12 pages., Via online journal., Policy makers and researchers foresee four investment strategies for conventional pig farmers in contested pork production regions: (1) continue with a cost-price reduction strategy through modernisation and scale enlargement; (2) convert to an intermediate market segment with higher requirements as to animal welfare and environment than conventional; (3) convert to a niche market segment with higher requirements as to animal welfare and environment than intermediate; or (4) quit farming. For policy makers, it is interesting to gain insight in intensive livestock farmer's perceptions regarding these investments and in processes of social interaction that influence farmer decision-making and the potential diffusion of investment strategies over time (Edwards-Jones, 2006). The aim of this explorative study is to analyse the effect of social interaction on diffusion of investment strategies in capital-intensive livestock production systems with groups of Dutch pig farmers, using a simulation game. The game is designed in such a way that contextual factors do not provide a limiting factor. Furthermore, the game is constructed to stimulate interaction and to trigger imagination of participants. Our main research questions for the analysis of the results of the game sessions were: (1) ‘what are differences in diffusion of investment strategies between sessions?’, and (2) ‘to what extent does social interaction affect diffusion of investment strategies?’ A total of seven sessions were played, with 4–8 pig farmers and/or participants who were affiliated to the sector as advisor or successor. All game sessions were video- and voice- recorded, and interaction between participants was transcribed per game session. First, differences in diffusion of investment strategies between sessions were explored. Second, the causes for differences in diffusion between sessions were explored, by looking at the type of investment strategy, communication between participants, and processes of influence. Special attention was given to the influence of opinion leadership. The results of this research show that (1) only investment strategies with a financial benefit did, under influence of social interaction, result in high adoption; (2) for high adoption to occur, communication between participants was necessary; (3) opinion leaders played an essential role in high adoption of investment strategies; and (4) there was a common understanding among participants that favoured scale enlargement. The gaming methodology triggered participants to communicate their tacit knowledge, i.e. assessment criteria that are important in real-life investment decisions, and to experiment with investment strategies.
12pgs, In the UK, the pig industry is leading the way in the adoption of welfare outcome measures as part of their farm assurance scheme. The welfare outcome assessment (WOA), known as Real Welfare, is conducted by the farmers’ own veterinary surgeon. For the first time, this has allowed the pig industry to evaluate welfare by directly assessing the animal itself and to document the welfare of the UK pig industry as a whole. Farmer perspectives of the addition of a welfare outcome assessment to their farm assurance scheme have yet to be explored. Here, we investigate how the introduction of the Real Welfare protocol has been perceived by the farmers involved, what value it has (if any), whether any practical changes on farm have been a direct consequence of Real Welfare and ultimately whether they consider that the welfare of their pigs has been improved by the introduction of the Real Welfare protocol. Semi-structured interviews with 15 English pig farmers were conducted to explore their perceptions and experiences of the Real Welfare process. Our findings fall into three key areas: the lived experience of Real Welfare, on-farm changes resulting from Real Welfare and suggested improvements to the Real Welfare process as it currently stands. In all the three areas, the value farmers placed on the addition of WOA appeared to reflect their veterinary surgeon's attitude towards the Real Welfare protocol. If the vet was engaged in the process and actively included the farmer, for example through discussion of their findings, the farmers interviewed had a greater appreciation of the benefits of Real Welfare themselves. It is recommended that future similar schemes should work with veterinary surgeons to ensure their understanding and engagement with the process, as well as identifying and promoting how the scheme will practically benefit individual farmers rather than assuming that they will be motivated to engage for the good of the industry alone. Retailers should be encouraged to use Real Welfare as a marketing tool for pig products to enhance the perceived commercial value of this protocol to farmers.
