Skip to main content Accessibility help

‘Would it sell more pork?’ Pig farmers’ perceptions of Real Welfare, the welfare outcome component of their farm assurance scheme

  • J. Hockenhull (a1), D. C. J. Main (a2) and S. Mullan (a1)


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.


Corresponding author


Hide All
Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board 2017. Real Welfare: baseline report 2013–2016 measuring welfare outcomes in pigs. Retrieved on 22 April 2017 from
Alberto, M 2007. Italian pig producers’ attitude toward animal welfare. British Food Journal 109, 870878.
Atkinson, DJ, von Keyserlingk, MAG and Weary, DM 2017. Benchmarking passive transfer of immunity and growth in dairy calves. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 37733782.
Atkinson, O 2010. Communication in farm animal practice 1. Farmer–vet relationships. In Practice 32, 114117.
Bard, AM, Main, DCJ, Haase, AM, Whay, HR, Roe, EJ and Reyher, KK 2017. The future of veterinary communication: partnership or persuasion? A qualitative investigation of veterinary communication in the pursuit of client behaviour change. PLoS ONE 12, e0171380.
Beattie, VE, Walker, N and Sneddon, IA 1995. Effects of environmental enrichment on behaviour and productivity of growing pigs. Animal Welfare 4, 207220.
Bergstra, T, Hogeveen, H, Erno Kuiper, W, Oude Lansink, AGJM and Stassen, EN 2017. Attitudes of Dutch citizens toward sow husbandry with regard to animals, humans, and the environment. Anthrozoös 30, 195211.
Bock, BB and van Huik, MM 2007. Animal welfare: the attitudes and behaviour of European pig farmers. British Food Journal 109, 931944.
Bracke, MBM 2007. Animal-based parameters are no panacea for on-farm monitoring of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16, 229231.
Brandt, P, Rousing, T, Herskin, MS, Olsen, EV and Aaslyng, MD 2017. Development of an index for the assessment of welfare of finishing pigs from farm to slaughter based on expert opinion. Livestock Science 198, 6571.
Carbone, L 2010. Expertise and advocacy in animal-welfare decision making: considerations for a veterinary curriculum in animal welfare. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 37, 3639.
Carmen, H, Michael, B and Guy, G 2007. Pig in the middle: farmers and the delivery of farm animal welfare standards. British Food Journal 109, 919930.
Clark, B, Frewer, JL, Panzone, AL and Stewart, BG 2017. The need for formal evidence synthesis in food policy: a case study of willingness-to-pay. Animals 7, 23. doi: 10.3390/ani7030023.
Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) 2018. Honest labelling. Retrieved on 11 March 2019 from
Cornish, A, Raubenheimer, D and McGreevy, P 2016. What we know about the public’s level of concern for farm animal welfare in food production in developed countries. Animals 6, 74. doi: 10.3390/ani6110074
de Snoo, GR, Lokhorst, AM, van Dijk, J, Staats, H and Munsters, CJM 2010. Benchmarking biodiversity performance of farmers. Aspects of Applied Biology 100, 311318.
Ellis, KA, Billington, K, McNeil, B and McKeegan, DEF 2009. Public opinion on UK milk marketing and dairy cow welfare. Animal Welfare 18, 267282.
European Union 2008. Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official Journal of the European Union. Retrieved on 22 April 2017 from
Hansen, F, Smith, M and Hansen, RB 2002. Rewards and recognition in employee motivation. Compensation & Benefits Review 34, 6472.
Hars, A and Ou, S 2002. Working for free? Motivations for participating in open-source projects. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 6, 2539.
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office 2003. The welfare of farmed animals (England) (Amendment) regulations. Retrieved on 22 April 2017 from
Hockenhull, J, Olmos, G, Whatford, L, Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Roderick, S and Buller, H 2014. The role of trusted individuals and the community in the effective communication of animal health and welfare research. Poster presented at the 6th International Conference on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level (WAFL) 3–5 September 2014, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Hubbard, C 2012. Do farm assurance schemes make a difference to animal welfare? Veterinary Record 170, 150.
Hubbard, C, Bourlakis, M and Garrod, G 2007. Pig in the middle: farmers and the delivery of farm animal welfare standards. British Food Journal 109, 919930.
Jansen, J and Lam, TJGM 2012. The role of communication in improving udder health. Veterinary Clinics: Food Animal Practice 28, 363379.
Labelling Matters 2011. Labelling Matters. Retrieved on 11 March 2019 from
Lassen, J, Sandøe, P and Forkman, B 2006. Happy pigs are dirty! – conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science 103, 221230.
Liu, N, Kaler, J, Ferguson, E, O’Kane, H and Green, LE 2018. Sheep farmers’ attitudes to farm inspections and the role of sanctions and rewards as motivation to reduce the prevalence of lameness. Animal Welfare 27, 6779.
Main, DCJ, Mullan, S, Atkinson, C, Bond, A, Cooper, M, Fraser, A and Browne, WJ 2012. Welfare outcomes assessment in laying hen farm assurance schemes. Animal Welfare 21, 389396.
Main, DCJ, Mullan, S, Atkinson, C, Cooper, M, Wrathall, JHM and Blokhuis, HJ 2014. Best practice framework for animal welfare certification schemes. Trends in Food Science & Technology 37, 127136.
Main, DCJ, Webster, AJF and Green, LE. 2001. Animal welfare assessment in farm assurance schemes. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A — Animal Science 51(sup030), 108113.
Mossop, L, Gray, C, Blaxter, A, Gardiner, A, MacEachern, K, Watson, P, Whittlestone, K and Robbé, I 2015. Communication skills training: what the vet schools are doing. Veterinary Record 176, 114117.
Mullan, S, Browne, WJ, Edwards, SA, Butterworth, A, Whay, HR and Main, DCJ 2009a. The effect of sampling strategy on the estimated prevalence of welfare outcome measures on finishing pig farms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119, 3948.
Mullan, S, Butterworth, A, Whay, HR, Edwards, S and Main, DCJ 2010. Consultation of pig farmers on the inclusion of some welfare outcome assessments within UK farm assurance. Veterinary Record 166, 678680.
Mullan, S, Edwards, SA, Butterworth, A, Ward, M, Whay, HR and Main, DCJ 2011a. Welfare science into practice: a successful case example of working with industry. Animal Welfare 20, 597601.
Mullan, S, Edwards, SA, Butterworth, A, Whay, HR and Main, DCJ. 2009b. Interdependence of welfare outcome measures and potential confounding factors on finishing pig farms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121, 2531.
Mullan, S, Edwards, SA, Butterworth, A, Whay, HR and Main, DCJ 2011b. A pilot investigation of Farm Assurance assessors’ attitude to farm animal welfare as a confounding factor to training in pig welfare outcome measures. Animal Welfare 20, 413421.
Mullan, S, Edwards, SA, Butterworth, A, Whay, HR and Main, DCJ 2011c. Inter-observer reliability testing of pig welfare outcome measures proposed for inclusion within farm assurance schemes. The Veterinary Journal 190, e100e109.
Ngapo, TM, Dransfield, E, Martin, JF, Magnusson, M, Bredahl, L and Nute, GR 2004. Consumer perceptions: pork and pig production. Insights from France, England, Sweden and Denmark. Meat Science 66, 125134.
Nordquist, ER, van der Staay, JF, van Eerdenburg, JF, Velkers, CF, Fijn, L and Arndt, SS 2017. Mutilating procedures, management practices, and housing conditions that may affect the welfare of farm animals: implications for welfare research. Animals 7, 12. doi: 10.3390/ani7020012.
Osborne, CA 2002. Client confidence in veterinarians: how can it be sustained? Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 221, 936938.
Pandolfi, F, Kyriazakis, I, Stoddart, K, Wainwright, N and Edwards, SA 2017a. The “Real Welfare” scheme: identification of risk and protective factors for welfare outcomes in commercial pig farms in the UK. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 146, 3443.
Pandolfi, F, Stoddart, K, Wainwright, N, Kyriazakis, I and Edwards, SA 2017b. The ‘Real Welfare’ scheme: benchmarking welfare outcomes for commercially farmed pigs. Animal 11, 18161824.
Phythian, C, Phillips, K, Wright, N and Morgan, M 2014. Sheep health, welfare and production planning 1. Recording and benchmarking performance indicators of flock health and production. In Practice 36, 8595.
Ronan, G and Cleary, G 2000. Best practice benchmarking in Australian agriculture: issues and challenges. Paper presented at the 44th Annual Conference of Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society Inc, 23–25 January 2000, Sydney, Australia.
Ruston, A, Shortall, O, Green, M, Brennan, M, Wapenaar, W and Kaler, J 2016. Challenges facing the farm animal veterinary profession in England: a qualitative study of veterinarians’ perceptions and responses. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 127, 8493.
Słrensen, JT and Fraser, D 2010. On-farm welfare assessment for regulatory purposes: issues and possible solutions. Livestock Science 131, 17.
Stephenson, HM, Green, MJ and Freeman, SL 2011. Prevalence of obesity in a population of horses in the UK. Veterinary Record 168, 131.
Sumner, CL, von Keyserlingk, MAG and Weary, DM 2018. How benchmarking motivates farmers to improve dairy calf management. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 33233333.
Te Velde, H, Aarts, N and Van W oerkum, C 2002. Dealing with ambivalence: farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 15, 203219.
Thorslund, CAH, Aaslyng, MD and Lassen, J 2017. Perceived importance and responsibility for market-driven pig welfare: literature review. Meat Science 125, 3745.
van de Weerd, HA and Day, JEL 2009. A review of environmental enrichment for pigs housed in intensive housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116, 120.
van Dijk, L, Elwes, S, Main, DCJ, Mullan, SM and Jamieson, J 2018. Farmer perspectives on welfare outcome assessment: learnings from four farm assurance scheme consultation exercises. Animal Welfare 27, 111.
Van de Weerd, HA, Docking, CM, Day, JEL, Breuer, K and Edwards, SA 2006. Effects of species-relevant environmental enrichment on the behaviour and productivity of finishing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99, 230247.
Vanhonacker, F, Verbeke, W, Van Poucke, E and Tuyttens, FAM 2008. Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science 116, 126136.
White, GA, Hobson-West, P, Cobb, K, Craigon, J, Hammond, R and Millar, KM 2011. Canine obesity: is there a difference between veterinarian and owner perception? Journal of Small Animal Practice 52, 622626.


Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Hockenhull et al. supplementary material
Hockenhull et al. supplementary material 1

 Word (15 KB)
15 KB

‘Would it sell more pork?’ Pig farmers’ perceptions of Real Welfare, the welfare outcome component of their farm assurance scheme

  • J. Hockenhull (a1), D. C. J. Main (a2) and S. Mullan (a1)


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed