Perceptions of ostrich welfare and ethical practices: insights from consumers, farmers and stakeholders

Perceptions of ostrich welfare and ethical practices: insights from consumers, farmers and stakeholders | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Perceptions of ostrich welfare and ethical practices: insights from consumers, farmers and stakeholders Maud Bonato, Monique Dawson, Anel Engelbrecht, Schalk Cloete This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9232134/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 4 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study investigated South African consumers’, farmers’, and industry stakeholders’ perceptions of ostrich welfare using a questionnaire distributed nationwide between September 2018 and September 2019. The survey included demographic questions and assessed knowledge of ostrich husbandry, welfare priorities, and purchasing behaviors. A total of 302 participants completed the questionnaire. A Principal Component Analysis identified three principal components that explained 49.5% of the total variance: ostrich welfare priorities, knowledge of ostrich production and management, and health and ethical considerations in ostrich farming. Welfare priorities and knowledge levels were influenced by demographic factors, with farmers consistently scoring the highest on knowledge and consumers the lowest. All participants reported a modest understanding of husbandry practices but placed a high importance on welfare-related factors such as feeding, housing, health, and minimizing pain and stress. Although most partcipants preferred welfare-conscious products, their willingness to pay a premium was low. These findings highlight a strong welfare orientation across groups but reveal knowledge gaps and an attitude–behavior gap, suggesting opportunities for targeted education, improved industry awareness and transparency, and welfare-focused product communication. Animal husbandry ethical standards perception differences survey Struthio camelus Figures Figure 1 Introduction Over the past 50 years, the concept of animal welfare has shifted from an emphasis on basic physical health and functioning to a more comprehensive understanding that includes mental health and the expression of natural behaviors (Broom, 2011). In 1965, the Brambell report developed the concept of the "Five Freedoms", which laid the foundation for modern welfare standards by emphasising the importance of freedom from hunger, discomfort, pain, and distress, and the freedom to express natural behaviour. Welfare science further expanded in the 1990s with frameworks such as David Fraser's "Three Domains" model, which highlighted animals' affective states, biological functioning, and natural living (Fraser, 1999; Mellor & Beausoleil, 2015). In addition, technological advances, such as automated monitoring systems, enabled precise welfare assessments in agricultural and laboratory settings (Broom, 2011). By enhancing human ability to observe and interpret animal behavior, they have also contributed to a deeper understanding of animal emotional intelligence and cognition, aligning with the increasing societal expectations for more ethical and humane treatment of production animals (Mellor, & Beausoleil, 2015). However, this concept is rarely agreed upon by all parties and, as such, has sparked increased interest worldwide (Hewson, 2003). As the demand for animal products continues to rise, so does the scrutiny of how these animals are raised and treated. This pressure between the need for efficient production systems and the desire for humane animal treatment often raises public concerns about the ethical implications of intensive farming practices. In this regard, several studies have shown that many consumers are becoming increasingly aware of these issues and are advocating for better welfare standards for farmed animals (Alonso et al., 2020; Prickett et al., 2010). Moreover, this has prompted various stakeholders, including consumers, NGOs, and policymakers, to call for greater transparency in the livestock production sector. As a result, more producers are adopting higher welfare standards to meet consumer expectations, reflecting a market shift towards more ethically produced products (Chen et al., 2024). Consequently, the intersection of animal welfare and food production systems is becoming a critical area of discussion, influencing both consumer choices and industry practices. Generally, the public perceives intensive animal production systems used to meet the ever-growing nutritional demands of the population as compromising animal well-being (Henchion & Zimmermann, 2021). Issues related to health, management, facilities, equipment, behavior and distress are typically thought to be associated with these intensified production systems (Čobanović & Magrin, 2023). Both consumers and non-consumers of animal products are consequently increasingly concerned about the welfare of farmed animals, alongside concerns about food safety and the environmental consequences of food production systems (Broom, 2011; Alonso et al., 2020). Understanding how the public perceives animal welfare is therefore vital, as animal welfare is a social construct that reflects society's values (Sinclair et al. 2022). This is because societal values and norms shape public behavior, which in turn influence buying decisions. One challenge is the widening distance between consumers and farmers that influences consumer perceptions due to a general lack of knowledge. Warsaw et al. (2021) demonstrated that most modern-day consumers have no direct contact with the farms that produce the food they purchase (Bouwan et al., 2024; Hasanzade et al., 2020). This physical distance between consumers and farmers has also widened the mental distance between the two groups, thereby increasing the differences in their common morality (Bouwan et al., 2024). This can be related to globalization and the increasing influence of social media on creating a narrative that is not necessarily based on facts but appeals to emotions and people’s ignorance. The ostrich industry is a niche industry that primarily sells its products to luxury markets, far removed from the farms where the birds are farmed. Given the growing demand for high-quality ostrich products, South Africa is recognized as a major global producer and exporter of ostrich commodities, playing a crucial role in the international market for quality ostrich products (DALRRD, 2021), with ninety percent of the products being exported to the European Union. However, while these consumers prefer higher-quality products, they also increasingly demand sustainable and ethical production practices, traceability, and product integrity (Gao & Wei, 2023), placing additional strain on the successful marketing of ostrich products. This is specifically true as ostrich farming practices are not widely known in most parts of the world. A lack of knowledge could therefore influence consumers' buying decisions, particularly among the growing number of people who prefer ethically produced products (Yue et al., 2020), in a world where animal-derived products are increasingly questioned. Against this background, this study used a questionnaire distribution method to assess and compare public and stakeholder knowledge and perceptions within the South African ostrich industry. Specifically, it sought to gain a comprehensive understanding of the differences in viewpoints between these groups in South Africa regarding (1) their knowledge of current production processes used in the industry, (2) their perceptions of the welfare implications associated with production, and (3) their purchasing behavior. and (4) their preferences regarding ostrich husbandry practices. We hypothesized that the ostrich farming industry is relatively unfamiliar to most South Africans compared to other livestock industries and that participants' knowledge of the industry might affect their opinions and perceptions regarding the welfare of farmed ostriches. Methods 2.1 Study description and design A customized questionnaire was distributed nationwide from September 2018 to September 2019 to assess perceptions and opinions of farmed ostriches in South Africa among consumers, commercial ostrich farmers, and secondary stakeholders (i.e. veterinarians, nutritionists, and processors). Available in both Afrikaans and English, the questionnaire aimed to reach a diverse range of socio-demographic and lifestyle backgrounds. An online survey platform (Google Forms®) was used to facilitate nationwide distribution of the questionnaire. The online questionnaire was distributed via email to the South African Society of Animal Science (SASAS), the Animal Feed Manufacturers Association (AFMA), the Western Cape Department of Agriculture and the University of Stellenbosch. Physical copies were also distributed in Oudtshoorn, the “ostrich capital of the world” in the Western Cape region of South Africa, where the largest global population of farmed ostriches is found. Ostrich farmers were specifically targeted at farmers' meetings in key ostrich-farming areas of the Klein Karoo and Southern Cape, including Herold, De Rust, Volmoed, and Heidelberg. 2.2 Design of the questionnaire and measurement scale A multidisciplinary approach was used to develop the questionnaire, incorporating resource- and management-based welfare measures alongside animal-based outcomes. The four principles of the Welfare Quality approach (i.e., good feeding, good housing, good health, and appropriate behavior) served as the foundation for the questionnaire (www.welfarequality.net). Additionally, the topics included were informed by literature reviews of welfare indicators and measurements commonly used in other surveys to gauge public opinions and preferences regarding animal welfare. The questionnaire also addressed topics on consumer acceptance and preferences, focusing on both on-farm and end-product standards (Vanhonacker et al., 2008; Bejaei & Cheng, 2014; You et al., 2014; Miranda-de la Lama et al., 2017). A 5-point Likert scale was used throughout the questionnaire to assess participants' answers (Miranda-de la Lama et al., 2017). Scores were allocated from least to most knowledgeable/important/likely. The survey was divided into two sections. The first section (Section A, Appendix 1) focused on gathering demographic information to assess the socio-demographic characteristics of the sample population. This section included questions on age, gender, occupation, education level, income, province of residence, and dietary preferences to assess how these factors influenced attitudes toward ostrich welfare. The second section (Section B, Appendix 1) focused on participants' general views on commercial ostrich production, their knowledge of ostrich husbandry practices, their perceptions of ostrich welfare, and how these factors influence their purchasing decisions. 2.3. Data preparation and pre-processing All data preparation/cleaning and analysis were performed in R (R Core Team, 2025). The original dataset included questions assessing participants’ understanding, attitudes, and behaviors related to ostrich production and management. Only completed questionnaire items (Questions 1a to 6b: Appendix 1) were selected for analysis. All items were then converted to numeric format to ensure compatibility with multivariate procedures. The missMDA package (Josse & Husson, 2016) was used to analyze and impute missing data using a principal component–based imputation technique. The optimal number of dimensions for imputation was determined using the estim_ncpPCA() function, which minimizes prediction error. The imputed dataset was then used for subsequent analyses. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) To identify underlying dimensions explaining patterns of responses across questionnaire items, a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was performed using the FactoMineR package (Lê et al., 2008). The PCA summarised correlated questionnaire variables into orthogonal components (dimensions) that represent latent constructs. The percentage of explained variance and screen plots were used to determine the number of meaningful principal components to retain for further analysis and interpretation. Statistical analysis To explore whether participants’ factor (dimension) scores differed according to demographic or behavioral characteristics, mean factor scores were compared across categorical predictors, including Category (Consumers, Farmers and Stakeholders), Gender, Education, Income, Diet, and Province of residence. Normality of factor score distributions was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test. As the assumptions of normality were not met and the predictors had more than 2 levels, a Kruskal–Wallis test was used, with significance assessed at p < 0.05. For each significant factor, mean scores and standard errors were calculated for each level of these categorical predictors. Negative scores indicated values below the dataset mean, while positive scores indicated values above the mean. All analyses were performed using the dplyr (Wickham et al., 2023), FactoMineR , factoextra, rstatix and ggplot2 packages (Wickham et al., 2024) of R. Results Data description: socio-demographic profile of the partcipants In total, 302 South African participants completed and returned the questionnaire: 58% were classified as consumers, 32% as secondary stakeholders in the ostrich industry (i.e. processors, tanners, veterinarians, etc.), and 10% as ostrich farmers. Of these participants, 64% identified as male, 35% as female and 1% chose not to disclose their gender. All participants of known age were older than 20 years, with 47% classifying themselves as 20-35 years, 30% as 36-50 years, 17% as 51-65 years, and 4% as older than 65. The remaining 2% of participants chose not to disclose their age. To facilitate the analysis of the effect of age on responses, participants were grouped into three new age categories: younger than 36 years, between 36 and 50 years, and older than 50 years (Table 1). Regarding education level, 81% of participants had received tertiary education (i.e., college/university diplomas or degrees), while 16% and 1% reported only secondary and primary education, respectively. To facilitate analysis of the effect of education level on responses, participants were grouped into two categories: those with tertiary education and those without (i.e., secondary- and primary-educated participants were combined). Furthermore, 2% of partcipants who chose not to disclose their level of education were not included (Table 1). Regarding income level, participants were grouped into three categories. Low-income participants (below R200 000 per year) accounted for 30%, medium-income participants (between R200 000 and R600 000 per year) accounted for 24%, and high-income participants (above R600 000 per year) accounted for 14%. Furthermore, 32% of partcipants who chose not to disclose their income were not included (Table 1). Regarding the province of residence, 16.9% of partcipants originated from a province with minimal to no ostrich production (i.e. Kwazulu-Natal, Gauteng, Mpumalanga, Northwest and Free State), 13.9% from a province with moderate ostrich production (i.e. Eastern Cape, Northern Cape and Limpopo) and 69.3% from a province with high ostrich production (i.e. Western Cape). Furthermore, 11% of partcipants who chose not to disclose their province of residence were excluded (Table 1). Finally, 54% of participants indicated no specific dietary preference, 37% stated a preference for meat, and 6% declared they were vegetarian/vegan. In the original analysis, the latter two categories were separated; however, they were combined due to the low number of vegetarian and vegan participants. The remaining 3% of participants did not disclose their dietary preferences. As with the previous socio-demographic factors, participants who did not report their dietary preferences were excluded from the analysis (Table 1). General trends in the sampled population Overall, participants indicated limited to average knowledge of the husbandry practices used in the ostrich industry, with mean (± SE) scores ranging from 2.41 ± 0.07 to 2.85 ± 0.07 (Table 2). However, relatively high scores (4.11 ± 0.05 to 4.71 ± 0.03) were attributed to the welfare importance of basic feed, water, housing, and health needs for the commercial production of ostriches, as well as to the importance of limiting stress and pain (mean scores of 4.39 ± 0.04 and 4.42 ± 0.05, respectively). Although slightly lower scores were observed compared to the latter, participants tended to consider factors related to natural living (e.g. ability to exhibit natural behavior, freedom of movement and environmental enrichment), relatively important with mean scores ranging from 4.00 ± 0.05 to 4.23 ± 0.05. Regarding management and production practices, participants assigned relatively high importance to the skill level of stockmen, isolation of sick/injured birds, regular visual inspection, type of vehicle used for transportation, and use of preventive medicine, with mean scores ranging from 4.24 ± 0.05 to 4.55 ± 0.04. Furthermore, participants generally attributed relatively high importance to stockmen’s knowledge of all factors proposed (i.e., behavior, detecting signs of stress and illness, handling/restraining and transporting of ostriches; scores between 4.33 ± 0.04 and 4.68 ± 0.03) except for the anatomy of ostriches, manually assisting chicks to hatch, and human rearing of chicks which obtained a slightly lower score of 3.93 ± 0.06, 3.39 ± 0.06 and 3.31 ± 0.06, respectively. Finally, all participants considered the overall welfare of ostriches and the welfare of slaughtered animals regarding product quality as highly important (4.50 ± 0.04 and 4.51 ± 0.04, respectively). Similarly, they valued animal welfare when buying animal products and the implementation of a formal welfare protocol for the commercial production of ostriches as relatively important (4.26 ± 0.05 and 4.34 ± 0.05, respectively). However, participants preferred purchasing welfare-conscious products over welfare-neutral ones (3.92 ± 0.06) but were more hesitant to pay a premium for them (3.61 ± 0.06). Principal component analysis The PCA revealed that the first three components explained 49.5% of the total variance (Dimension 1: 31.5%; Dimension 2: 12.1%; Dimension 3: 5.9%), with subsequent components contributing progressively less. Further plotting revealed a clear “elbow” shape after the third component (Figure 1), indicating that these three dimensions capture the most meaningful information in the data and were therefore retained for further analysis. Based on the dominant contributing items, each principal dimension was assigned an interpretive label: Dimension 1: Ostrich Welfare Priorities (q2k, q5a and q4f); Dimension 2: Knowledge of Ostrich Production and Management (q1c, q1a and q1e); and Dimension 3: Health and Ethical Considerations in Ostrich Farming (q2i, q2j and q6b). Effect of demographic factors on principal component dimensions Mean (±SE) scores for Ostrich Welfare Priorities (Dimension 1) differed significantly by gender (χ² = 14.91, df = 1, p = 0.0001), income (χ² = 6.27, df = 2, p = 0.04), and province (χ² = 8.40, df = 2, p = 0.01). Men had lower scores (–0.61 ± 0.28) compared to women (1.14 ± 0.26). Across income groups, middle-income participants scored lowest (–0.69 ± 0.41), followed by high-income (0.17 ± 0.44) and low-income participants (0.56 ± 0.36). Finally, participants from the province with the highest ostrich production scored lower (–0.52 ± 0.27) than those from areas with minimal to no ostrich production (0.57 ± 0.46) or moderate ostrich production (0.96 ± 0.56). However, no significant differences were observed for category (χ² = 3.41, df = 2, p = 0.18), education (χ² = 0.004, df = 1, p = 0.95), or diet preference (χ² = 6.99, df = 3, p = 0.07). Scores for Knowledge of Ostrich Production and Management (Dimension 2) differed significantly across all demographic factors except income level (χ² = 1.59, df = 2, p < 0.62) , . More specifically, significant differences were observed for category (χ² = 92.77, df = 2, p < 0.0001), gender (χ² = 35.48, df = 1, p < 0.0001), education (χ² = 11.72, df = 1, p = 0.0006), Diet (χ² = 17.05, df = 3, p = 0.0007), and Province (χ² = 26.16, df = 2, p < 0.0001). Farmers scored highest (2.38 ± 0.25), followed by stakeholders (1.04 ± 0.19), while consumers scored lowest (–0.99 ± 0.14). Men had higher scores (0.54 ± 0.15) than women (–1.05 ± 0.21). Participants without tertiary education scored higher (0.93 ± 0.28) than those with tertiary education (–0.24 ± 0.14). Participants with a preference for a Vegetarian diet scored lowest (–2.05 ± 0.53), followed by participants with no diet preference (–0.06 ± 0.17) and participants with a preference for meat (0.35 ± 0.20). Finally, scores were highest in the province with the highest ostrich production (0.49 ± 0.16), intermediate in provinces with “Minimal to no ostrich production” (–0.83 ± 0.27), and lowest in “Moderate ostrich production” provinces (–1.14 ± 0.35). With regards to scores for Health and Ethical Considerations in Ostrich Farming (Dimension 3), no significant differences were detected across any demographic factors: Category (χ² = 2.02, df = 2, p = 0.36), gender (χ² = 0.59, df = 1, p = 0.44), education (χ² = 0.01, df = 1, p = 0.92), income level (χ² = 1.60, df = 2, p = 0.45), diet (χ² = 0.56, df = 3, p = 0.90), or province (χ² = 0.69, df = 2, p = 0.71). Discussion The present study revealed several meaningful insights into the knowledge, attitudes, and priorities of South African citizens regarding welfare in the ostrich industry. Firstly, although the participants perceived their knowledge of husbandry practices to be modest (mean scores between 2.4 and 2.9), they assigned high importance to animal welfare factors (e.g., feed, water, housing, health, freedom from pain), with mean scores ranging from 4.1 to 4.7. Secondly, three underlying dimensions emerged via the principal component analysis: Ostrich Welfare Priorities, Knowledge of Ostrich Production and Management, and Health and Ethical Considerations in Ostrich Farming. These dimensions varied in relation to demographic factors. Thirdly, willingness to pay a premium for welfare-conscious products was comparatively lower (mean of 3.61) than the high importance placed on welfare itself. The finding that participants mostly reported low to moderate knowledge of husbandry practices, yet great concern for welfare, is consistent with the broader body of research on consumer/stakeholder perceptions of farm-animal welfare. Several studies have reported that consumers often have limited factual knowledge of husbandry practices, production systems, or farm animal-welfare conditions; yet they express strong concerns about the welfare of farmed animals (Alonso et al., 2020 ; Fonseca & Sanchez-Sabate, 2022 ; Sweeney et al., 2022 ). For example, Fonseca & Sanchez-Sabate ( 2022 ) found that consumers report low awareness of specific farming practices (e.g., tie stalls, one-day-old chick culling) but show higher levels of concern once these practices are made salient. In the present study, even stakeholders (many of whom likely have closer ties to production) may not feel fully confident and perceive gaps in their knowledge of husbandry practices in the ostrich industry. This has potential implications for education, extension and communication within the industry. The strong emphasis placed on welfare-related factors (e.g., natural living, freedom of movement, enrichment, skilled stockmanship, and health or illness detection) may suggest a growing welfare consciousness within agricultural production systems. Specifically, consumers increasingly expect ethical treatment of animals and perceive welfare as an integral part of food production. For example, Alonso et al. ( 2020 ) and Sweeney et al. ( 2022 ) showed that European consumers associate animal-friendly production with higher product quality, better health and safety credentials, and greater authenticity. In the South African context, a consumer study found that 84% of participants considered animal wellness very important in selecting animal products (NSF, 2024). In that sense, the ethical dimension (Health and Ethical Considerations) of the present study was uniformly high across demographics, reinforcing a baseline consensus or normative orientation towards welfare and ethics among all stakeholder groups. The observed differences in Knowledge of Ostrich Production and Management (Dimension 2) provide valuable insights into how familiarity with and understanding of farming practices vary across the category of participants, highlighting the influence of experience and exposure on knowledge levels. Farmers had the highest scores, stakeholders had intermediate scores, and consumers had the lowest. This aligns with the expectation that those closer to the production process have greater knowledge, as also highlighted by Erian et al. ( 2019 ). Gender, education, diet and province also influenced knowledge scores. Specifically, male participants, those without tertiary education, participants who preferred a meat diet, and participants from provinces with high ostrich production consistently exhibited higher scores. These patterns warrant further exploration. Firstly, the finding that non-tertiary educated participants had higher knowledge scores supports the existing literature, which generally reports knowledge gaps and misconceptions about animal production systems (Clark et al., 2016 ). This lack of knowledge may be attributed to the fact that a small percentage of citizens are actively involved in the agricultural sector, as well as the ostrich industry's small scale and its confinement to specific regions in South Africa, such as the Western and Eastern Cape regions (Brand & Jordaan, 2011 ; DAFF, 2021). These results are consistent with those of Bir et al. ( 2019 ), who demonstrated that citizens in the United States, regardless of their involvement in the agricultural sector or level of tertiary education, have a limited understanding of food production processes. They also highlighted that a lack of knowledge is often associated with negative emotional attitudes towards livestock management and production practices. Social media and advertising can further exacerbate this incoherence (Rice et al., 2020 ). Consequently, misconceptions arising from a lack of understanding of husbandry practices in livestock industries may lead the public to accept that inadequate, potentially harmful techniques are commonly employed in intensive production systems. For instance, in poultry slaughtering, the public perceives methods such as stunning as insufficient (Erian & Phillips, 2017). Secondly, the responses from participants from provinces with higher ostrich production corresponded to higher knowledge is intuitive, as the proximity to production may increase knowledge or exposure. For instance, Boogaard et al. ( 2006 , 2011 ) demonstrated that less proximity to or limited exposure to dairy farming systems was correlated with lower knowledge/experience of dairy farming among Norwegians. Thirdly, these results may also reflect the characteristics of the sampled population, with a higher proportion of participants being men and directly involved in ostrich production (hence with a preference for a meat diet and residing in high ostrich production provinces), despite having less formal education. The “attitude-behavior gap” was, however, evident in the willingness to pay for welfare-conscious product. Although welfare was highly valued, the willingness to pay a premium for welfare-conscious products was lower (mean ~ 3.61) compared to other welfare attitude scores. This observation aligns with prior research: for example, Aschemann-Witzel & Zielke ( 2017 ) found that consumer willingness to pay for higher-welfare livestock products is generally positive but often marginal and varies by region and product type. In addition, several studies highlighted that although most consumers reported paying attention to how animals were raised, and many were willing to pay a premium, their willingness to pay was mediated by ethical orientation. They also demanded certification/information for welfare-certified products (Giannetto et al., 2023 ; Miranda-de la Lama et al., 2017 ; Spain et al., 2018 ). A similar trend was observed in South Africa, where 76% of consumers expressed a willingness to pay more for certified animal welfare products (NSF, 2024). Compared to those figures, the lower willingness to pay in the present study may reflect specific constraints in the ostrich industry context (e.g., pricing, product awareness, niche market) or sample composition (e.g., stakeholders vs general consumers). It may also reflect that other purchase criteria remain dominant (e.g., price, taste, convenience). These results have several actionable implications for the ostrich industry. The combination of modest self-reported knowledge of husbandry practices and strong welfare concern highlights a clear opportunity for the ostrich industry to engage in outreach and education. For instance, enhancing transparency around ostrich production, welfare standards, and transport or slaughter procedures could strengthen trust and potentially increase willingness to pay a premium, as shown in other livestock sectors (Dickinson et al., 2015; Miranda-de la Lama et al., 2017 ; Xu et al., 2019). As participants place significant value on welfare and ethics, there is also an opportunity to develop local welfare certification, assurance schemes, or product labelling tailored to the ostrich industry (e.g., “Welfare Certified Ostrich”). Such initiatives could assist in reducing the gap between positive attitudes and actual purchasing decisions. However, the relatively low willingness to pay a premium suggests that producers and marketers should not assume that consumers will automatically spend more on welfare-conscious ostrich products. Communicating welfare benefits alongside other desirable attributes (such as nutrition, origin, or sustainability) may increase market uptake (Li & Kallas, 2021 ). The demographic variation in knowledge and attitudes further suggests that different groups (e.g., based on gender, dietary habits, province of residence, or stakeholder category) may respond differently to welfare marketing messaging. For instance, women placed greater emphasis on welfare, while consumers in major production regions tended to score lower on these priorities, potentially due to familiarity with industry practices. Tailored communication strategies may therefore be more effective than one-size-fits-all approaches (Cordoba et al., 2025). Finally, identifying underlying factors (such as welfare priorities, production knowledge, and health/ethical considerations) provides a useful framework for monitoring stakeholder attitudes over time. Future surveys can build on these factors identified to track shifts in perceptions and concerns within the ostrich industry. It is essential to note that this study has several limitations. First, sampling was heavily weighted toward the high-ostrich-production province of the Western Cape (69.3%), and 81% of participants had a tertiary education qualification. This may limit generalisability to the broader South African public or to other provinces. Second, attitude measures may be subject to social desirability bias (partcipants may overstate welfare concerns). Likewise, willingness-to-pay measures are hypothetical and may not accurately reflect actual purchasing decisions (also referred to as the “hypothetical-bias” issue: Schmidt et al., 2020). As such, actual purchasing decisions (e.g., measurable premium payment, choice experiments) would strengthen the evidence base. Future research could integrate choice modelling to examine the price premium consumers are willing to pay for welfare-conscious products. Third, the survey only captures snapshots of attitudes and knowledge at a single point in time. Longitudinal studies would help track how attitudes, knowledge and purchasing decisions evolve over time, especially if welfare education or marketing interventions are undertaken. Fourth, the ostrich industry has unique production, marketing, and consumer dynamics compared to mainstream poultry, pork, or beef production. Therefore, the findings may only partially align with other sectors. Future research might explore: (a) consumer choice experiments for ostrich-meat or ostrich products to measure actual willingness to pay under market conditions; (b) qualitative work (focus groups, interviews) with farmers, processors and consumers to understand barriers and enablers of welfare-conscious purchasing; (c) intervention studies to test whether welfare-labelling or informational campaigns increase willingness to pay and actual uptake in the sector; and (d) comparative studies across provinces or countries to examine whether geographic/production-density effects persist under a more balanced sampling population. Conclusions This study demonstrated that animal welfare and ethical considerations are of high importance to South African consumers, farmers and stakeholders in the ostrich industry. However, the perceived knowledge of production practices was modest, and the willingness to pay a premium was moderate. Furthermore, gender, participant category, education, diet, and province contributed to significant differences in knowledge and welfare attitudes. These results aligned well with broader international and South African research, while adding specific evidence for the ostrich sector. For industry and policymakers, there is a clear motivation to improve transparency, develop local certification labelling strategies, target communication to the different stakeholders in the ostrich industry, and monitor, over time, the behaviour of South African citizens to translate welfare concerns into welfare-driven market outcomes. Declarations Compliance with ethical standards Conflict of interest : The authors declare no conflict of interest. Ethical approval: Ethical clearance to distribute this questionnaire was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee (Humanities) of Stellenbosch University (reference number: 7699). Funding: Funding for this study was provided by the Western Cape Agricultural Research Trust. Acknowledgements We sincerely thank the Western Cape Agricultural Research Trust for funding this study. We are also grateful to the University of Stellenbosch, the South African Society of Animal Sciences, the Animal Feed Manufacturers Association, the Western Cape Department of Agriculture and the Herold, De Rust, Volmoed and Heidelberg farmers meetings for assisting us in distributing the questionnaire. Data availability: All data of the manuscript are available upon reasonable request. References Alonso, M. E., González-Montaña, J. R., Lomillos, J. M., 2020. Consumers’ concerns and perceptions of farm animal welfare. Animals, 10(3), 385. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030385 . Aschemann-Witzel, J., Zielke, S., 2017. Can’t buy me green? A review of consumer perceptions of and behavior toward the price of organic food. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 51(1), 211–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12092 . Bejaei, J. L., Cheng, K. M., 2014. A survey of current ostrich handling and transport practices in North America with reference to ostrich welfare and transportation guidelines set up in other countries. Poultry Science, 93, 296–306. Bir, C., Davis, M., Widmar, N., Zuelly, S., Erasums, M., 2019. Perceptions of animal welfare with a special focus on turkeys. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 6, 416. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00413 . Boogaard, B. K., Oosting, S. J., Bock, B. B., 2006. Elements of societal perception of farm animal welfare: a quantitative study in the Netherlands. Livestock Science, 104, 13–22. Boogaard, B. K., Oosting, S. J., Bock, B. B., Wiskerke, J.S.C., 2011. The sociocultural sustainability of livestock farming: an inquiry into social perceptions of dairy farming. Animal, 5, 1458–1466. Bouwman, E.P., Galama, J., Onwezen, M.C., 2024. Unravelling consumer acceptance of local food: Physical versus social distance and the important role of social identification. Appetite, 1, 198:107331. https://doi:10.1016/j.appet.2024.107331 . Brambell, F.W.R., 1965. Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems (Cmd. 2836). London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7d89fe40f0b64fe6c24508/Farm_Animal_Welfare_in_Great_Britain_-_Past__Present_and_Future.pdf [Accessed 5 March 2026]. Brand, T.S., Jordaan, J.W., 2011. The contribution of the South African ostrich industry to the national economy. Applied Animal Husbandry and Rural Development, 4, 1–7. Broom, D. M., 2011. A history of animal welfare science. Acta Biotheoretica, 59, 121–137. Chen, M., Lee, H., Liu, Y., Weary, D.M., 2024. Suppliers' perspectives on cage-free eggs in China. Animals, 30, 14(11), 1625. doi: 10.3390/ani14111625 . Clark, B., Stewart, G. B., Panzone, L. A., Kyriazakis, I., Frewer, L. J., 2016. A systematic review of public attitudes, perceptions and behaviours towards production diseases associated with farm animal welfare. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics, 29, 455–478. Čobanović, N., Magrin, L., 2023. Health and welfare problems of farm animals: prevalence, risk factors, consequences and possible prevention solutions. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 10, https://doi:10.3389/fvets.2023.1238852 . Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD), 2021. A profile of the South African ostrich market value chain. Pretoria, South Africa. Availanle on: http://webapps1.daff.gov.za/AmisAdmin/upload/Ostrich%20Market%20Value%20Chain%20Profile%202021.pdf , [Accessed 5 March 2026]. Córdoba, M., Alesso, A., Lazzarini, B., Demarchi, E., Vargas-Bello-Pérez, E., Baudracco, J., 2025. Consumer perceptions, knowledge and preferences on animal welfare in grazing and confined dairy systems. Journal of Dairy Research, 24, 1–9, doi: 10.1017/S0022029925101398 . Dickinson, D. L., Von Bailey, D., 2005. Experimental evidence on willingness to pay for red meat traceability in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Japan. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 37(3), 537–548. doi: 10.1017/S1074070800027061 . Erian, I., Philipps, C.J.C., 2017. Public understanding and attitudes towards meat: chicken production and relations to consumption. Animals, 7, 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7030020 . Erian, I., Sinclair, M., Phillips, C. J. C., 2019. Knowledge of stakeholders in the livestock industries of East and Southeast Asia about welfare during transport and slaughter and its relation to their attitudes to improving animal welfare. Animals, 9(3), 99. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9030099 . Fonseca, R. P., Sanchez-Sabate, R., 2022. Consumers’ attitudes towards animal suffering: a systematic review on awareness, willingness and dietary change. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(23), 16372. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192316372 . Fraser, D., 1999. Animal ethics and animal welfare science: Bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 65, 171–189. Gao, J., Wei, H., 2023. Supply chain management with uncertainty in consumer perception of product greenness under an eco-label policy. Scientific Reports, 13, 13581. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40348-6 . Giannetto, C., Biondi, V., Previti, A., De Pascale, A., Monti, S., Alibrandi, A., Zirilli, A., Lanfranchi, M., Pugliese, M., Passantino, A., 2023. Willingness to pay a higher price for pork obtained using animal-friendly raising techniques: a consumers’ opinion survey. Foods, 12(23), 4201. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12234201 . Hasanzade, V., Elshiewy, O., Toporowski, W., 2022. Is it just the distance? Consumer preference for geographical and social proximity of food production. Ecological Economics, 200, 107533, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107533 . Henchion, M., Zimmermann, J., 2021. Animal food products: policy, market and social issues and their influence on demand and supply of meat. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 80, 252–263. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665120007971 . Hewson, C. J., 2003. What is animal welfare? Common definitions and their practical consequences. Canadian Veterinary Journal, 44, 496–499. Josse, J., Husson, F., 2016. missMDA: A package for handling missing values in multivariate data analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 70(1), 1–31. Lê, S., Josse, J., Husson, F., 2008. FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(1), 1–18. Li, S., Kallas, Z., 2021. Meta-analysis of consumers' willingness to pay for sustainable food products. Appetite, 163, 105239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105239 . Mellor, D. J., Beausoleil, N., 2015. Extending the ‘Five Domains’ model for animal welfare assessment to incorporate positive welfare states. Animal Welfare, 24(3), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.24.3.241 Miranda-de la Lama, G. C., Estevez-Moreno, L. X., Sepulveda, W.S., Estrada-Chavero, M.C., Rayas-Amor, A.A., Villarroel, M., Maria, G.A., 2017. Mexican consumers' perceptions and attitudes towards farm animal welfare and willingness to pay for welfare-friendly meat products. Meat Science, 125, 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.12.001 . NSF, 2024. New Research Finds 84% of South Africans Demand Animal Wellness From Food Companies. NSF Global. Available on: https://www.nsf.org/za/en/news/new-research-finds-84-of-south-africans-demand-animal-wellness-from-food-companies [Accessed 5 March 2026]. Prickett, R. W., Norwood, F. B., Lusk, J. L., 2010. Consumer preferences for farm animal welfare: results from a telephone survey of US households. Animal Welfare, 19(3), 335–347. R Core Team, 2025. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Rice, M., Hemsworth, L. M., Hemsworth, P. H., Coleman, G. J., 2020. The impact of a negative media event on public attitudes towards animal welfare in the red meat industry. Animals, 10(4), 619. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10040619 . Schmidt, J., Bijmolt, T. H. A., 2020. Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: A meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(3), 499–518. Sinclair, M., Lee, N. Y. P., Hötzel, M. J., de Luna, M. C., Sharma, A. et al., 2022. International perceptions of animals and the importance of their welfare. Frontiers in Animal Science, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2022.960379 . Spain, C.V., Freund, D., Mohan-Gibbons, H., Meadow, R.G., Beacham, L., 2018. Are they buying it? United States consumers' changing attitudes toward more humanely raised meat, eggs, and dairy. Animals, 8(8),128. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8080128 . Sweeney, S., Regan, Á., McKernan, C., Benson, T., Hanlon, A., Dean, M., 2022. Current consumer perceptions of animal welfare across different farming sectors on the island of Ireland. Animals, 12, 185. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12020185 . Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Poucke, E., Tuytten, F.A.M., 2008. Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science, 116, 126–136. Warsaw, P., Archambault, S., He, A., Miller, S., 2021. The economic, social, and environmental impacts of farmers markets: recent evidence from the US. S ustainability, 13, 3423. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063423 . Wickham, H., Chang, W., Henry, L., Pedersen, T.L., Takahashi, K., Wilke, C., Woo, K., Yutani, H., Dunnington, D., van den Brand, T., 2024. “Ggplot2”: Create elegant data visualisations using the grammar of graphics. https://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.package.ggplot2 Wickham, H., François, R., Henry, L., Müller, K., Vaughan, D., 2023. dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. https://dplyr .tidyverse.org. Xu, L., Yang, X., Wu, L., Chen, X., Chen, L., Tsai, F.S., 2019. Consumers’ willingness to pay for food with information on animal welfare, lean meat essence detection, and traceability. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(19), 3616. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193616 . You, X., Li, Y., Zhang, M., Yan, H., Zhao, R., 2014. A survey of Chinese citizens’ perceptions on farm animal welfare. PLoS One, 9(10), e109177. https://doi.org/10.1371/journale.pone.0109177 . Yue, C., Lai, Y., Wang, J., Mitchell, P., 2020. Consumer preferences for sustainable product attributes and farm program features. Sustainability, 12(18), 7388. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187388 . Tables Tables are available in the Supplementary Files section. Supplementary Files Table1.docx Table2.docx Appendix1.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 16 Apr, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 16 Apr, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 02 Apr, 2026 First submitted to journal 27 Mar, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9232134","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":624208584,"identity":"1fd08f61-3f16-4293-9feb-cab5920af883","order_by":0,"name":"Maud Bonato","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Venda","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Maud","middleName":"","lastName":"Bonato","suffix":""},{"id":624208585,"identity":"0f93db36-e6c4-4008-85ce-4f289e7e12dd","order_by":1,"name":"Monique Dawson","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Monique","middleName":"","lastName":"Dawson","suffix":""},{"id":624208586,"identity":"96310cbc-6f0a-44ec-a01c-4b4aa11e1d74","order_by":2,"name":"Anel Engelbrecht","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Western Cape Department of Agriculture","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Anel","middleName":"","lastName":"Engelbrecht","suffix":""},{"id":624208587,"identity":"def5e70d-7352-4062-abf6-64fe52fc1d0a","order_by":3,"name":"Schalk Cloete","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Schalk","middleName":"","lastName":"Cloete","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-26 09:29:36","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9232134/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9232134/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":107832482,"identity":"8dad4613-730e-4f9d-8e00-e223295a435c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-26 15:33:11","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":17367,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrincipal component analysis (PCA) of the questionnaire responses showing the proportion of variance explained by each component. The first three principal components account for 49.5% of the total variance (PC1 = 31.5%, PC2 = 12.1%, PC3 = 5.9%), after which an evident elbow indicates diminishing returns from additional components.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9232134/v1/f725cb903e42f55a3784544a.png"},{"id":109067681,"identity":"c8e1eb39-a1c3-4aeb-afc2-d2f45228ac15","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-12 09:59:39","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":240502,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9232134/v1/8cf97575-9d8e-4dc9-af14-f316ee1d5e28.pdf"},{"id":107869905,"identity":"3671420a-b903-4f0f-845f-aa02998aa1d8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-27 07:38:25","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":19259,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9232134/v1/aaf4d55c1481ffcabdea873e.docx"},{"id":107832483,"identity":"ad07bece-0cdc-4b26-85d4-ea12d693fd58","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-26 15:33:11","extension":"docx","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":21255,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table2.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9232134/v1/1d8fb35a4410ebc52eefd3bf.docx"},{"id":107832484,"identity":"7130acd5-7d5f-4d52-91cd-cb327b01fc9d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-26 15:33:11","extension":"docx","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":35000,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendix1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9232134/v1/3d200dde888059052b00833c.docx"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"Perceptions of ostrich welfare and ethical practices: insights from consumers, farmers and stakeholders","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eOver the past 50 years, the concept of animal welfare has shifted from an emphasis on basic physical health and functioning to a more comprehensive understanding that includes mental health and the expression of natural behaviors (Broom, 2011). In 1965, the Brambell report developed the concept of the \"Five Freedoms\", which laid the foundation for modern welfare standards by emphasising the importance of freedom from hunger, discomfort, pain, and distress, and the freedom to express natural behaviour. Welfare science further expanded in the 1990s with frameworks such as David Fraser's \"Three Domains\" model, which highlighted animals' affective states, biological functioning, and natural living (Fraser, 1999; Mellor \u0026amp; Beausoleil, 2015). In addition, technological advances, such as automated monitoring systems, enabled precise welfare assessments in agricultural and laboratory settings (Broom, 2011). \u0026nbsp;By enhancing human ability to observe and interpret animal behavior, they have also contributed to a deeper understanding of animal emotional intelligence and cognition, aligning with the increasing societal expectations for more ethical and humane treatment of production animals (Mellor, \u0026amp; Beausoleil, 2015).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, this concept is rarely agreed upon by all parties and, as such, has sparked increased interest worldwide (Hewson, 2003). As the demand for animal products continues to rise, so does the scrutiny of how these animals are raised and treated. This pressure between the need for efficient production systems and the desire for humane animal treatment often raises public concerns about the ethical implications of intensive farming practices. In this regard, several studies have shown that many consumers are becoming increasingly aware of these issues and are advocating for better welfare standards for farmed animals (Alonso et al., 2020; Prickett et al., 2010). Moreover, this has prompted various stakeholders, including consumers, NGOs, and policymakers, to call for greater transparency in the livestock production sector. As a result, more producers are adopting higher welfare standards to meet consumer expectations, reflecting a market shift towards more ethically produced products (Chen et al., 2024). Consequently, the intersection of animal welfare and food production systems is becoming a critical area of discussion, influencing both consumer choices and industry practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGenerally, the public perceives intensive animal production systems used to meet the ever-growing nutritional demands of the population as compromising animal well-being (Henchion \u0026amp; Zimmermann, 2021). Issues related to health, management, facilities, equipment, behavior and distress are typically thought to be associated with these intensified production systems (Čobanović \u0026amp; Magrin, 2023). Both consumers and non-consumers of animal products are consequently increasingly concerned about the welfare of farmed animals, alongside concerns about food safety and the environmental consequences of food production systems (Broom, 2011; Alonso et al., 2020). Understanding how the public perceives animal welfare is therefore vital, as animal welfare is a social construct that reflects society's values (Sinclair et al. 2022). This is because societal values and norms shape public behavior, which in turn influence buying decisions. One challenge is the widening distance between consumers and farmers that influences consumer perceptions due to a general lack of knowledge. Warsaw et al. (2021) demonstrated that most modern-day consumers have no direct contact with the farms that produce the food they purchase (Bouwan et al., 2024; Hasanzade et al., 2020). This physical distance between consumers and farmers has also widened the mental distance between the two groups, thereby increasing the differences in their common morality (Bouwan et al., 2024). \u0026nbsp;This can be related to globalization and the increasing influence of social media on creating a narrative that is not necessarily based on facts but appeals to emotions and people’s ignorance.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe ostrich industry is a niche industry that primarily sells its products to luxury markets, far removed from the farms where the birds are farmed. Given the growing demand for high-quality ostrich products, South Africa is recognized as a major global producer and exporter of ostrich commodities, playing a crucial role in the international market for quality ostrich products (DALRRD, 2021), with ninety percent of the products being exported to the European Union. However, while these consumers prefer higher-quality products, they also increasingly demand sustainable and ethical production practices, traceability, and product integrity (Gao \u0026amp; Wei, 2023), placing additional strain on the successful marketing of ostrich products. This is specifically true as ostrich farming practices are not widely known in most parts of the world. A lack of knowledge could therefore influence consumers' buying decisions, particularly among the growing number of people who prefer ethically produced products (Yue et al., 2020), in a world where animal-derived products are increasingly questioned.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAgainst this background, this study used a questionnaire distribution method to assess and compare public and stakeholder knowledge and perceptions within the South African ostrich industry. Specifically, it sought to gain a comprehensive understanding of the differences in viewpoints between these groups in South Africa regarding (1) their knowledge of current production processes used in the industry, (2) their perceptions of the welfare implications associated with production, and (3) their purchasing behavior. and (4) their preferences regarding ostrich husbandry practices. We hypothesized that the ostrich farming industry is relatively unfamiliar to most South Africans compared to other livestock industries and that participants' knowledge of the industry might affect their opinions and perceptions regarding the welfare of farmed ostriches.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.1 Study description and design\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA customized questionnaire was distributed nationwide from September 2018 to September 2019 \u0026nbsp;to assess perceptions and opinions of farmed ostriches in South Africa among consumers, commercial ostrich farmers, and secondary stakeholders (i.e. veterinarians, nutritionists, and processors). Available in both Afrikaans and English, the questionnaire aimed to reach a diverse range of socio-demographic and lifestyle backgrounds. An online survey platform (Google Forms\u0026reg;) was used to facilitate nationwide distribution of the questionnaire. The online questionnaire was distributed via email to the South African Society of Animal Science (SASAS), the Animal Feed Manufacturers Association (AFMA), the Western Cape Department of Agriculture and the University of Stellenbosch. Physical copies were also distributed in Oudtshoorn, the \u0026ldquo;ostrich capital of the world\u0026rdquo; in the Western Cape region of South Africa, where the largest global population of farmed ostriches is found. Ostrich farmers were specifically targeted at farmers\u0026apos; meetings in key ostrich-farming areas of the Klein Karoo and Southern Cape, including Herold, De Rust, Volmoed, and Heidelberg.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.2 Design of the questionnaire and measurement scale\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA multidisciplinary approach was used to develop the questionnaire, incorporating resource- and management-based welfare measures alongside animal-based outcomes. The four principles of the Welfare Quality approach (i.e., good feeding, good housing, good health, and appropriate behavior) served as the foundation for the questionnaire (www.welfarequality.net). Additionally, the topics included were informed by literature reviews of welfare indicators and measurements commonly used in other surveys to gauge public opinions and preferences regarding animal welfare. The questionnaire also addressed topics on consumer acceptance and preferences, focusing on both on-farm and end-product standards (Vanhonacker et al., 2008; Bejaei \u0026amp; Cheng, 2014; You et al., 2014; Miranda-de la Lama et al., 2017). A 5-point Likert scale was used throughout the questionnaire to assess participants\u0026apos; answers (Miranda-de la Lama et al., 2017). Scores were allocated from least to most knowledgeable/important/likely.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe survey was divided into two sections. The first section (Section A, Appendix 1) focused on gathering demographic information to assess the socio-demographic characteristics of the sample population. This section included questions on age, gender, occupation, education level, income, province of residence, and dietary preferences to assess how these factors influenced attitudes toward ostrich welfare. The second section (Section B, Appendix 1) focused on participants\u0026apos; general views on commercial ostrich production, their knowledge of ostrich husbandry practices, their perceptions of ostrich welfare, and how these factors influence their purchasing decisions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.3. Data preparation and pre-processing\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll data preparation/cleaning and analysis were performed in R (R Core Team, 2025). The original dataset included questions assessing participants\u0026rsquo; understanding, attitudes, and behaviors related to ostrich production and management. Only completed questionnaire items (Questions 1a to 6b: Appendix 1) were selected for analysis. All items were then converted to numeric format to ensure compatibility with multivariate procedures. The \u003cem\u003emissMDA\u003c/em\u003e package (Josse \u0026amp; Husson, 2016) was used to analyze and impute missing data using a principal component\u0026ndash;based imputation technique. The optimal number of dimensions for imputation was determined using the estim_ncpPCA() function, which minimizes prediction error. The imputed dataset was then used for subsequent analyses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrincipal Component Analysis (PCA)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo identify underlying dimensions explaining patterns of responses across questionnaire items, a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was performed using the \u003cem\u003eFactoMineR\u003c/em\u003e package (L\u0026ecirc; et al., 2008). The PCA summarised correlated questionnaire variables into orthogonal components (dimensions) that represent latent constructs. The percentage of explained variance and screen plots were used to determine the number of meaningful principal components to retain for further analysis and interpretation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Statistical analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo explore whether participants\u0026rsquo; factor (dimension) scores differed according to demographic or behavioral characteristics, mean factor scores were compared across categorical predictors, including Category (Consumers, Farmers and Stakeholders), Gender, Education, Income, Diet, and Province of residence. Normality of factor score distributions was assessed using the Shapiro\u0026ndash;Wilk test. As the assumptions of normality were not met and the predictors had more than 2 levels, a Kruskal\u0026ndash;Wallis test was used, with significance assessed at p \u0026lt; 0.05. For each significant factor, mean scores and standard errors were calculated for each level of these categorical predictors. Negative scores indicated values below the dataset mean, while positive scores indicated values above the mean. All analyses were performed using the \u003cem\u003edplyr\u003c/em\u003e (Wickham et al., 2023), \u003cem\u003eFactoMineR\u003c/em\u003e, \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003efactoextra, rstatix\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eggplot2\u003c/em\u003e packages (Wickham et al., 2024) of R. \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eData description:\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003esocio-demographic profile of the partcipants\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn total, 302 South African participants completed and returned the questionnaire: 58% were classified as consumers, 32% as secondary stakeholders in the ostrich industry (i.e. processors, tanners, veterinarians, etc.), and 10% as ostrich farmers. Of these participants, 64% identified as male, 35% as female and 1% chose not to disclose their gender. All participants of known age were older than 20 years, with 47% classifying themselves as 20-35 years, 30% as 36-50 years, 17%\u0026nbsp;as 51-65 years, and 4% as older than 65.\u0026nbsp;The remaining 2% of participants chose not to disclose their age. To\u0026nbsp;facilitate\u0026nbsp;the analysis of the effect of age on responses, participants were grouped into three new age categories: younger than 36 years, between 36 and 50 years, and older than 50 years (Table 1).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding education level, 81% of participants had received tertiary education (i.e., college/university diplomas or degrees), while 16% and 1% reported only secondary and primary education, respectively.\u0026nbsp;To facilitate analysis of the effect of education level on responses, participants were grouped into two categories: those with tertiary education and those without (i.e., secondary- and primary-educated participants were combined).\u0026nbsp;Furthermore, 2% of partcipants who chose not to disclose their level of education were not included (Table 1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding income level, participants were grouped into three categories. Low-income participants (below R200 000 per year) accounted for 30%, medium-income participants (between R200 000 and R600 000 per year) accounted for 24%, and high-income participants (above R600 000 per year) accounted for 14%. Furthermore, 32% of partcipants who chose not to disclose their income were not included (Table 1).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding the province of residence, 16.9% of partcipants originated from a province with minimal to no ostrich production (i.e. Kwazulu-Natal, Gauteng, Mpumalanga, Northwest and Free State), 13.9% from a province with moderate ostrich production (i.e.\u0026nbsp;Eastern Cape, Northern Cape and Limpopo) and 69.3% from a province with high ostrich production (i.e. Western Cape). Furthermore, 11% of partcipants who chose not to disclose their province of residence were excluded (Table 1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, 54% of participants indicated no specific dietary preference, 37% stated a preference for meat, and 6% declared they were vegetarian/vegan.\u0026nbsp;In\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;original\u0026nbsp;analysis, the latter two categories were separated; however, they were combined due to the low number of vegetarian and vegan participants.\u0026nbsp;The\u0026nbsp;remaining\u0026nbsp;3%\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;participants\u0026nbsp;did\u0026nbsp;not\u0026nbsp;disclose\u0026nbsp;their\u0026nbsp;dietary\u0026nbsp;preferences.\u0026nbsp;As with the previous socio-demographic factors, participants who did not report their dietary preferences were excluded from the analysis (Table 1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGeneral trends in the sampled population\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, participants indicated limited to average knowledge of the husbandry practices used\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;ostrich\u0026nbsp;industry,\u0026nbsp;with\u0026nbsp;mean (± SE)\u0026nbsp;scores\u0026nbsp;ranging\u0026nbsp;from\u0026nbsp;2.41 ± 0.07\u0026nbsp;to 2.85 ± 0.07 (Table 2).\u0026nbsp;However, relatively high scores (4.11 ± 0.05 to 4.71 ± 0.03) were attributed to the welfare importance of basic feed, water, housing, and health needs for\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;commercial\u0026nbsp;production\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;ostriches,\u0026nbsp;as\u0026nbsp;well\u0026nbsp;as\u0026nbsp;to\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;importance\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;limiting\u0026nbsp;stress\u0026nbsp;and pain (mean\u0026nbsp;scores of\u0026nbsp;4.39 ± 0.04\u0026nbsp;and 4.42 ± 0.05,\u0026nbsp;respectively).\u0026nbsp;Although slightly\u0026nbsp;lower scores were\u0026nbsp;observed\u0026nbsp;compared\u0026nbsp;to\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;latter,\u0026nbsp;participants\u0026nbsp;tended\u0026nbsp;to\u0026nbsp;consider\u0026nbsp;factors\u0026nbsp;related to\u0026nbsp;natural living (e.g. ability to exhibit natural behavior, freedom of movement and environmental enrichment), relatively important with mean scores ranging from 4.00 ± 0.05 to 4.23 ± 0.05. Regarding management and production practices, participants assigned relatively high importance to the skill level of stockmen, isolation of sick/injured birds, regular visual inspection, type of vehicle used for transportation, and use of preventive medicine, with mean scores ranging from 4.24 ± 0.05 to 4.55 ± 0.04. Furthermore, participants generally attributed relatively high importance to stockmen’s knowledge of all factors proposed (i.e., behavior, detecting signs of stress and illness, handling/restraining and transporting of ostriches; scores between 4.33 ± 0.04 and 4.68 ± 0.03) except for the anatomy of ostriches, manually assisting chicks to hatch, and human rearing of chicks which obtained a slightly lower score of 3.93 ± 0.06, 3.39 ± 0.06 and 3.31 ± 0.06, respectively.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, all participants considered the overall welfare of ostriches and the welfare of slaughtered animals regarding product quality as highly important (4.50 ± 0.04 and 4.51 ± 0.04, respectively). Similarly, they valued animal welfare when buying animal products and the implementation of a formal welfare protocol for the commercial production of ostriches as relatively important (4.26 ± 0.05 and 4.34 ± 0.05, respectively). However, participants preferred purchasing welfare-conscious products over welfare-neutral ones (3.92 ± 0.06) but were more hesitant to pay a premium for them (3.61 ± 0.06).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrincipal component analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe PCA revealed that the first three components explained 49.5% of the total variance (Dimension 1: 31.5%; Dimension 2: 12.1%; Dimension 3: 5.9%), with subsequent components contributing progressively less. Further plotting revealed a clear “elbow” shape after the third component (Figure 1), indicating that these three dimensions capture the most meaningful information in the data and were therefore retained for further analysis. Based on the dominant contributing items, each principal dimension was assigned an interpretive label: Dimension 1: Ostrich Welfare Priorities (q2k, q5a and q4f); Dimension 2: Knowledge of Ostrich Production and Management (q1c, q1a and q1e); and Dimension 3: Health and Ethical Considerations in Ostrich Farming (q2i, q2j and q6b).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEffect of demographic factors on principal component dimensions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMean (±SE) scores for Ostrich Welfare Priorities (Dimension 1) differed significantly by gender (χ² = 14.91, df = 1, p = 0.0001), income (χ² = 6.27, df = 2, p = 0.04), and province (χ² = 8.40, df = 2, p = 0.01). Men had lower scores (–0.61 ± 0.28) compared to women (1.14 ± 0.26). Across income groups, middle-income participants scored lowest (–0.69 ± 0.41), followed by high-income (0.17 ± 0.44) and low-income participants (0.56 ± 0.36). Finally, participants from the province with the highest ostrich production scored lower (–0.52 ± 0.27) than those from areas with minimal to no ostrich production (0.57 ± 0.46) or moderate ostrich production (0.96 ± 0.56). However, no significant differences were observed for category (χ² = 3.41, df = 2, p = 0.18), education (χ² = 0.004, df = 1, p = 0.95), or diet preference (χ² = 6.99, df = 3, p = 0.07).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eScores for Knowledge of Ostrich Production and Management (Dimension 2) differed significantly across all demographic factors except income level (χ² = 1.59, df = 2, p \u0026lt; 0.62)\u003cs\u003e,\u003c/s\u003e. More specifically, significant differences were observed for category (χ² = 92.77, df = 2, p \u0026lt; 0.0001), gender (χ² = 35.48, df = 1, p \u0026lt; 0.0001), education (χ² = 11.72, df = 1, p = 0.0006), Diet (χ² = 17.05, df = 3, p = 0.0007), and Province (χ² = 26.16, df = 2, p \u0026lt; 0.0001). Farmers scored highest (2.38 ± 0.25), followed by stakeholders (1.04 ± 0.19), while consumers scored lowest (–0.99 ± 0.14). Men had higher scores (0.54 ± 0.15) than women (–1.05 ± 0.21). Participants without tertiary education scored higher (0.93 ± 0.28) than those with tertiary education (–0.24 ± 0.14). Participants with a preference for a Vegetarian diet scored lowest (–2.05 ± 0.53), followed by participants with no diet preference (–0.06 ± 0.17) and participants with a preference for meat (0.35 ± 0.20). Finally, scores were highest in the province with the highest ostrich production (0.49 ± 0.16), intermediate in provinces with “Minimal to no ostrich production” (–0.83 ± 0.27), and lowest in “Moderate ostrich production” provinces (–1.14 ± 0.35).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith regards to scores for Health and Ethical Considerations in Ostrich Farming (Dimension 3), no significant differences were detected across any demographic factors: Category (χ² = 2.02, df = 2, p = 0.36), gender (χ² = 0.59, df = 1, p = 0.44), education (χ² = 0.01, df = 1, p = 0.92), income level (χ² = 1.60, df = 2, p = 0.45), diet (χ² = 0.56, df = 3, p = 0.90), or province (χ² = 0.69, df = 2, p = 0.71).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe present study revealed several meaningful insights into the knowledge, attitudes, and priorities of South African citizens regarding welfare in the ostrich industry. Firstly, although the participants perceived their knowledge of husbandry practices to be modest (mean scores between 2.4 and 2.9), they assigned high importance to animal welfare factors (e.g., feed, water, housing, health, freedom from pain), with mean scores ranging from 4.1 to 4.7. Secondly, three underlying dimensions emerged via the principal component analysis: Ostrich Welfare Priorities, Knowledge of Ostrich Production and Management, and Health and Ethical Considerations in Ostrich Farming. These dimensions varied in relation to demographic factors. Thirdly, willingness to pay a premium for welfare-conscious products was comparatively lower (mean of 3.61) than the high importance placed on welfare itself.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe finding that participants mostly reported low to moderate knowledge of husbandry practices, yet great concern for welfare, is consistent with the broader body of research on consumer/stakeholder perceptions of farm-animal welfare. Several studies have reported that consumers often have limited factual knowledge of husbandry practices, production systems, or farm animal-welfare conditions; yet they express strong concerns about the welfare of farmed animals (Alonso et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Fonseca \u0026amp; Sanchez-Sabate, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Sweeney et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). For example, Fonseca \u0026amp; Sanchez-Sabate (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) found that consumers report low awareness of specific farming practices (e.g., tie stalls, one-day-old chick culling) but show higher levels of concern once these practices are made salient. In the present study, even stakeholders (many of whom likely have closer ties to production) may not feel fully confident and perceive gaps in their knowledge of husbandry practices in the ostrich industry. This has potential implications for education, extension and communication within the industry.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe strong emphasis placed on welfare-related factors (e.g., natural living, freedom of movement, enrichment, skilled stockmanship, and health or illness detection) may suggest a growing welfare consciousness within agricultural production systems. Specifically, consumers increasingly expect ethical treatment of animals and perceive welfare as an integral part of food production. For example, Alonso et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) and Sweeney et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) showed that European consumers associate animal-friendly production with higher product quality, better health and safety credentials, and greater authenticity. In the South African context, a consumer study found that 84% of participants considered animal wellness very important in selecting animal products (NSF, 2024). In that sense, the ethical dimension (Health and Ethical Considerations) of the present study was uniformly high across demographics, reinforcing a baseline consensus or normative orientation towards welfare and ethics among all stakeholder groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e The observed differences in Knowledge of Ostrich Production and Management (Dimension 2) provide valuable insights into how familiarity with and understanding of farming practices vary across the category of participants, highlighting the influence of experience and exposure on knowledge levels. Farmers had the highest scores, stakeholders had intermediate scores, and consumers had the lowest. This aligns with the expectation that those closer to the production process have greater knowledge, as also highlighted by Erian et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Gender, education, diet and province also influenced knowledge scores. Specifically, male participants, those without tertiary education, participants who preferred a meat diet, and participants from provinces with high ostrich production consistently exhibited higher scores. These patterns warrant further exploration. Firstly, the finding that non-tertiary educated participants had higher knowledge scores supports the existing literature, which generally reports knowledge gaps and misconceptions about animal production systems (Clark et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). This lack of knowledge may be attributed to the fact that a small percentage of citizens are actively involved in the agricultural sector, as well as the ostrich industry's small scale and its confinement to specific regions in South Africa, such as the Western and Eastern Cape regions (Brand \u0026amp; Jordaan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; DAFF, 2021). These results are consistent with those of Bir et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), who demonstrated that citizens in the United States, regardless of their involvement in the agricultural sector or level of tertiary education, have a limited understanding of food production processes. They also highlighted that a lack of knowledge is often associated with negative emotional attitudes towards livestock management and production practices. Social media and advertising can further exacerbate this incoherence (Rice et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, misconceptions arising from a lack of understanding of husbandry practices in livestock industries may lead the public to accept that inadequate, potentially harmful techniques are commonly employed in intensive production systems. For instance, in poultry slaughtering, the public perceives methods such as stunning as insufficient (Erian \u0026amp; Phillips, 2017). Secondly, the responses from participants from provinces with higher ostrich production corresponded to higher knowledge is intuitive, as the proximity to production may increase knowledge or exposure. For instance, Boogaard et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrated that less proximity to or limited exposure to dairy farming systems was correlated with lower knowledge/experience of dairy farming among Norwegians. Thirdly, these results may also reflect the characteristics of the sampled population, with a higher proportion of participants being men and directly involved in ostrich production (hence with a preference for a meat diet and residing in high ostrich production provinces), despite having less formal education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe \u0026ldquo;attitude-behavior gap\u0026rdquo; was, however, evident in the willingness to pay for welfare-conscious product. Although welfare was highly valued, the willingness to pay a premium for welfare-conscious products was lower (mean\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;3.61) compared to other welfare attitude scores. This observation aligns with prior research: for example, Aschemann-Witzel \u0026amp; Zielke (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) found that consumer willingness to pay for higher-welfare livestock products is generally positive but often marginal and varies by region and product type. In addition, several studies highlighted that although most consumers reported paying attention to how animals were raised, and many were willing to pay a premium, their willingness to pay was mediated by ethical orientation. They also demanded certification/information for welfare-certified products (Giannetto et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Miranda-de la Lama et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Spain et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). A similar trend was observed in South Africa, where 76% of consumers expressed a willingness to pay more for certified animal welfare products (NSF, 2024). Compared to those figures, the lower willingness to pay in the present study may reflect specific constraints in the ostrich industry context (e.g., pricing, product awareness, niche market) or sample composition (e.g., stakeholders vs general consumers). It may also reflect that other purchase criteria remain dominant (e.g., price, taste, convenience).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese results have several actionable implications for the ostrich industry. The combination of modest self-reported knowledge of husbandry practices and strong welfare concern highlights a clear opportunity for the ostrich industry to engage in outreach and education. For instance, enhancing transparency around ostrich production, welfare standards, and transport or slaughter procedures could strengthen trust and potentially increase willingness to pay a premium, as shown in other livestock sectors (Dickinson et al., 2015; Miranda-de la Lama et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Xu et al., 2019). As participants place significant value on welfare and ethics, there is also an opportunity to develop local welfare certification, assurance schemes, or product labelling tailored to the ostrich industry (e.g., \u0026ldquo;Welfare Certified Ostrich\u0026rdquo;). Such initiatives could assist in reducing the gap between positive attitudes and actual purchasing decisions. However, the relatively low willingness to pay a premium suggests that producers and marketers should not assume that consumers will automatically spend more on welfare-conscious ostrich products. Communicating welfare benefits alongside other desirable attributes (such as nutrition, origin, or sustainability) may increase market uptake (Li \u0026amp; Kallas, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The demographic variation in knowledge and attitudes further suggests that different groups (e.g., based on gender, dietary habits, province of residence, or stakeholder category) may respond differently to welfare marketing messaging. For instance, women placed greater emphasis on welfare, while consumers in major production regions tended to score lower on these priorities, potentially due to familiarity with industry practices. Tailored communication strategies may therefore be more effective than one-size-fits-all approaches (Cordoba et al., 2025). Finally, identifying underlying factors (such as welfare priorities, production knowledge, and health/ethical considerations) provides a useful framework for monitoring stakeholder attitudes over time. Future surveys can build on these factors identified to track shifts in perceptions and concerns within the ostrich industry.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is essential to note that this study has several limitations. First, sampling was heavily weighted toward the high-ostrich-production province of the Western Cape (69.3%), and 81% of participants had a tertiary education qualification. This may limit generalisability to the broader South African public or to other provinces. Second, attitude measures may be subject to social desirability bias (partcipants may overstate welfare concerns). Likewise, willingness-to-pay measures are hypothetical and may not accurately reflect actual purchasing decisions (also referred to as the \u0026ldquo;hypothetical-bias\u0026rdquo; issue: Schmidt et al., 2020). As such, actual purchasing decisions (e.g., measurable premium payment, choice experiments) would strengthen the evidence base. Future research could integrate choice modelling to examine the price premium consumers are willing to pay for welfare-conscious products. Third, the survey only captures snapshots of attitudes and knowledge at a single point in time. Longitudinal studies would help track how attitudes, knowledge and purchasing decisions evolve over time, especially if welfare education or marketing interventions are undertaken. Fourth, the ostrich industry has unique production, marketing, and consumer dynamics compared to mainstream poultry, pork, or beef production. Therefore, the findings may only partially align with other sectors. Future research might explore: (a) consumer choice experiments for ostrich-meat or ostrich products to measure actual willingness to pay under market conditions; (b) qualitative work (focus groups, interviews) with farmers, processors and consumers to understand barriers and enablers of welfare-conscious purchasing; (c) intervention studies to test whether welfare-labelling or informational campaigns increase willingness to pay and actual uptake in the sector; and (d) comparative studies across provinces or countries to examine whether geographic/production-density effects persist under a more balanced sampling population.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study demonstrated that animal welfare and ethical considerations are of high importance to South African consumers, farmers and stakeholders in the ostrich industry. However, the perceived knowledge of production practices was modest, and the willingness to pay a premium was moderate. Furthermore, gender, participant category, education, diet, and province contributed to significant differences in knowledge and welfare attitudes. These results aligned well with broader international and South African research, while adding specific evidence for the ostrich sector. For industry and policymakers, there is a clear motivation to improve transparency, develop local certification labelling strategies, target communication to the different stakeholders in the ostrich industry, and monitor, over time, the behaviour of South African citizens to translate welfare concerns into welfare-driven market outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCompliance with ethical standards\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eConflict of interest\u003c/b\u003e: The authors declare no conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eEthical approval:\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eEthical clearance to distribute this questionnaire was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee (Humanities) of Stellenbosch University (reference number: 7699).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFunding for this study was provided by the Western Cape Agricultural Research Trust.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe sincerely thank the Western Cape Agricultural Research Trust for funding this study. We are also grateful to the University of Stellenbosch, the South African Society of Animal Sciences, the Animal Feed Manufacturers Association, the Western Cape Department of Agriculture and the Herold, De Rust, Volmoed and Heidelberg farmers meetings for assisting us in distributing the questionnaire.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData availability:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll data of the manuscript are available upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlonso, M. E., Gonz\u0026aacute;lez-Monta\u0026ntilde;a, J. R., Lomillos, J. M., 2020. Consumers\u0026rsquo; concerns and perceptions of farm animal welfare. Animals, 10(3), 385. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030385\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ani10030385\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAschemann-Witzel, J., Zielke, S., 2017. Can\u0026rsquo;t buy me green? A review of consumer perceptions of and behavior toward the price of organic food. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 51(1), 211\u0026ndash;251. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12092\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/joca.12092\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBejaei, J. L., Cheng, K. M., 2014. A survey of current ostrich handling and transport practices in North America with reference to ostrich welfare and transportation guidelines set up in other countries. Poultry Science, 93, 296\u0026ndash;306.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBir, C., Davis, M., Widmar, N., Zuelly, S., Erasums, M., 2019. Perceptions of animal welfare with a special focus on turkeys. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 6, 416. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00413\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fvets.2019.00413\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoogaard, B. K., Oosting, S. J., Bock, B. B., 2006. Elements of societal perception of farm animal welfare: a quantitative study in the Netherlands. Livestock Science, 104, 13\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoogaard, B. K., Oosting, S. J., Bock, B. B., Wiskerke, J.S.C., 2011.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe sociocultural sustainability of livestock farming: an inquiry into social perceptions of dairy farming. Animal, 5, 1458\u0026ndash;1466.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBouwman, E.P., Galama, J., Onwezen, M.C., 2024. Unravelling consumer acceptance of local food: Physical versus social distance and the important role of social identification. Appetite, 1, 198:107331. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1016/j.appet.2024.107331\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1016/j.appet.2024.107331\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrambell, F.W.R., 1965. Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems (Cmd. 2836). London: Her Majesty\u0026rsquo;s Stationery Office. Available at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7d89fe40f0b64fe6c24508/Farm_Animal_Welfare_in_Great_Britain_-_Past__Present_and_Future.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7d89fe40f0b64fe6c24508/Farm_Animal_Welfare_in_Great_Britain_-_Past__Present_and_Future.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e [Accessed 5 March 2026].\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrand, T.S., Jordaan, J.W., 2011. The contribution of the South African ostrich industry to the national economy. Applied Animal Husbandry and Rural Development, 4, 1\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBroom, D. M., 2011. A history of animal welfare science. Acta Biotheoretica, 59, 121\u0026ndash;137.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen, M., Lee, H., Liu, Y., Weary, D.M., 2024. Suppliers' perspectives on cage-free eggs in China. Animals, 30, 14(11), 1625. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3390/ani14111625\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ani14111625\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClark, B., Stewart, G. B., Panzone, L. A., Kyriazakis, I., Frewer, L. J., 2016. A systematic review of public attitudes, perceptions and behaviours towards production diseases associated with farm animal welfare. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics, 29, 455\u0026ndash;478.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eČobanović, N., Magrin, L., 2023. Health and welfare problems of farm animals: prevalence, risk factors, consequences and possible prevention solutions. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 10, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.3389/fvets.2023.1238852\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.3389/fvets.2023.1238852\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDepartment of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD), 2021. A profile of the South African ostrich market value chain. Pretoria, South Africa. Availanle on: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://webapps1.daff.gov.za/AmisAdmin/upload/Ostrich%20Market%20Value%20Chain%20Profile%202021.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://webapps1.daff.gov.za/AmisAdmin/upload/Ostrich%20Market%20Value%20Chain%20Profile%202021.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e, [Accessed 5 March 2026].\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eC\u0026oacute;rdoba, M., Alesso, A., Lazzarini, B., Demarchi, E., Vargas-Bello-P\u0026eacute;rez, E., Baudracco, J., 2025. Consumer perceptions, knowledge and preferences on animal welfare in grazing and confined dairy systems. Journal of Dairy Research, 24, 1\u0026ndash;9, doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1017/S0022029925101398\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/S0022029925101398\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDickinson, D. L., Von Bailey, D., 2005. Experimental evidence on willingness to pay for red meat traceability in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Japan. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 37(3), 537\u0026ndash;548. doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1017/S1074070800027061\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/S1074070800027061\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErian, I., Philipps, C.J.C., 2017. Public understanding and attitudes towards meat: chicken\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eproduction and relations to consumption. Animals, 7, 20. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ani7030020\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ani7030020\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErian, I., Sinclair, M., Phillips, C. J. C., 2019. Knowledge of stakeholders in the livestock industries of East and Southeast Asia about welfare during transport and slaughter and its relation to their attitudes to improving animal welfare. Animals, 9(3), 99. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ani9030099\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ani9030099\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFonseca, R. P., Sanchez-Sabate, R., 2022. Consumers\u0026rsquo; attitudes towards animal suffering: a systematic review on awareness, willingness and dietary change. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(23), 16372. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192316372\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ijerph192316372\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFraser, D., 1999. Animal ethics and animal welfare science: Bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 65, 171\u0026ndash;189.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGao, J., Wei, H., 2023. Supply chain management with uncertainty in consumer perception of product greenness under an eco-label policy. Scientific Reports, 13, 13581. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40348-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41598-023-40348-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGiannetto, C., Biondi, V., Previti, A., De Pascale, A., Monti, S., Alibrandi, A., Zirilli, A., Lanfranchi, M., Pugliese, M., Passantino, A., 2023. Willingness to pay a higher price for pork obtained using animal-friendly raising techniques: a consumers\u0026rsquo; opinion survey. Foods, 12(23), 4201. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/foods12234201\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/foods12234201\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHasanzade, V., Elshiewy, O., Toporowski, W., 2022. Is it just the distance? Consumer preference for geographical and social proximity of food production. Ecological Economics, 200, 107533, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107533\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107533\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHenchion, M., Zimmermann, J., 2021. Animal food products: policy, market and social issues and their influence on demand and supply of meat. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 80, 252\u0026ndash;263. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665120007971\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/S0029665120007971\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHewson, C. J., 2003. What is animal welfare? Common definitions and their practical consequences. Canadian Veterinary Journal, 44, 496\u0026ndash;499.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJosse, J., Husson, F., 2016. missMDA: A package for handling missing values in multivariate data analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 70(1), 1\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eL\u0026ecirc;, S., Josse, J., Husson, F., 2008. FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(1), 1\u0026ndash;18.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi, S., Kallas, Z., 2021. Meta-analysis of consumers' willingness to pay for sustainable food products. Appetite, 163, 105239. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105239\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.appet.2021.105239\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMellor, D. J., Beausoleil, N., 2015. Extending the \u0026lsquo;Five Domains\u0026rsquo; model for animal welfare assessment to incorporate positive welfare states. Animal Welfare, 24(3), 241\u0026ndash;253. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.24.3.241\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.7120/09627286.24.3.241\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiranda-de la Lama, G. C., Estevez-Moreno, L. X., Sepulveda, W.S., Estrada-Chavero, M.C., Rayas-Amor, A.A., Villarroel, M., Maria, G.A., 2017. Mexican consumers' perceptions and attitudes towards farm animal welfare and willingness to pay for welfare-friendly meat products. Meat Science, 125, 106\u0026ndash;113. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.12.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.12.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNSF, 2024. New Research Finds 84% of South Africans Demand Animal Wellness From Food Companies. NSF Global. Available on: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.nsf.org/za/en/news/new-research-finds-84-of-south-africans-demand-animal-wellness-from-food-companies\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.nsf.org/za/en/news/new-research-finds-84-of-south-africans-demand-animal-wellness-from-food-companies\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e [Accessed 5 March 2026].\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePrickett, R. W., Norwood, F. B., Lusk, J. L., 2010. Consumer preferences for farm animal welfare: results from a telephone survey of US households. Animal Welfare, 19(3), 335\u0026ndash;347.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eR Core Team, 2025. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRice, M., Hemsworth, L. M., Hemsworth, P. H., Coleman, G. J., 2020. The impact of a negative media event on public attitudes towards animal welfare in the red meat industry. Animals, 10(4), 619. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ani10040619\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ani10040619\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchmidt, J., Bijmolt, T. H. A., 2020. Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: A meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(3), 499\u0026ndash;518.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSinclair, M., Lee, N. Y. P., H\u0026ouml;tzel, M. J., de Luna, M. C., Sharma, A. et al., 2022. International perceptions of animals and the importance of their welfare. Frontiers in Animal Science, 3. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2022.960379\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fanim.2022.960379\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpain, C.V., Freund, D., Mohan-Gibbons, H., Meadow, R.G., Beacham, L., 2018. Are they buying it? United States consumers' changing attitudes toward more humanely raised meat, eggs, and dairy. Animals, 8(8),128. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ani8080128\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ani8080128\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSweeney, S., Regan, \u0026Aacute;., McKernan, C., Benson, T., Hanlon, A., Dean, M., 2022. Current consumer perceptions of animal welfare across different farming sectors on the island of Ireland. Animals, 12, 185. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ani12020185\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ani12020185\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Poucke, E., Tuytten, F.A.M., 2008. Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science, 116, 126\u0026ndash;136.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWarsaw, P., Archambault, S., He, A., Miller, S., 2021. The economic, social, and environmental impacts of farmers markets: recent evidence from the US. \u003cem\u003eS\u003c/em\u003eustainability, 13, 3423. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su13063423\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su13063423\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWickham, H., Chang, W., Henry, L., Pedersen, T.L., Takahashi, K., Wilke, C., Woo, K., Yutani, H., Dunnington, D., van den Brand, T., 2024. \u0026ldquo;Ggplot2\u0026rdquo;: Create elegant data visualisations using the grammar of graphics. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.package.ggplot2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.32614/CRAN.package.ggplot2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWickham, H., Fran\u0026ccedil;ois, R., Henry, L., M\u0026uuml;ller, K., Vaughan, D., 2023. dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://dplyr\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://dplyr\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.tidyverse.org. Xu, L., Yang, X., Wu, L., Chen, X., Chen, L., Tsai, F.S., 2019. Consumers\u0026rsquo; willingness to pay for food with information on animal welfare, lean meat essence detection, and traceability. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(19), 3616. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193616\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ijerph16193616\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYou, X., Li, Y., Zhang, M., Yan, H., Zhao, R., 2014. A survey of Chinese citizens\u0026rsquo; perceptions on farm animal welfare. PLoS One, 9(10), e109177. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/journale.pone.0109177\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/journale.pone.0109177\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYue, C., Lai, Y., Wang, J., Mitchell, P., 2020. Consumer preferences for sustainable product attributes and farm program features. Sustainability, 12(18), 7388. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su12187388\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su12187388\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTables are available in the Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\u003e\n"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"tropical-animal-health-and-production","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"trop","sideBox":"Learn more about [Tropical Animal Health and Production](https://www.springer.com/journal/11250)","snPcode":"11250","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/11250/3","title":"Tropical Animal Health and Production","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Animal husbandry, ethical standards, perception differences, survey, Struthio camelus","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9232134/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9232134/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigated South African consumers\u0026rsquo;, farmers\u0026rsquo;, and industry stakeholders\u0026rsquo; perceptions of ostrich welfare using a questionnaire distributed nationwide between September 2018 and September 2019. The survey included demographic questions and assessed knowledge of ostrich husbandry, welfare priorities, and purchasing behaviors. A total of 302 participants completed the questionnaire. A Principal Component Analysis identified three principal components that explained 49.5% of the total variance: ostrich welfare priorities, knowledge of ostrich production and management, and health and ethical considerations in ostrich farming. Welfare priorities and knowledge levels were influenced by demographic factors, with farmers consistently scoring the highest on knowledge and consumers the lowest. All participants reported a modest understanding of husbandry practices but placed a high importance on welfare-related factors such as feeding, housing, health, and minimizing pain and stress. Although most partcipants preferred welfare-conscious products, their willingness to pay a premium was low. These findings highlight a strong welfare orientation across groups but reveal knowledge gaps and an attitude\u0026ndash;behavior gap, suggesting opportunities for targeted education, improved industry awareness and transparency, and welfare-focused product communication.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Perceptions of ostrich welfare and ethical practices: insights from consumers, farmers and stakeholders","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-26 15:33:07","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9232134/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"","date":"2026-04-16T09:51:41+00:00","index":0,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-16T09:34:57+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-04-02T06:26:01+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Tropical Animal Health and Production","date":"2026-03-27T08:47:40+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"tropical-animal-health-and-production","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"trop","sideBox":"Learn more about [Tropical Animal Health and Production](https://www.springer.com/journal/11250)","snPcode":"11250","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/11250/3","title":"Tropical Animal Health and Production","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"16b63928-168a-4288-9af1-2a2f554ceb6d","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 26th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-26T15:33:07+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-26 15:33:07","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9232134","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9232134","identity":"rs-9232134","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}