. The latter mainly applied to
Denmark. “Perfect. It is possible to make a mud puddle in the
summer, then the animals can caper around in agreement with
their nature […] Nice to see parental care working, the sow and
piglets enjoy it obviously” (DK22-o). Hence, respondents
appreciated such natural behaviours. “[I appreciated that] a
part of the pigs (sows) could go into the pasture and thus had the
disposal of real grass and real mud” (NL4-o). On the other hand,
respondents were concerned about unnatural situations and
behaviour such as boredom, tail biting, fighting and squeezing of
the piglets by the sow (SCI).
Respondents in both countries expressed their concern
about the ways the pigs were handled (SCA 4.5), particularly
about tail docking, castration, ear tagging, and the use of nose
rings (SCI). The latter applied only to Denmark. Respondents'
reactions to castration and tail docking ranged from ‘being
disappointed’ to ‘being shocked’: “[I feel] disappointed […]
about the mechanical treatment of the animals” (NL1-c) and
“I thought it was very miserable to see […] the castration and
tail docking of the piglets. The screaming, cutting, blood and
shaking piglets gave me a bad feeling. But it was good that the
piglets received anaesthetics” (NL8-c). And as the latter
quotation illustrated, Dutch respondents appreciated that
castration and tail docking was done with anaesthetics.
However, most respondents preferred pigs with curly tails:
“Happy pigs with no tail docking” (DK19-o).
There were little comments on animal transport (SCA 4.6),
only one Dutch and two Danish respondents mentioned this
issue. Their main concern was the long transport time for export
(SCI). However, animal transport was not visible during the farm
visits. Despite the small amount of comments, animal transport
should therefore not be interpreted as a non-issue.
4.5. Housing system
All 26 respondents mentioned issues surrounding the
housing systems, such as stocking rate (SCA 5.1), freedom to
move (SCA 5.2), outside access (SCA 5.3), distraction material
(SCA 5.4), straw (SCA 5.5), climate (SCA 5.6), ventilation (SCA
5.7), daylight (SCA 5.8) and atmosphere in the shed (SCA 5.9).
Stocking rate (SCA 5.1) was one of the main issues and
people were concerned about the lack of space for the animals
196 B.K. Boogaard et al. / Livestock Science 140 (2011) 189–200
(SCI). These concerns mainly applied to sows and fattening
pigs, particularly in the conventional system, but also in the
organic system. “[I am concerned about the fattening pigs].
Very densely packed, animal unfriendly” (NL9-c) and “[I feel]
discomfort because [there are] too many pigs in too little
space, more production less welfare” (DK21-c). By contrast,
respondents appreciated sufficient space. However, there
were very few situations in which the stocking density was
considered acceptable. The pigs in the fields on the Danish
organic farm were considered to have sufficient space. “There
was a lot of space for single pigs, especially boars, sows and
piglets, because they were out on paddocks” (DK23-o).
Stocking rate was closely related to the freedom to move
(SCA 5.2). Respondents strongest concerns were limited (or
no) possibilities to move around, limited freedom, no
possibilities to withdraw from the group (seek shelter),
limited possibilities to lay down (SCI). “They cannot move
because they are trapped on so little space” (DK19-c). In the
Netherlands, respondents were particularly concerned about
the fixed sows (SCI). “For weeks, the sows lie in this ‘cuirass’
without any possibility to move” (NL11-c) and “Squeezed,
little room to move, poor mother sow, jammed, little humane,
little natural animal-like” (NL7-c). By contrast, respondents
appreciated possibilities to move around particularly for the
sows and piglets. Respondents wanted spacious farrowing
pens and unfixed sows, and the freedom for the animals to
choose to go in- or outside (see also SCA 5.2) “[I feel] happy,
the pigs have room for movement; they are playing outside
and are very curious” (DK26-o).
In addition, all 26 respondents mentioned something about
outside access (SCA 5.3). Dutch and Danish respondents
appreciated the possibility for the pigs to go outside, because
this was considered to be a (more) natural environment
(compared to inside) and gave the pigs the freedom to move
(see SCA 5.2), fresh air (see SCA 5.7) and daylight (see SCA 5.8).
“It [sows in the fields] was my favourite experience. The sow
could be in groups and later take care of their offspring. These
conditions should be standardized” (DK26-o). Moreover, pigs
in the field – particularly on the organic farm in Denmark –
were appreciated because these contributed to the rural
landscape (see also SCA 7.4). “[I see] pigs in the pasture,
relaxed behaviour, nice image: animals outside” (NL7-o). On
the contrary, respondents were concerned about pigs which
were kept inside their whole life (SCI). However, respondents
also put some demands to the outside access and expressed
their concerns about concrete outside floors – instead of grass
and mud –, the limited size of the outside areas and the limited
periods in the fields. “[This is] not really outside. Although the
pigs can go outside, they do not really go into the pasture on the
organic farm. I had expected that the pigs could run around on
the grass, instead of a concrete outside space” (NL15-o).
Respondents were concerned about bare pens and the
absence – or insufficient – play elements for the pigs, because
this was considered to be unnatural (SCI). “The piglets grow
up in a bare pen, where they receive the same feed every day.
The environment is everything but natural and it seems like
there is nothing that gives any kind of distraction” (NL4-c).
Hence, most respondents appreciated distraction material for
the pigs (SCA 5.4), because the supply of play elements in the
form of ropes, chains, jerry cans and straw (see SCA 5.5)
reduces boredom among the pigs. “It was encouraging that
the chains were there and to see these were used by the pigs.
It makes the pens a bit more interesting” (DK23-c). However,
there was variation in the respondents' opinions to what
extend there was ‘sufficient’ distraction material. For some
the current situation on the conventional farm sufficed
whereas for others the elements were insufficient “A chain
with a ball for the fattening pigs to play with. It could be a bit
more, but the intention is good” (NL15-c).
Fourteen Dutch and four Danish respondents mentioned
straw (SCA 5.5). The presence of straw was appreciated
because it contributes to a more natural environment, gives
the possibility to play, and creates soft bedding (instead of
concrete). “[I smell] straw, [that is] more natural compared to
only concrete floors” (NL1-o). Moreover, straw was consid-
ered to reduce ammonia smell in the sheds, give variation in
feed, and contribute to less ‘dirty’ animals. By contrast,
respondents were concerned about the absence of straw,
based on similar arguments (SCI). “Some of the pens had only
concrete floors, which give maybe a draft and is hard to lie on
for the pigs. There was no straw or something comfortable to
lie on in the pen” (DK23-c).
Respondents appreciated controlled climate in the sheds
(SCA 5.6). In general, a ‘good climate’ entailed controlled
temperature; neither too hot nor too cold. “In my opinion the
best thing on this [conventional] farm was the climate
regulation, both in summer and winter it can be perfectly
adjusted, which of course is very nice for the pigs” (NL13-c).
Respondents in Denmark therefore appreciated a sprinkler
system or mud pools to cool down. “In the shed the climate
was very good, with an efficient climate control system; the
air wasn't thick or filled with dust, but good air refreshment.
[…] [There was] a sprinkler system to cool the pigs if the pen
became too hot” (DK23-c). In addition, they appreciated
possibilities for the animals to warm up such as warm places
with a heat lamp for new-born piglets and ‘sleeping huts’ for
the fattening pigs. Respondents' concerns (SCI) related to too
high or too low temperatures in the sheds, draught and
limited fresh air (see SCA 5.7) “Despite a climate regulation
system the temperature in several pens was far too high for
the pigs!” (NL14-c).
In addition to a good temperature, respondents stressed
the importance of fresh air and ventilation (SCA 5.7) for a
good and natural living environment and as compensation for
not going outside. Good ventilation provided fresh and clean
air without dust and little ammonia smell. On the conven-
tional as well as on the organic farm respondents were
concerned about limited ventilation, stale and dusty air,
strong ammonia smell, and closed windows (SCI). “From the
intense smell, one can conclude that this pen is not ventilated
properly […]. I don't know if it bothers the pigs, but at least it
is a very unnatural situation” (NL4-c).
Seven Dutch and one Danish respondent mentioned the
importance of daylight (SCA 5.8). The presence of daylight
through windows in the sheds or outside access was highly
appreciated as it was considered to be more natural and to
contribute to the animals' health. “Daylight is simply very
important. It is also important for humans, so I assume it is also
important for pigs” (NL5-c). The absence of daylight raised
concerns about the darkness of the pigs living environment
(SCI). “The pigs never see real daylight in their entire life. They
are really locked up in a dark pen” (NL15-c).
 B.K. Boogaard et al. / Livestock Science 140 (2011) 189–200
Finally, seven Dutch and five Danish respondents men-
tioned the atmosphere in the sheds (SCA 5.9). They
emphasised the importance of a relaxed, quiet and peaceful
atmosphere in the sheds with calm animals. “I feel peace and
quiet. I expected a lot of noise, but despite the large number of
animals the atmosphere was quiet” (NL14-o). Their main
concern was unrest among the animals (SCI).
4.6. Environment and nature
Eight Dutch and three Danish respondents mentioned
issues surrounding the environmental load (SCA 6.1) of pig
production. Their main concerns related to environmental
pollution due to manure storage and surplus, gas emissions,
ammonia smell, soil degradation and nutrient leaching to the
groundwater (SCI). “The smell is terrible. Emissions of
greenhouse gasses are harmful to the environment and
human health” (NL2-o). Respondents appreciated when
farmers met the environmental requirements, recycled
organic manure, used organic soap, and had an efficient or
low energy use. “The pen is warmed by making use of the
body warmth of the animals, without the use of fuel.
Sustainable!” (NL1-o).
Nature (SCA 6.2) was only mentioned in Denmark and
moreover it was associated with only appreciations — there
were no concerns. Danish respondents appreciated pigs in the
fields, flowers, grass, trees and birds, because these are
considered as part of Danish nature. “[I see] trees and grass.
We are in nature.” (DK22-o).
4.7. Culture and landscape
Respondents mentioned farm characteristics (SCA 7.1) such
as farm life, pig sounds and farm smell. They appreciated these
characteristics as these are typical for pig production. The
appreciation of manure smell varied, depending on the intensity.
“[I smell] manure. It belongs to the farm and you get used to it
after a while. It's the smell of the real country life” (NL2-c).
Similarly, the countryside (SCA 7.2) resulted in only apprecia-
tions and no concerns. “We are in the countryside with nature
sounds like cock-crow and hen sounds. These are the sounds
there should be in the countryside. Animal sounds are
predominant instead of human sounds” (DK19-o). Respondents
appreciated the birds, crops, plants, fields and sounds of the
countryside as contrast to life in the city and as contributors to
wellbeing for (city) people. “I hear countryside sounds. I am
outside and hear birds, far away a tractor, and vaguely the sounds
of the pigs inside. I experience this positively, due to the
association with space and the absence of ‘city sounds’ (a lot of
people, traffic, etc.)” (NL6-c). In Denmark, four respondents
experienced nostalgia (SCA 7.3) due to the barns and straw smell.
Again this experience resulted in only appreciations as these
evoked memories of their childhood. “[I smell] the barns and
straw. It reminds me of childhood holidays in the countryside”
(DK19-o).
We asked the respondents if they considered pig produc-
tion as a part of the Dutch or Danish rural landscape (SCA 7.4).
All Danish respondents agreed but several Dutch respondents
disagreed, giving the argumentation that pigs are not part of
the Dutch landscape – because cows, chicken and sheep are –
and that pigs in the sheds do not add value to the landscape.
197
Dutch and Danish respondents who agreed, explained their
answer with two types of reasoning:
1) arguments that related to pork consumption and
2) arguments that related to landscape aesthetics.
With regard to first, pig production was considered as an
accepted phenomenon in the landscape for pork production
(in NL), it was better to produce and control pig production
here than elsewhere (in NL), and pig farms are needed to
inform people about the way pork is produced (in DK). With
regard to the second, pig production was considered to fit in
the landscape (in NL and DK), people would miss it when it
would disappear (in NL), it was nice to look at pigs in the fields
(in NL and DK), and pig production was part of farming culture
(in DK). “We are a farming country and Denmark has a good
environment for farming. If you want forest and mountains, go
to Sweden or Norway. We have to be progressive in organic
and conventional farming” (DK23). In addition, several Dutch
respondents used ‘yes, but’-arguments, meaning that pig
production would be accepted in the landscape if it fulfilled
certain conditions such as: if there is a demand for pork, if the
surrounding land is used to grow crops or animal feed, if more
pigs are in the fields, if the pigs are visible for the general
public, and if it does not become too large-scale. “Yes, but only
in the direction of organic farming, and just like the cows
which are returning in the landscape, it should be for pigs.
Factory-like pig farms should not be added” (NL10).
4.8. Expectations vs. reality
Twelve Dutch and five Danish respondents said their
opinion about pig production changed due to the farm visits.
This change varied between respondents, it could be an
increase or reduction of concerns. Several respondents were
seriously shocked about the circumstances on the conven-
tional farm. “The first farm [conventional] was actually a
gruesome experience, without daylight, little space, etc. This
will be on my mind for a while” (NL4-c). Most disappoint-
ments concerned the limited attention to pig welfare in the
conventional system: “It was confirmed; pig production is a
business and in the conventional production system is there
no room for animal welfare” (DK21-c).
On the other hand, the farm visits had a reassuring effect
on some respondents. In the sense that there was more
attention for animal welfare than expected and the farmer
was committed to his farm. “[I feel] reassured. This entrepre-
neur has implemented his vision towards animal friendliness
(organic meat) quite far in the production process (from sow
to slaughter). The pigs have space and the living conditions are
fine” (NL14-o).
Finally, several respondents mentioned that the difference
between conventional and organic farming systems became
clearer due to the visits. In general, Danish and Dutch
respondents were more positive about organic pig production
compared to conventional pig production after the visits.
“Actually, my only point of reference was the television. I did
not grow up near farms. I knew in advance that I am a
supporter of organic farming and that hasn't changed”
(NL2-o).
198 B.K. Boogaard et al. / Livestock Science 140 (2011) 189–200
5. Discussion and conclusions
5.1. Reflection on the study
Results from this qualitative study were derived from four
citizen panels with in total 18 Dutch and eight Danish
respondents. Due to the limited number of respondents and
the fact that highly educated people were overrepresented in
the panels, the present study cannot be considered as
representative for Dutch and Danish society and one should
be careful to extend the findings to national levels. The list of
socio-cultural issues and aspects might have become longer
when more respondents would have been included. There-
fore, more panel studies and quantitative follow-up studies
should be carried out. Besides, though the Dutch and Danish
farms visited represented conventional and organic farming
systems, they differed slightly between countries. These
differences are confounded with cultural differences between
countries. Moreover, the Danish and Dutch farm visits
occurred in different seasons and included different farmers.
There might be a farmer- or season-effect in the findings.
Despite these shortcomings of the study – which gives it an
explorative character – the study shows clearly that re-
spondents in both countries see a range of values and
concerns in pig production systems.
The present study was a follow-up study of farm visits to
dairy farms (Boogaard et al., 2008). We identified five major
differences between the results of both studies:
1) Pig production showed fewer socio-cultural themes com-
pared to the study on dairy production, respectively seven
and ten, and pig production raised fewer issues about farming
culture, regional identity, and services for society than dairy
production. This might be explained by the fact that pigs – at
least in the Netherlands – are less visible in the landscape,
whereas cows are highly visible and strongly associated with
agriculture (Frerichs and De Wijs, 2002).
2) Pig production raised more issues concerning animal
welfare, such as animals' naturalness, physical and mental
pig wellbeing, farmer–animal contact, animal health, and
type of housing systems. This may be explained by the fact
that on pig farms people were confronted with animal
suffering (e.g. densely packed, ill and injured animals),
whereas on dairy farms the animals seemed to suffer less.
3) Almost all SCAs in pig production entailed a SCI, i.e. almost
all aspects in pig production raised concerns, which was
not the case with dairy farming.
4) In pig production, respondents showed different ways of
responding to the same phenomenon, particularly with
regard to the housing system. Although all respondents
were concerned about the stocking density and limited
freedom for pigs to move around and many respondents
emphasised the importance of daylight, space, fresh air and
distraction material, respondents varied in their opinion how
‘sufficient’ should be defined concerning daylight, fresh air,
etc.
5) People responded with stronger emotions and concerns
about pig production. These reactions mostly applied to pig
welfare on the conventional farms, in the sense that the farm
visits either showed that the actual situation was even worse
than people had expected or confirmed people's prejudices
that the economic interest is placed above pig welfare.
Consequently, several respondents took their personal pork
consumer behaviour into consideration. This did not occur for
milk consumption after the dairy farm visits.
5.2. Dilemmas in pig production
The present paper identified social concerns and appreci-
ations of pig production on the basis of real life experiences. As
expected, respondents mentioned more issues than animal
welfare, such as the environmental impact of pig production,
farmers' income and working conditions. Nevertheless,
animal welfare was one of the most important and frequently
mentioned concerns. The present study showed that re-
spondents addressed many issues concerning ‘naturalness’
such as a natural living environment, natural feed and the
possibility to show natural behaviour — such a parental care
and rooting. Hence, ‘good’ pig welfare from respondents'
perspective was associated with animals' naturalness. This
finding is supported by earlier studies on lay people's
perception of animal welfare (Fraser, 2008; Lassen et al.,
2006; Verbeke, 2009). In addition, the present study showed
in line with Vanhonacker et al. (2010) that citizens were also
concerned about physical (healthy pigs, no injuries, good
treatment of ill pigs and low medicine use) and mental
(relaxed, curious and playing pigs with curly tails) wellbeing
of the pigs. Farmers played a crucial role in this, because they
were held responsible for the treatment of (ill) pigs and the
frequency of farmer–animal contact.
People's appreciations and concerns of animal farming can be
conflicting. Earlier studies on social perceptions of animal
farming showed that citizens can experience such conflicts as
dilemmas, resulting in ambivalence towards contemporary
animal farming (Boogaard et al., 2010b). In the present study,
people also experienced dilemmas. On the one hand, respon-
dents strongly emphasised the importance of animals' natural-
ness in pig production, referring to as little human interference as
possible. As such, pig production reflects ‘naturality’ referring to
“farming's interactions with nature, animals and the soil but also
through its dependence on nature” (Boogaard et al., 2010a:
p. 34). But on the other hand, respondents appreciated certain
aspects of modernity – such as hygienic farming practices,
efficiency and high production – because these make pork
affordable and represent technological innovations able to
contribute to animal welfare, e.g. climate control and sprinkler
systems. This reflects ‘modernity’ in pig production; “a continu-
ing process of rationalization, searching for the most productive
and efficient farming systems by making use of high levels of
technology” (Boogaard et al., 2010a: p. 34). As such, respondents
experienced a dilemma in pig production between modernity
and naturality and they are seriously concerned that contempo-
rary pig production circumstances are too much focused on
production and efficiency – part of modernity – at the cost of
naturality.
Besides, the present study showed that after the farm visits
several people experienced a dilemma between their role as a
citizen and as a consumer. As citizens, people expressed their
concern that the production system is organised to produce
meat as efficiently as possible. But at the same time they
realised that the production system was like this due to their
consumer behaviour, which for some panel members resulted
 B.K. Boogaard et al. / Livestock Science 140 (2011) 189–200
in feelings of guilt. Several people dealt with this feeling by
using coping strategies such as dissonance reduction, detach-
ment and shifting responsibilities (Te Velde et al., 2002).
During the visits several respondents made use of dissonance
reduction; they used other arguments to justify their
behaviour, with arguments like “We all need to have proteins”
(DK21). However, Danish respondents seemed to keep
themselves less responsible for the pig production system
compared to Dutch participants. Lassen et al. (2006) stated
that Danish citizens blame the economic environment, which
forced farmers to produce in an efficient way.
5.3. Socio-cultural sustainability of pig production
The objective of the present study was to gain further
insights into socio-cultural sustainability of animal production
systems by identifying social concerns and appreciations of
pig production systems. Sustainability is a culturally defined
concept which is space and time specific (Brown et al., 1987;
Dahlberg, 1988; Fresco and Kroonenberg, 1992; Giddings et
al., 2002; Roe, 1996; Shearman, 1990). The context depen-
dency of sustainable development is of particular importance
when it comes to socio-cultural sustainability, because this is
defined by social perceptions and values which are time and
place specific. The present study identified seven socio-
cultural themes of pig production which in general showed
that citizens are concerned about overexploitation of animals
in contemporary pig production systems, mostly expressed in
concerns about the housing system and the animals – such as
injured pigs, castration, tail docking, limited possibilities to
express natural behaviour, limited space, limited outside
access, limited playing elements, limited daylight, and limited
fresh air – but at the same time they appreciated the
dynamism of a pig farm, referring to modernity in terms of
efficient production, technological innovations, hygienic and
clean farming practices and entrepreneurial principles. To
justify pig production within society, it is necessary to
integrate such social concerns and values in the production
systems (Verbeke et al., 2010) – particularly in the design of
new production systems – and legislations.
Considering the fact that social concerns may differ between
people and countries, there are two recommendations for future
research to deepen the understanding of socio-cultural sustain-
ability of animal production systems and underlying dilemmas.
The present study was explorative – particularly for Denmark
with eight respondents only– and the presented list with socio-
cultural aspects of pig production is not complete. It is therefore
interesting to conduct similar studies (farm visits with citizen
panels) in other regions and countries, for example in the UK and
Southern Europe. Secondly, it would be interesting to conduct
similar studies for other intensive farming systems, such as
poultry production.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the participating farmers for
their hospitality to receive the citizen panels on their farm and
show them around. In addition, the authors are very thankful
to Kristian Møllegaard Knage-Rasmussen, Inger Anneberg
Jakobsen and Mette Holme of the Department of Animal
Health and Bioscience of the University of Aarhus for their
199
help in organising the citizen panels and the visits in Denmark.
The Dutch part of the project was financed by the Animal
Production Systems Group of Wageningen University. The
Danish part of the project was financed by the research project
‘On-farm animal welfare assessment for farmers and author-
ities’ (2009–12).
References
Aarts, M.N.C., Te Velde, H., 2001. Eten, maar niet willen weten. In: Aarts, M.N.C.,
Hanning, C. (Eds.), Hoe oordelen we over de veehouderij? Rathenau
Instituut, Den Haag, the Netherlands.
ATLAS.ti, 2009. The QDA Software. http://www.atlasti.com/.
Beekman, V., 2003. Mensen, mensen, mensen. In: Dagevos, H., Sterrenberg, L.
(Eds.), Burgers en Consumenten; Tussen tweedeling en twee-eenheid.
Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands, pp. 85–95.
Bieleman, J., 1998. Boeren met machines. Het melkveehouderijbedrijf. In:
Schot, J.W., De la Bruhèze, A.A.A. (Eds.), Techniek in Nederland in de
twintigste eeuw. Stichting Historie der Techniek, Eindhoven, the
Netherlands, pp. 99–126.
Bio-Monitor, 2008. Cijfers en Trends Jaarrapport '08. Biologica, Bunnik, the
Netherlands.
Bock, B.B., Huik van, M.M., Prutzer, M., Kling Eveillard, F., Dockes, A., 2007.
Farmers' relationship with different animals: the importance of getting
close to the animals. Case studies of French, Swedish and Dutch cattle,
pig and poultry farmers. Int. J. Sociol. Food Agr. 15 (3), 108–125.
Boogaard, B.K., Oosting, S.J., Bock, B.B., 2006. Elements of societal perception
of farm animal welfare: a quantitative study in The Netherlands. Livest.
Sci. 104, 13–22.
Boogaard, B.K., Oosting, S.J., Bock, B.B., 2008. Defining sustainability as a
socio-cultural concept: citizen panels visiting dairy farms in the
Netherlands. Livest. Sci. 117, 24–33.
Boogaard, B.K., Bock, B.B., Oosting, S.J., Krogh, E., 2010a. Visiting a farm: an
exploratory study on the social construction of animal farming in
Norway and the Netherlands based on sensory perception. Int. J. Sociol.
Food Agr. 17 (1), 24–50.
Boogaard, B.K., Bock, B.B., Oosting, S.J., Wiskerke, J.S.C., Van der Zijpp, A.J.,
2010b. Social acceptance of dairy farming: the ambivalence between the
two faces of modernity. J. Agr. Environm. Ethic. (online first).
Brown, B.J., Hanson, M.E., Liverman, D.M., Meredeth Jr., R.W., 1987. Global
sustainability: toward definition. Environm. Manag. 11, 713–719.
Bryhni, E.A., Byrne, D.V., Rødbotten, M., Claudi-Magnussen, C., Agerhem, H.,
Johansson, M., Lea, P., Martens, M., 2002. Consumer perceptions of pork
in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Food Qual. Prefer. 13 (5), 257–266.
CBS, 2008. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Statistics Netherlands. Statline
2008. http://statline.cbs.nl/.
CBS, 2009. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Statistics Netherlands. Statline
2009. http://statline.cbs.nl/.
CBS, 2010. Stedelijkheid van een gebied. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek,
Statistics Netherlands. http://www.cbs.nl/.
Christensen, F., Jensenand, K.L., Christensen, T.S., 2008. Agriculture in
Denmark: Facts and Figures 2008. Danish Agriculture and Danish
Agricultural Council, Varde, Denmark.
Cloke, P., 2003. Country Visions. Pearson, Harlow, UK.
Cornelissen, A.M.G., 2003. Two Faces of Sustainability: Fuzzy Evaluation of
Sustainable Development. PhD-thesis, Wageningen University, Wagen-
ingen, the Netherlands.
Dagevos, H., Sterrenberg, L., 2003. Burgers en consumenten: tussen
tweedeling en twee-eenheid. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wagen-
ingen, the Netherlands.
Dahlberg, K.A., 1988. Ethical and value issues in international agricultural
research. Agr. Hum. Values. 5, 101–111.
Danmarks Statistik, 2008. Statistisk tiårsoversigt 2008.
Danmarks Statistik, 2010. Statistical Yearbook 2010. Copenhagen, Denmark.
Eurobarometer, 2005. Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed
animals. Special Eurobarometer 229. European Commission.
Eurostat, 2007. Consumption of Certain Foodstuffs per Inhabitant. http://epp.
eurostat.ec.europa.eu/.
Fauconnier, G., Van Woerkum, C.M.J., Marck, P., 1992. Beeldvorming over de
landbouw. CLEO, Heverlee, Belgium.
Fraser, D., 2008. Understanding Animal Welfare, the Science in Its Cultural
Context. UFAW, West Sussex, United Kingdom.
Frerichs, R., De Wijs, J., 2002. Opvattingen en meningen over het Nederlandse
platteland. The Dutch Institute for Public Opinion, Amsterdam, the
Netherlands.
Fresco, L.O., Kroonenberg, S.B., 1992. Time and spatial scales in ecological
sustainability. Land Use Policy. 9, 155–168.
200 B.K. Boogaard et al. / Livestock Science 140 (2011) 189–200
Frewer, L.J., Kole, A., Van de Kroon, S.M., De Lauwere, C., 2005. Consumer
attitudes towards the development of animal-friendly husbandry
systems. J. Agr. Environ. Ethics. 18, 345–367.
Frouws, J., 1998. The contested redefinition of the countryside. An analysis of
rural discourses in the Netherlands. Sociologia Ruralis 38, 21–68.
FVM, 2010. Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries. http://www.fvm.
dk/.
Giddings, B., Hopwood, B., O'Brien, G., 2002. Environment, economy and
society: fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustain.
Dev. 10, 187–196.
Hall, C., Sandilands, V., 2007. Public attitudes to the welfare of broiler
chickens. Anim. Welf. 16 (4), 499–512.
Hermansen, J.E., Sørensen, J.T., Kristensen, T., Hammershøj, M., Oudshorn, F.,
2008. Muligheder og barrierer i den økologiske husdyrproduktion.
Udvikling, vækst og integritet i den økologikse sektor Vidensyntese. Nr.
1, Nov 2008, ICROFS, pp. 153–186.
Hoste, R., Ducro, D., Bosma, B., 2007. Verkenning van economische en
foktechnische consequenties van georganiseerde fokkerij voor de
biologische varkenshouderij. Landbouw Economisch Instituut, Den
Haag, the Netherlands.
Kanis, E., Groen, A.F., De Greef, K.H., 2003. Societal concerns about pork and
pork production and their relationships to the production system. J. Agr.
Environ. Ethics. 16, 137–162.
Krystallis, A., Barcellos, de, M.D., Kügler, J.O., Verbeke, W., Grunert, K.G., 2009.
Attitudes of European citizens towards pig production systems. Livest.
Sci. 126, 46–56.
Lassen, J., Sandøe, P., Forkman, B., 2006. Happy pigs are dirty! — conflicting
perspectives on animal welfare. Livest. Sci. 103, 221–230.
McGlone, J.J., 2001. Farm animal welfare in the context of other society
issues: toward sustainable systems. Livest. Prod. Sci. 72, 75–81.
Meerburg, B.G., Korevaar, H., Haubenhofer, D.K., Blom-Zandstra, M., Keulen,
van, H., 2009. The changing role of agriculture in Dutch society. J. Agr. Sci.
147, 511–521.
Mollenhorst, H., 2005. How to House a Hen: Assessing Sustainable
Development of Egg Production Systems. PhD-thesis, Wageningen
University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Oosterkamp, E.B., Hoste, R., Puister, L.F., Goddijn, S.T., 2009. Concurrentiek-
racht biologisch varkensvlees. Een internationale vergelijking. Land-
bouw Economisch Instituut, Den Haag, The Netherlands.
PVE, 2010. Vee, Vlees en Eieren in Nederland 2010. De Productschappen Vee
Vlees en Eieren, Zoetermeer, the Netherlands.
RIVM, 2007. Nationale Atlas Volksgezondheid. Omgevingsadressendichtheid
1 januari 2006 per gemeente. http://www.rivm.nl/.
Roe, E.M., 1996. Sustainable development and cultural theory. Int. J. Sustain.
Dev. World Ecol. 3, 1–14.
Shearman, R., 1990. The meaning and ethics of sustainability. Environ.
Manag. 14, 1–8.
Sørensen, J.T., Fraser, D., 2010. On-farm welfare assessment for regulatory
purposes: issues and possible solutions. Livest. Sci. 131 (1), 1–7.
Te Velde, H., Aarts, N., Van Woerkum, C., 2002. Dealing with ambivalence:
farmers' and consumers' perceptions of animal welfare in livestock
breeding. J. Agr. Environ. Ethics. 15, 203–219.
Thomassen, M.A., 2008. Environmental Impact of Dairy Cattle Production
Systems: an Integral Assessment. PhD-thesis, Wageningen University,
Wageningen, the Netherlands.
United Nations, 2010. World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision
Population Database. http://esa.un.org/unpp.
Van Calker, K.J., 2005. Sustainability of Dutch Dairy Farming Systems: A
Modelling Approach. PhD-thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen,
the Netherlands.
Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., Tuyttens, F.A.M., 2008. Do
citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare
differently? Livest. Sci. 116, 126–136.
Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., Buijs, S., Tuyttens, F.A.M., 2009.
Societal concern related to stocking density, pen size and group size in
farm animal production. Livest. Sci. 123 (1), 16–22.
Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., Pieniak, Z., Nijs, G., Tuyttens, F.A.M.,
2010. The Concept of Farm Animal Welfare: Citizen Perceptions and
Stakeholder Opinion in Flanders, Belgium. J. Agr. Environ. Ethics. (online
first).
Verbeke, W., 2009. Stakeholders, citizens and consumer interest in farm
animal welfare. Anim. Welf. 18, 325–333.
Verbeke, W., Pérez-Cueto, F.J.A., de Barcellos, M.D., Krystallis, A., Grunert, K.G.,
2010. European citizen and consumer attitudes and preferences regarding
beef and pork. Meat Sci. 84, 284–292.
Weatherell, C., Tregear, A., Allinson, J., 2003. In search of the concerned
consumer: UK public perceptions of food, farming and buying local. J.
Rural Stud. 19, 233–244.
Wiskerke, J.S.C., 2009. On places lost and places regained: reflections on the
alternative food geography and sustainable regional development. Int.
Plan. Stud. 14 (4), 369–387.