Farmers' Preferences Regarding the Design of Animal Welfare Programs: Insights from a Choice-Based Conjoint Study in Germany

Simple Summary Numerous animal welfare schemes have been developed aiming to improve animal welfare on a voluntary basis beyond legal regulations. The success of these schemes depends decisively on whether the design of these schemes is attractive to livestock farmers and, as a result, whether they are willing to participate and thus to implement the animal welfare measures regulated in these schemes. In this study, we investigated German livestock farmers' preferences regarding the design of animal welfare schemes with a choice experiment. Farmers were asked to select their most preferred alternative among animal welfare schemes that differed in the specifications of the following four attributes: basis for remuneration (i.e., type of animal welfare measures to be implemented), commitment period, funding agency and compensation level. The basis for remuneration and the compensation level had the greatest influence on farmers' decisions. The commitment period also affected farmers' decisions. Independent of the livestock species kept, farmers preferred animal health as basis for remuneration, the higher compensation level and the longer commitment period. These findings could be incorporated into the development and refinement of animal welfare programs to make them more attractive to farmers and thus increase their willingness to participate. As more animal welfare is required in livestock farming, several approaches have been developed to improve the well-being of farmed animals on a voluntary basis. Since farmers' acceptance is important for the success of these approaches, their preferences should be considered when developing farm animal welfare programs. We used choice based conjoint analysis to investigate the preferences of 242 German livestock farmers (147 cattle farmers; 95 pig farmers) regarding the design of farm animal welfare programs. The conditional logit regression models show that the measures serving as basis for remuneration and the compensation level were of decisive importance for the farmers' choices. The most preferred measure for assessing animal welfare, and thus as the basis for remuneration, was animal health. As expected, a higher compensation level led to greater acceptance of an animal welfare approach. The commitment period was only of subordinate importance with the longer commitment period being preferred. Our study outlines aspects of farm animal welfare programs that might encourage farmers to participate in these programs. Future programs could consider our findings by emphasising health parameters and by creating planning security through longer commitment periods and sufficiently high compensations for farmers' efforts to improve animal welfare.