Factors affecting French rabbit farmers’ adoption of pro-welfare innovations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4995/wrs.2022.17882Keywords:
animal welfare, motivation, resistance, change, rabbit farmersAbstract
Consumers are increasingly animal welfare-conscious and critical of indoor caged housing systems such as those used in rabbit farming, and Europe has committed to legislate a ban on caged animal farming. Research has evidenced several technical and economic drivers of system change or lock-in in the livestock sector. Here we study determinants, motivations and/or resistance to adoption of pro-welfare practices among French rabbit farmers. First, we held 31 exploratory interviews with rabbit farmers and then performed a thematic analysis on the interview transcripts. We then assessed French rabbit farmers’ receptivity to change, using questionnaires containing 83 variables addressing receptivity to change, technico-economic characterisation of the farms, professional situations, and the personal and professional life of the rabbit farmers. Receptivity to change was evaluated through two synthetic variables summarising pro-change practices (changes already made on-farm to housing, management, feeding, etc.) and interest in innovation (receptiveness to novelty and relationship with innovation) graded on a 3-point scale (low, moderate, high). We analysed effects of technico-economic and sociodemographic variables (social attributes, internal and external motivations) on interest in innovation and pro-change practices using Chi-square tests and Cramer’s V. We collected 78 full questionnaires, i.e. covering 10% of the French population of professional rabbit farmers. Results showed a link between interest in innovation and pro-change practices (P<0.001). Sociodemographic variables (33%, 21/63; P<0.05) rather than technico-economic variables (5%, 1/19; P<0.05) were linked to receptivity to change. Pro-change practices were more influenced by the variables capturing internal motivations (6/16, economic, technical, work facilitation, materialise the farmer’s interests) than external motivations (3/21, societal incentives, family group or social environment). The weight of the sociodemographic variables suggests that transition support systems should be thought out in terms of farmer attributes.
Downloads
References
Adam C. 2017. Étude des pratiques en antibiothérapie dans la filière poulet de chair Label Rouge. Doctoral dissertation. Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France. https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-03092261
Balogun S.K., Ojedokun O., Macaulay O.I. 2012. Psychological factors predicting risk-taking propensity of poultry farmers. Agrosearch, 12: 1-19. https://doi.org/10.4314/agrosh.v12i1.1
Billon P., Pomiès D. 2006. Robotic milking 15 years after its first implementation on commercial farms. In Proc.: 13e Rencontres Recherches Ruminants, December 2006. Paris, France, 1:143-150.
Borgen S.O., Skarstad G.A. 2007. Norwegian pig farmers’ motivations for improving animal welfare. Br. Food J., 109: 891-905. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700710835705
Borges J.A.R., de Faria Domingues C.H., Caldara F.R., da Rosa N.P., Senger I., Guidolin D.G.F. 2019. Identifying the factors impacting on farmers’ intention to adopt animal friendly practices. Prev. Vet. Med., 170: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.104718
Brown P., Roper S. 2017. Innovation and networks in New Zealand farming. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ., 61: 422-442. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12211
Chanvril-Ligneel F., Le Hay V. 2014. Méthodes statistiques pour les sciences sociales. Ellipses, Paris, France, 261 Chauvin C., Le Bouquin S., Sanders P. 2012. Usage des antibiotiques en filières porcine, avicole et cunicole en France. Résultats d’enquêtes. Bulletin Epidémiologique, ANSES, 53: 12-15. Available at https://hal-anses.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00751500 Accessed November 2022.
Clearfield F., Osgood B.T. 1986. Sociological aspects of the adoption of conservation practices. Soil Conservation Service staff paper, Washington, D.C. 1:16. https://doi.org/10.1037/e668232007-001
CLIPP interprofession du lapin. 2018. Plan de filière lapin 2018–2022. Comité Interprofessionnel du Lapin de chair. 2018. Paris, France, 1-24. Available at https://agriculture.gouv.fr/telecharger/88269 Accessed November 2022.
Commandeur M., Le Guen R., Dourmad J., Casabianca F. 2006. Diversity in pig farming styles in Brittany (France). An approach in Côtes d’Armor. In Proc: 38e Journées de la recherche porcine en France, 31 January-2 February, 2006. Paris, France. 1:247-254.
Couzy C., Dockes A. C. 2008. Are farmers businesspeople? Highlighting transformations in the profession of farmers in France. Int. J. Entrepreneurship Small Bus., 6: 407-420. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2008.019135
Croyle S.L., Belage E., Khosa D.K., LeBlanc S.J., Haley D.B., Kelton D.F. 2019. Dairy farmers’ expectations and receptivity regarding animal welfare advice: A focus group study. J. Dairy Sci., 102: 7385-7397. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15821
Darmon M., 2016. La socialisation. Armand Colin, Paris, France, 128.
de Greef K.H., Rommers J.M., Lavrijsen S. 2016. Market and society driven innovations in the Dutch rabbit production system. In Proc: 11th World Rabbit Congress, 15-18 June, 2016. Qingdao, China. 1:953-956.
de Greef K.H., Rommers J.M. 2021. The Dutch route to improve commercial rabbit welfare – rather collectively than by law. In Proc: 12th World Rabbit Congress, 3-5 November, 2021. Nantes, France. 1:1-4.
de Singly F. 2020. L’exploitation du questionnaire. In: de Singly. (Dir.) Le questionnaire. Armand Colin. Malakoff, France, 88-122.
Delanoue E., Dockès A.C., Chouteau A., Philibert A., Magdelaine P., Roguet C. 2017. Consumers and citizens’ opinions and expectations about livestock farming. A quantitative survey. In Proc: 49e Journées de la Recherche Porcine, 31 January-1 February, 2022. Paris, France. 1: 295-300.
Delanoue E., Dockes A.C., Chouteau A., Roguet C., Philibert A. 2018. Social acceptability of French livestock production: debated issues and controversies on livestock production, points of view of multiple stakeholders. INRA Prod. Anim., 31: 51-68. https://doi.org/10.20870/productionsanimales.2018.31.1.2203
Dockes A.C., Kling-Eveillard F. 2006. Farmers’ and advisers’ representations of animals and animal welfare. Livest. sci., 10: 243-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.012
Ducrot C., Adam C., Beaugrand F., Belloc C., Bluhm J., Chauvin C., Rousset N. 2018. Contribution of sociology to the study of the decrease of antimicrobial use on farms. INRA Prod. Anim, 31: 307-324. https://doi.org/10.20870/productionsanimales.2018.31.4.2395
Dufour A., Dedieu B. 2010. Conception of working time and organization in dairy farms. Cah. Agric., 19: 377-382. https://doi.org/10.1684/agr.2010.0422
EFSA AHAW Panel (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare), Saxmose Nielsen S., Alvarez J, Bicout D.J., Calistri P., Depner K., Drewe J.A., Garin-Bastuji B., Gonzales Rojas J.L., Gortazar Schmidt C., Michel V., Miranda Chueca M.A., Roberts H.C., Sihvonen L.H., Spoolder H., Stahl K., Velarde Calvo A., Viltrop A., Buijs S., Edwards S., Candiani D., Mosbach-Schulz O., Van der Stede Y., Winckler C. 2020. Scientific Opinion on the health and welfare of rabbits farmed in different production systems. EFSA J., 18: 1-96. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.5944
FENALAP. 2019. Enquête FENALAP Bilan 2019, Fédération Nationale des groupements de producteurs de lapins, Année 2019, Paris.
Fiorelli C., Porcher J., Dedieu B. 2014. Famille et élevage: sens et organisation du travail. In: Gasselin P., Choisis J-P., Petit S., Purseigle F., Zasser-Bedoya S. (Dir.) L’agriculture en famille: travailler, réinventer, transmettre, EDP Sciences INRA Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Les Ulis, France, 183-198. https://doi.org/10.1051/978-2-7598-1192-2.c011
Fortané N., Ducrot C., Paul M. 2019. Sociologie des usages d’antibiotiques en élevage avicole. In Proc: 13e Journées de la Recherche Avicole et Palmipèdes à Foie Gras, 20-21 March, 2019. Tours, France. 1: 5
Gomant F., Beddiar A. 2018. Etude sur l’image de la viande de lapin et de la filière cunicole en 2018. IFOP. July, 2018. 1-11.
Granjou C., Mauz I. 2009. Cattle farmers and their neighbours. Study of the new professional discourses of a contested profession. Rev. Agric. Environ. Stud., 90: 215-235. https://doi.org/10.3406/reae.2009.1969
Hansson H., Ferguson R., Olofsson C. 2012. Psychological constructs underlying farmers’ decisions to diversify or specialise their businesses–an application of theory of planned behaviour. J. Agric. Econ., 63: 465-482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2012.00344.x
Heezen J. 2020. End the cage age: Looking for alternatives. Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. November 2020, PE 658.539. Available at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/658539/IPOL_STU(2020)658539_EN.pdf Accessed November 2022.
Hennessy T., O’Brien M. 2008. Is off-farm income driving on-farm investment? J. Farm Manage., 13: 235-246.
Howley P., Donoghue C.O., Heanue K. 2012. Factors affecting farmers’ adoption of agricultural innovations: A panel data analysis of the use of artificial insemination among dairy farmers in Ireland. J. Agric. Sci., 4: 171-179. https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v4n6p171
Huang Y., Bréda J., Savietto D., Debrusse A.M., Bonnemère J.M., Gidenne T., Combes S., Fortun-Lamothe L. 2021. Effect of housing enrichment and type of flooring on the performance and behaviour of female rabbits. World Rabbit. Sci. 29: 275-285. https://doi.org/10.4995/wrs.2021.15848
Huang Y., Breda J., Savietto D., Debrusse A-M., Combes S., Fortun-Lamothe L. 2021. Part-time grouping of rabbit does in enriched housing: effects on performances, injury occurrence and enrichment use. Animal. 15: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100390
Ingrand S., Bardey H., Brossier J., Dedieu B., Degrange B., Lemery B., Pasdermadjian P. 2007. Flexibility of suckler cattle farms in the face of uncertainty within the beef industry: a proposed definition and an illustration. J. Agric. Educ. Ext., 13: 39-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/13892240601162098
Jacques-Jouvenot D. 2014. A novel hypothesis on suicide among livestock farmers: the relationship to professional knowledge. Etud. Rurales, 193: 45-60. https://doi.org/10.4000/etudesrurales.10006
Jackson K., Bazeley P. 2019. Qualitative Data Analysis With Nvivo. SAGE Publications Ltd. 376.
Lalaurette C., Cadudal F. 2019. Evaluation de la capacité d’adaptation des élevages cunicoles français aux mutations sociétales et économiques. ITAVI. September 2019. 1-52.
Le Bouquin S., Rouxel G., Mihoc E., Chauveau V., Terrade F., Chauvin C. 2013. Human factors and antibiotic use in rabbit production: A study of some psychological determinants. In Proc: 15e Journées de la Recherche Cunicole, 19-20 November, 2013. Le Mans, France. 1: 115-119.
Lemery B., Ingrand S., Dedieu B., Dégrange B. 2005. Beef cattle farmer’s strategies in the face of uncertainty. Econ. Rurale, 288: 57-69. https://doi.org/10.4000/economierurale.2718
Lepage F., Couderc J.P., Perrier J.P. 2014. Determinants of investment decisions in dairy farms. An approach using the governance theory. Econ. Rurale., 341: 6-24. https://doi.org/10.4000/economierurale.4301
Liu T., Bruins R.J., Heberling M.T. 2018. Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of best management practices: A review and synthesis. Sustainability, 10: 1-26. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020432
Lund V., Hemlin S., White J. 2004. Natural behavior, animal rights, or making money–A study of Swedish organic farmers’ view of animal Issues. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics, 17: 157-179. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JAGE.0000017393.31486.c2
Martin O. 2020. Concevoir et préparer les variables nécessaires à l’analyse. In: L’analyse quantitative des données. Armand Colin, Malakoff, France, 47-62.
Mathé S., Rey-Valette H., Chia E., Aubin J. Fontaine P. 2017. Determinants of fishfarmer aptitudes for eco-innovation related to ecological intensification. Examples from France and Brazil. Rev. Francaise Gest., 262: 51-64. https://doi.org/10.3166/rfg.2016.00083
Mbutu E. 2013. Factors influencing rabbit farming: A case of rabbit production project in Abothuguchi West Division, Meru County, Kenya. Doctoral dissertation. University of Nairobi. Nairobi, Kenya. http://hdl.handle.net/11295/63559
Michel-Guillou E., Weiss K. 2007. Representations and behaviours of farmers with regard to sustainable development: A psychoenvironmental approach. In: Larson A. B. (Ed.) Sustainable development research advances. Nova Science Publishers, Inc, New York, USA, 207-221.
Ndamani F., Watanabe T. 2016. Determinants of farmers’ adaptation to climate change: A micro level analysis in Ghana. Sci. Agric., 73: 201-208. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-9016-2015-0163
Nmadu J.N., Sallawu H., Omojeso B. V. 2015. Socio-economic factors affecting adoption of innovations by cocoa farmers in Ondo State, Nigeria. Eur. J. Manag. Bus. Econ., 3: 58-66.
Olina Bassala J.P., Dugué P., Granié A.M., Vunyingah M. 2015. Agricultural practices and farmer’s perceptions of using herbicides in familial farms in north-Cameroon area. Int. J. Adv. Stud. Res. Africa, 6: 94-107.
Owusu-Sekyere E., Hansson H., Telezhenko E. 2022. Use and non-use values to explain farmers’ motivation for the provision of animal welfare. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ., 49: 499-525. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbab012
Ozor N., Madukwe M. C. 2005. Obstacles to the adoption of improved rabbit technologies by small scale farmers in Nsukka Local Government Area of Enugu State. Agro. Sci., 4:70-73. https://doi.org/10.4314/as.v4i1.1527
Paillé, P. 1994. L’analyse par théorisation ancrée. Cahiers de recherche sociologique, 23,147-181. https://doi.org/10.7202/1002253ar
Paillé P., Mucchielli A. 2012. Chapitre 11 - L’analyse thématique. In: Paillé P., Mucchielli A. (Dir.) L’analyse qualitative en sciences humaines et sociales. Armand Colin, Paris, France, 231-314. https://doi.org/10.3917/arco.paill.2012.01
Prager K., Posthumus H. 2010. Socio-economic factors influencing farmers’ adoption of soil conservation practices in Europe. In: Napier T. L. (Ed.) Human Dimensions of Soil and Water Conservation: A Global Perspective (Agriculture Issues and Policies). Nova Science Pubishers, Inc. New York, USA, 203-223.
R Core Team. 2020. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org
Richardson M. 2005. À la recherche de savoirs perdus? Expérience, innovation et savoirs incorporés chez des agriculteurs biologiques au Québec. VertigO-la revue électronique en sciences de l’environnement, 6: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.4000/vertigo.2926
Rojek B. 2021. European Citizens’ Initiative: ‘End the cage age’. EPRS. June 2021, PE 690.636.
Rosell J.M., De la Fuente, L.F. 2009. Effect of footrests on the incidence of ulcerative pododermatitis in domestic rabbit does. Anim. Welf., 18:199-204.
Rosell J.M. De la Fuente L.F. 2013. Assessing ulcerative pododermatitis of breeding rabbits. Animals, 3: 318-326. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani3020318
Serem J.K., Wanyoike M.M., Gachuiri C.K., Mailu S.K., Gathumbi P.K., MwanzaR. N., Borter D.K. 2013. Characterization of rabbit production systems in Kenya. J. Agric. Sci. Appl., 2: 155-159. https://doi.org/10.14511/jasa.2013.020304
Singha A.K., Baruah M.J., Bordoloi R., Dutta P., Saikia U.S. 2012. Analysis on influencing factors of technology adoption of different land-based enterprises of farmers under diversified farming system. J. Agric. Sci., 4: 139-146. https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v4n2p139
Ume S.I., Ezeano C.I., Onwujiariri E.B. 2018. Effect of climate change on rabbit production and choice of adaptation coping strategies by smallholder farmers in Anambra State, Nigeria. Int. J. Innov. Agric. Sci, 2: 161-173.
Verburg R., Rahn E., Verweij P., Van Kuijk M., Ghazoul J. 2019. An innovation perspective to climate change adaptation in coffee systems. Environ. Sci. Policy, 97: 16-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.03.017
Wellbrock W., Oosting S.J., Bock B.B., Bela Njari B.A., Dobranić V. 2009. Low motivation and unawareness in small farmers as an obstacle for implementation of the EU pig welfare rules, Ital. J. Anim. Sci., 8: 199-201. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2009.s3.199
Wells A.E., Sneddon J., Lee J.A., Blache D. 2011. Farmer’s response to societal concerns about farm animal welfare: The case of mulesing. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics, 24: 645-658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9284-0
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Pierre Chiron, Antoine Doré, Laurence Fortun Lamothe
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This journal is licensed under a "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)".
