- -

Factors affecting French rabbit farmers adoption of pro-welfare innovations

RiuNet: Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

Compartir/Enviar a

Citas

Estadísticas

  • Estadisticas de Uso

Factors affecting French rabbit farmers adoption of pro-welfare innovations

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Ficheros en el ítem

Thumbnail
Nombre: ChironDoreLamothe ...
Tamaño: 482.7Kb
Formato: PDF
Descripción: Versión editorial
Abrir
dc.contributor.author Chiron, Pierre es_ES
dc.contributor.author Doré, Antoine es_ES
dc.contributor.author Lamothe, Laurence Fortun es_ES
dc.date.accessioned 2023-01-11T10:58:36Z
dc.date.available 2023-01-11T10:58:36Z
dc.date.issued 2022-12-29
dc.identifier.issn 1257-5011
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10251/191225
dc.description.abstract [EN] 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. es_ES
dc.description.sponsorship This work was funded by the CLIPP, the Occitania Region, ERDF support (Living Lab Lapins project) and the INRAE (SANBA metaprogramme). We thank the members of the Living Lab Lapins consortium for testing the online questionnaire, and the CLIPP and FENALAP for distributing the online questionnaire to rabbit producer groups. We also thank the French rabbit farmers surveyed for their contribution to this work. es_ES
dc.language Inglés es_ES
dc.publisher Universitat Politècnica de València es_ES
dc.relation.ispartof World Rabbit Science es_ES
dc.rights Reconocimiento - No comercial - Compartir igual (by-nc-sa) es_ES
dc.subject Animal welfare es_ES
dc.subject Motivation es_ES
dc.subject Resistance es_ES
dc.subject Change es_ES
dc.subject Rabbit farmers es_ES
dc.title Factors affecting French rabbit farmers adoption of pro-welfare innovations es_ES
dc.type Artículo es_ES
dc.identifier.doi 10.4995/wrs.2022.17882
dc.rights.accessRights Abierto es_ES
dc.description.bibliographicCitation Chiron, P.; Doré, A.; Lamothe, LF. (2022). Factors affecting French rabbit farmers adoption of pro-welfare innovations. World Rabbit Science. 30(4):249-265. https://doi.org/10.4995/wrs.2022.17882 es_ES
dc.description.accrualMethod OJS es_ES
dc.relation.publisherversion https://doi.org/10.4995/wrs.2022.17882 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpinicio 249 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpfin 265 es_ES
dc.type.version info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion es_ES
dc.description.volume 30 es_ES
dc.description.issue 4 es_ES
dc.identifier.eissn 1989-8886
dc.relation.pasarela OJS\17882 es_ES
dc.contributor.funder European Regional Development Fund es_ES
dc.contributor.funder Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Francia es_ES
dc.contributor.funder Comité Lapin Interprofessionnel pour la Promotion des Produits Français es_ES
dc.description.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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references Darmon M., 2016. La socialisation. Armand Colin, Paris, France, 128. es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references de Singly F. 2020. L’exploitation du questionnaire. In: de Singly. (Dir.) Le questionnaire. Armand Colin. Malakoff, France, 88-122. es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references FENALAP. 2019. Enquête FENALAP Bilan 2019, Fédération Nationale des groupements de producteurs de lapins, Année 2019, Paris. es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references Hennessy T., O’Brien M. 2008. Is off-farm income driving on-farm investment? J. Farm Manage., 13: 235-246. es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references Jackson K., Bazeley P. 2019. Qualitative Data Analysis With Nvivo. SAGE Publications Ltd. 376. es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references Martin O. 2020. Concevoir et préparer les variables nécessaires à l’analyse. In: L’analyse quantitative des données. Armand Colin, Malakoff, France, 47-62. es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references Paillé, P. 1994. L’analyse par théorisation ancrée. Cahiers de recherche sociologique, 23,147-181. https://doi.org/10.7202/1002253ar es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references R Core Team. 2020. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references Rojek B. 2021. European Citizens’ Initiative: ‘End the cage age’. EPRS. June 2021, PE 690.636. es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES


Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem