Defining sustainability as a socio-cultural concept: Citizen panels visiting dairy farms in the Netherlands

Outdoor access practices in the Canadian dairy industry

Dairy cows are highly motivated to access pasture and have a partial preference for alternative forms of outdoor access (e.g., deep-bedded outdoor sand or wood-chip packs). In addition, Canadians value the provision of outdoor access to dairy cows as they perceive it as important for good cow welfare. In contrast to Europe, Oceania, and the United States, little data exist on the use of outdoor access on Canadian dairy farms. Therefore, our objective was to assess current outdoor access practices for dairy cows in Canada. An online questionnaire was used to determine housing and outdoor access practices for lactating cows, dry cows, pregnant heifers, and weaned, nonpregnant heifers on Canadian dairy farms. The questionnaire was distributed by the 10 provincial milk boards between November 2020 and August 2021, resulting in an 8.9% response rate (n = 903 completed questionnaires). In total, 75% (n = 675) of respondents provided some form of outdoor access to at least 1 cattle class on their farm. Pasture was the most frequently used form of outdoor access for all cattle classes. Based on a weighted average, a total of 29% and 48% of Canadian dairy farms provided lactating and dry cows, respectively, access to pasture; for youngstock, these numbers were 48% and 27% for pregnant heifers and weaned, nonpregnant heifers, respectively. Herd size (for each cow class), indoor housing system, and region were all associated with the provision of pasture. Farms with larger lactating herds less often provided access to pasture; larger herd sizes in terms of weaned, nonpregnant heifers, pregnant heifers, and dry cows were also associated with a lower likelihood of access to pasture. Farms using indoor bedded pack housing for their lactating cows more often provided pasture to this cattle class than farms with freestall or tiestall housing; this likelihood did not differ between farms with tie or freestall housing for this cattle class. Dry cows or pregnant heifers housed in a tiestall were more often provided pasture than freestall-housed dry cows or pregnant heifers. Housing type for weaned, nonpregnant heifers was not associated with the likelihood of pasture provision. Farms in British Columbia or on Canada's East Coast (i.e., Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island) more often provided lactating cows pasture compared with farms in other regions. For the other 3 cattle classes, farms on the East Coast of Canada more often provided pasture than farms in other parts of Canada. These results will inform future decisions regarding outdoor access for Canadian dairy cattle and may also aid in identifying future areas of research. For example, our results may aid in designing housing systems that facilitate outdoor access in larger herds and in areas that are subject to more extreme weather conditions.

How might the public contribute to the discussion on cattle welfare? Perspectives of veterinarians and animal scientists

Veterinarians and animal scientists can provide leadership on issues relevant to farm animal welfare, but perceptions of these stakeholders regarding societal expectations for welfare are underexplored. This study involved five focus groups of veterinarians and animal scientists (n = 50 in total), recruited at a European meeting focused on cattle welfare. Participants were invited to discuss topics related to cattle welfare and were prompted with questions to elicit their perspectives of public concerns and how the participants felt public input should be included when developing solutions. Discussions were moderated by trained facilitators, audio-recorded and transcribed, and transcripts analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Ultimately, four primary themes were developed: (1) The public as concerned; (2) The public as ignorant; (3) The public as needing education; and (4) The public as helper or hindrance. Groups identified specific farming practices viewed as concerning to the public, including lack of pasture access, behavioural restriction, and painful procedures. Discussions about these concerns and the role of the public were often framed around the assumption that the public was ignorant about farming, and that this ignorance needed to be rectified through education. Participants were generally ambivalent in their beliefs regarding public contributions to solutions for farm animal welfare but suggested that consumers should pay more for products to help shoulder any costs of welfare improvements.

"We are stewards and caretakers of the land, not exploiters of resources": A qualitative study exploring Canadian farmers' perceptions of environmental sustainability in agriculture

Environmental sustainability in agriculture is a key component of discussions to address the current climate crisis; unfortunately, many people (including researchers) presume that only certain types of agriculture (e.g., organic, local) are environmentally sustainable. Non-farmers also fail to acknowledge that many farm practices, including grazing animals, mitigate climate change. Farmers' perceptions about environmental sustainability are important because their livelihoods, and those of future generations, depend on their commitment to sustainable environmental practices. The purpose of this qualitative research was to understand Canadian farmers' perceptions of environmental sustainability, how they are implementing strategies that contribute to sustainable food production, and the challenges they face. Fifty-two farmers, representing 48 farms and over 1000 years of farming experience, participated in comprehensive in-depth interviews. Four farms were in British Columbia; 13 in the Prairies; 26 in Central Canada; and five in Eastern Canada. A wide variety of farm types (e.g., fruit/vegetables, livestock, grains) and sizes (2 to 6500 acres) were included in the study. Farmers' perceptions of environmental sustainability coalesced into four main themes: (1) definitions of sustainability and environmental sustainability, (2) current practices, (3) farming as an identity, and (4) challenges. Many participants explained that they already use sustainable practices and technology, contrary to prevailing opinion that entire food systems need to be transformed to be sustainable. As new agricultural policies and educational curricula are developed, information provided to students, policy makers, and the public must be accurate, balanced, evidence-based, and respectfully consider all perspectives, especially those of farmers.

Fellow cows and conflicting farmers: Public perceptions of dairy farming uncovered through frame analysis

Divergence in opinion over how farm animals should be cared for is creating a disconnect between livestock farming and the public that risks a loss of “social license” to farm. One proposed solution for the dairy farming community is to engage more constructively with the public to develop a shared vision of the industry's future; however, farmers and veterinarians remain reluctant to validate public opinions on farm animal care, in particular, often viewing them as naïve or impractical. Understanding the interpretive frames through which people make sense of dairy farming could help the dairy farming community engage more constructively with public opinion, thereby reducing conflict and providing opportunities to change communication or practice. Hence, frame analysis was conducted on transcripts of 60 face-to-face interviews with members of the UK public, first defining frames using reflexive thematic analysis, then considering the effect of these frames on those holding them. The results showed that dairy farming was mainly characterized by two entities: the cow and the farmer. Three frames were developed for the cow: she was perceived as i) enduring, which induced a sense of moral responsibility for her well-being among participants; ii) a fellow or companion, which led to feelings of a shared or parallel life with her; and iii) a force of nature, where the cow's connection with the natural world and “otherness” was appreciated, or even longed for. These connections were unexpectedly widespread within the sample, with many participants simultaneously holding two or even three frames. The farmer was seen through two frames: i) traditional; or ii) modernizing, but both frames had positive and negative narratives depending on the perceived care of the cow, causing confusion or even conflict about the care the farmer actually delivered. These findings provide new insights into the interpretive lenses through which the public makes sense of the dairy cow and her care, not least the bond the public themselves feel with the animal. They offer fresh opportunities for the dairy industry to improve engagement through more reflexive communication or modification of farming practices to better fit societal expectations about dairy cow welfare.

Landscape products for sustainable agricultural landscapes

Landscape products link to low-input practices and traditional ecological knowledge, and have multiple functions supporting human well-being and sustainability. Here we explore seven landscape products worldwide to identify these multiple functions in the context of food commodification and landscape sustainability. We show that a landscape products lens can improve food systems by fostering sustainability strategies and standards that are place-sensitive, and as such can mitigate conflicts related to food production, social justice and the environment. Co-management strategies and information policies, such as certification, labelling, product information and raising of awareness could accelerate, incentivize and catalyse actions to support landscape products in the context of sustainability strategies.

Views of Consumers, Farmers and Stakeholders on Alternative Dairy Cattle Housing Systems

Simple Summary

Sustainable alternative housing systems for dairy cattle depend on being accepted by key categories like farmers, stakeholders, and consumers. Alongside tie-stall and cubicle housing systems, alternative free-walk systems (compost-bedded pack and artificial floor systems) are available today. This study aimed to determine and compare the acceptance of (alternative) housing systems and attitudes to certain aspects of housing systems for dairy cattle among Slovenian consumers, farmers, and stakeholders. They were asked online about their views on the most important aspects (animals, farmers, products, environment) of housing systems as well as the acceptance of four housing systems and related issues. The results reveal differences in attitude and acceptance among the main groups of respondents. Consumers, stakeholders, and conventional farmers preferred the artificial floor system, while organic farmers preferred the compost-bedded pack housing system. Consumers and organic farmers showed below-average scores for all aspects analyzed concerning animals, products, and the environment, whereas conventional farmers and stakeholders had shown above-average scores for aspects related to animals and the environment and negative attitudes to products. The findings suggest the need to tailor information about different housing systems to specific groups.

Abstract

Alternative housing systems for dairy cattle have recently emerged, such as compost-bedded packs and artificial floor ones. To determine their acceptability among categories of people with a connection to animal husbandry, this study aimed to identify and compare the acceptability of (alternative) housing systems and attitudes to aspects of housing systems for dairy cattle among Slovenian consumers, farmers, and stakeholders. Farmers (N = 306), consumers (N = 508), and stakeholders (N = 40) were interviewed about their views on the main aspects (animals, farmers, products, environment) of housing systems for dairy cattle, the acceptance of four housing systems, and important housing features. The results show that consumers, stakeholders, and conventional farmers preferred housing systems with an artificial floor, while organic farmers preferred a housing system with a compost-bedded pack. Consumers and organic farmers expressed the greatest acceptance of almost every aspect of the housing system, except for a sufficient income for farmers and a low workload. Conventional farmers and stakeholders hold similar views, except for the expectation that the animals have enough space to move around, the image of the landscape, and the animals’ health and wellbeing, where stakeholders showed more acceptance than conventional farmers. The results imply that systematically planned information aimed at different target categories is needed to increase the acceptance of (alternative) housing systems for cattle.

Developing 'Smart' Dairy Farming Responsive to Farmers and Consumer-Citizens: A Review

Innovation has resulted in more dairy products being produced with less inputs than ever before. It has also affected how animals are raised, the structure of the sector and the nature of products produced. Not all impacts have been positive. As disruptive technologies-such as precision farming and robotics-herald significant change, it is timely to reflect on the perspectives of different actors on innovations within the sector. Drawing on a review of academic literature, this paper considers farmers' and consumer-citizens' perspectives; as expected, their diverse knowledge, interests and values surface a range of perspectives. To provide focus to the study, it examines technologies across three stages of the dairy production cycle: breeding, feeding and milking. It finds that consumer-citizen and farmer perspectives have been examined by researchers in several countries, using a variety of methods, across a range of technologies. It finds both areas of agreement and tension within and between consumer-citizen and producer cohorts. While differences in knowledge account for some variation, differences in values are also significant. The extent to which efforts can and should be put into addressing differences is raised as a point for reflection.

Public attitude toward and perceptions of dairy cattle welfare in cow-calf management systems differing in type of social and maternal contact

Early cow-calf separation followed by individual housing of calves is standard practice on dairy farms. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that as awareness grows the public will oppose these practices, which could compromise the dairy industry's social license. Despite disagreement among different stakeholders over weighting and evaluations of effects of early separation (e.g., distress response, disease risk), recent systematic reviews indicate that there is little scientific evidence supporting this practice. The acceptability of alternative cow-calf management systems is unknown. We used a mixed methods survey with a convenience sample of 307 Canadians plus a representative sample of 1,487 Americans to investigate perceptions of these systems, examining the effects of providing social or foster cow contact following early separation or not separating cow-calf pairs. Attitudes and perceptions of animal welfare were more positive (on a 7-point scale where 1 is most negative, 7 is most positive, and 4 is a neutral midpoint) toward the system where calves were not separated from the cow (mean ± SE; 5.8 ± 0.07; 5.7 ± 0.07), compared with systems in which the calf was separated and individually housed (3.6 ± 0.07; 3.4 ± 0.07), separated and group housed (3.7 ± 0.07; 3.4 ± 0.07), or separated and kept with a foster cow (3.8 ± 0.07; 3.6 ± 0.07). Participants were consistent in their attitudes toward and perceptions of animal welfare within the system, suggesting that participants took a holistic and value-oriented approach to cow-calf management regarding separation. These results, in combination with many participants' concern for the importance of the mother cow-calf relationship and perceptions that severing of this bond was a breach of standard of care, suggest that there may be low acceptance of any cow-calf management system involving early separation as such systems are unlikely to resonate with underlying values.

Invited review: Sustainability: Different perspectives, inherent conflict

Consumer definitions of sustainability are largely uninformed by scientific research and may not align with industry definitions. Furthermore, consumers themselves have varied perceptions, definitions, and opinions of sustainability that vary between categories and products within the dairy category. Understanding these differences and developing marketing messaging aligned with consumer sustainability definitions offer an advantage to dairy product producers when strategically positioning their products in a changing marketplace. This review outlines the factors that may affect consumer sustainability perceptions to provide a basis for future marketing and scientific work. Consumer trends and desires for sustainability are explored, including how they are reflected in the rapid growth of plant-based alternatives. Factors that may influence consumer perception of dairy as sustainable are covered in detail, including packaging, labeling, animal welfare, organic status, grass-fed or pasture-raised feeding systems, and local and clean label perceptions. Finally, a discussion of the challenges of marketing dairy foods with sustainability messages is addressed.

Perspectives of Western Canadian dairy farmers on providing outdoor access for dairy cows

Dairy cows are highly motivated to access pasture, especially at night in summer. When pasture is not available, dairy cows show a partial preference for alternative types of outdoor access, spending half the night outside in summer on an outdoor sand or wood chip pack. However, many dairy farms do not provide cows outside access. To better understand reasons why dairy farmers choose to provide or not provide outdoor access, we studied the perspectives of dairy farmers located in the 4 Western Canadian provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. Data were collected via (1) 11 focus group discussions with a total of 50 Western Canadian dairy farmers, and (2) semi-structured individual interviews with 6 dairy farmers of Hutterite colonies. Transcripts were analyzed using template analysis. Reasons to not provide outdoor access fell into 5 main themes: (1) adverse climate conditions, (2) negative implications of outdoor access for cow welfare including concerns about udder health, (3) concerns regarding decreases in profitability, (4) farm infrastructure not set up for outdoor access, and (5) higher ability to manage animals kept indoors. Reasons to provide outdoor access fell into the 5 main themes: (1) local climate conditions conducive for outdoor access, (2) beneficial effects of outdoor access on cow welfare including lower lameness prevalence, (3) increased profitability due to a premium milk price provided to farmers that allow pasture access to their cows, (4) farm infrastructure that is set up for outdoor access, and (5) easier management of animals outdoors. We conclude that the decision to provide outdoor access depends on how farmers weigh these factors given the constraints on their farm, as well as their personal beliefs and values.

The Effect of Mother Goat Presence during Rearing on Kids' Response to Isolation and to an Arena Test

The aim of the study was to examine how early permanent separation, separation during the day only, or full-time access to the mother goat affected goat kids during social isolation with a sudden sound of a dog bark at two weeks and two months, and a novel arena test with a novel object at two months. Kids permanently separated reduced their vocalization earlier and had a higher heart rate before and after dog bark during isolation at two weeks, no effect was found on the daytime separated kids. Daytime separated kids bleated more at two weeks and decreased heart rate after dog barking at two months. Daytime separated kids showed the strongest fear reaction in the arena test, no effect was found on the permanently separated kids. Kids separated early vocalized more before novel object and showed more explorative behavior afterwards. Our study shows different responses in goat kids separated early permanent, daytime separated, or kept full-time with mother, which demonstrates the importance of if and how the mother is present, and the impact of using a wide variety of physiological and behavioral measures when evaluating stress in animal welfare research.

Am I actually a veterinarian or an economist? Understanding the moral challenges for farm veterinarians in Germany on the basis of a qualitative online survey

This qualitative online survey (n = 123) investigated what farm veterinarians in Germany perceive as morally challenging situations. Vital moral challenges can be described as conflicts between different actors who make demands on the veterinarians, like (a) animals, (b) farmers, (c) politics, (d) society, (e) veterinary offices (f) colleagues, supervisors, employees and competitors and (g) the veterinarian himself/herself. Or they can be described as the conflict between different roles of veterinarians who describe themselves as (a) advocates for the animals, (b) entrepreneurs, (c) social workers, (d) part of agriculture, (e) colleagues, supervisors, employees and competitors and (f) private persons. It can be deduced that at least some study participants find the described moral challenges a cause for moral distress. The key moral challenge for farm veterinarians, from their own viewpoint, are not so much open ethical questions, ethical dilemmas or "duty vs. inclination" conflicts, but rather situations in which their personal moral convictions are conflicting with external obstacles. Accordingly, a feeling of powerlessness appears in their answers. The extremely limited financial scope of animal owners could be identified as the key external obstacle.

Naturalness and the Legitimacy of Thoroughbred Racing: A Photo-Elicitation Study with Industry and Animal Advocacy Informants

Simple Summary

The international thoroughbred industry is concerned about the public’s perception of racing. Therefore, the industry’s priorities are to address the publicly most visible and known welfare violations. However, common day-to-day racing practices also impact thoroughbred welfare. In this study, key industry informants and animal advocacy informants were interviewed to find out how they view common racing practices. For the interviews, photographs of thoroughbreds on race day were used, which the informants were asked to describe. Results show industry informants often naturalise, normalise, downplay or ignore the horses’ expressions, the impact of handling on the horse and the use of equipment. The animal advocacy informants tend to describe a horse whose nature is violated. In conclusion, the industry informants show limited interest in addressing common racing practices, and this places thoroughbred welfare at risk. Both groups of informants have different ideas about what is natural and what that means for thoroughbred welfare. With society’s understanding of welfare and of racing practices growing, the racing industry may be increasingly questioned about common racing practices. This article discusses the notion of naturalness in more detail and how it can be used to advance thoroughbred protection.

Abstract

The idea of what is natural has particular relevance in the thoroughbred racing and breeding discourse. It guides breeding regulations; influences how the thoroughbreds’ behaviour is perceived and has implications for husbandry, handling, training and racing practices. This study investigates how key industry and animal advocacy informants based in the US, Australia and the UK conceptualise naturalness within the context of common racing practices that potentially impact the horses’ welfare. The informants were interviewed using semi-structured interviewing and photo-elicitation. Four common images of thoroughbreds on race day were presented to elicit the informants’ responses. Differences emerged between how the two groups tended to describe the images and the role naturalness played in their conceptualisations. The findings were analysed using an updated version of the Layers of Engagement with Animal Protection developed by Bergmann to situate the informants’ conceptualisations of naturalness within the wider thoroughbred protection discourse. In conclusion, the industry informants tended to defend the status quo of common racing practices. They tended to naturalise and normalise these practices and downplay their welfare impact. This poses risks for thoroughbred welfare, which are amplified by misrepresentations of what is natural. With the public’s understanding of welfare and racing practices growing, racing’s legitimacy may be further questioned. Opportunities to leverage the potential of the notion of naturalness for thoroughbred protection are discussed.

Dry-off and dairy cow udder health and welfare: Effects of different milk cessation methods

The cessation of milking at the end of lactation is a routine management practice in dairy herds, and the importance of the dry period for milk production and udder health, has long been recognized. Among countries and herds, drying-off practices differ and include various milk cessation methods, such as changes in milking frequency and in feeding, the use of antibiotic dry cow therapy and teat sealants, and changes in housing. Published studies reporting methods of stopping milk production are scarce, and there are no uniform recommendations on optimal procedures to dry cows off for good udder health, cow welfare, and milk production. This review describes methods to stop mik production to prepare cows for the dry period and their effects on mammary involution, udder health, and dairy cow welfare. Milk yield at dry-off (the final milking at the end of lactation) is important for rapid involution, which stimulates the immune system and promotes good udder health and cow welfare. Based on the findings of this review, gradual cessation of milking over several days before the final milking can effectively reduce milk yield at dry-off and accelerate mammary gland involution while maximizing cow comfort and welfare. Data from this review indicate a target production level of 15 kg/day of milk or less at dry-off.

Youth and adult public views of dairy calf housing options

The objective of this study was to explore views on dairy calf housing options among American youth and adults. Youth views were of interest because they are future consumers, yet their influence on livestock production practices is often overlooked. Participants 5 to 17 yr of age (n = 463) and 18 yr or older (n = 1,310) completed an in-person survey at the Minnesota State Fair (St. Paul, MN) in summer 2018. The survey was administered via Qualtrics survey software (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) using iPads (Apple, Cupertino, CA) and, in addition to collecting demographics, presented 3 images of calf housing options (individual, pair, or group) and asked participants to select their preferred option and indicate their reasoning for selection (youth), or acceptance for each option and reasoning for selection (adult). The PROC SURVEYFREQ of SAS (9.4; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) was used for descriptive analysis. Rao-Scott chi-square tests (PROC SURVEYFREQ, SAS 9.4) were used to investigate relationships between demographics and housing preference or acceptance. Content analysis identified recurring themes to describe qualitative reasoning underlying dairy calf housing preference or acceptance. The median age of youth participants was 11 yr, 61% were female, 82% were urban residents, and 63% did not have prior experience handling agricultural animals, but 83% had visited a farm in the past. Median age range of adult participants was 45 to 54 yr, 65% were female, 82% urban residents, 41% completed a bachelor's degree, and 81% did not have prior experience handling agricultural animals, but 63% had visited a farm in the past. Overall, group housing was overwhelmingly preferred by youth participants (80.1%), followed by pair (14.3%) and individual housing (5.6%). Youth who chose group housing most commonly cited reasons related to increased socialization (71.4%) and space allowance (58.5%). Housing preference of youth was not associated with age, gender, or prior visits to a farm. However, rural youth more frequently preferred individual housing compared with urban youth (13.6 ± 4.5% SE vs. 5.1 ± 1.3%, respectively). Similarly, adult participants were most accepting of group housing for dairy calves (75.8% of participants), with reasons focused on calves' ability to socialize and access to increased space allowance. Adult males, rural residents, and individuals with previous livestock handling experience more frequently accepted individual calf housing compared with females, urban residents, and individuals without previous livestock handling experience. These findings suggest that housing systems that enable greater degrees of behavioral freedom for calves may be more socially sustainable for the dairy sector.

The Influence of Different Types of Outdoor Access on Dairy Cattle Behavior

Pasture access for dairy cows is highly valued both by cows and the public at large. When pasture access is not feasible, farmers can provide cows with alternative forms of outdoor access, such as an outdoor bedded pack, that may be easier to implement on some farms. We reviewed the literature on how lying, standing, walking, feeding, social, and estrus behaviors are influenced by pasture and other types of outdoor areas. Pasture allows the expression of grazing and can facilitate the expression of lying, standing, walking, and estrus behaviors. In addition, pasture can decrease the number of negative social interactions between cows, likely because more space per cow is provided than what is normally available indoors. The provision of soft flooring and an open space in outdoor bedded packs appears to provide some benefits for lying, standing, and walking behavior and may also have positive effects on social behavior, especially with larger space allowances. The effects of an outdoor bedded pack on estrus behavior are less well-documented, but the provision of a standing surface that provides better footing than typically available indoors may promote estrus behavior. Alternative outdoor areas assessed to date appear to be less attractive for cows than pasture, perhaps because these areas do not provide the opportunity to graze. We encourage future research to investigate the importance of grazing for dairy cows. The motivation of dairy cows to access alternative outdoor areas should also be investigated. As cow preference for the outdoors depends on many factors, providing cows a choice may be of particular importance.

Symposium review: Considerations for the future of dairy cattle housing: An animal welfare perspective

Many contemporary dairy cattle housing practices are at odds with societal perceptions of positive animal welfare. The public (i.e., those external to the dairy industry) typically emphasizes the importance of naturalness for dairy cattle, such as through provision of pasture, freedom of movement, and the ability to interact socially with conspecifics. Yet, in the United States, the majority of lactating dairy cattle are reportedly housed without any access to pasture, and almost 39% of dairy farms use tiestalls, which restrict movement and social interactions. In addition to being in conflict with public expectations, a lack of pasture access and restrictive housing systems are also in conflict with the animals' own motivations, which can adversely affect their welfare. For example, dairy cattle are highly motivated to access pasture and show a reduction in oral stereotypies when allowed on pasture after periods of tethering. Calves housed without social contact have cognitive deficits and exhibit increased fear responses to novelty. We argue that the long-term sustainability of the dairy industry will depend on the extent to which housing systems reflect public concerns and the animals' priorities. The adoption of technologies, such as automated feeders and remote monitoring systems, may represent a means to practically promote the animals' natural behavior while simultaneously improving individualized care. Although older generations of the public may consider technological solutions to be a further deviation from naturalness and a departure from dairy farming's agrarian roots, the definition of "naturalness" for younger generations may well have expanded to include technology. As the buying power shifts to these younger generations, the adoption of technologies that promote natural cattle behaviors may be one means toward reconciling the disconnect between public perceptions of animal welfare and contemporary dairy farming practices.

Is it just about grazing? UK citizens have diverse preferences for how dairy cows should be managed

Conflicting views between the dairy industry and the public about how dairy cows should be managed, together with an increase in the availability of alternatives to dairy foods, challenge future markets for milk producers. Members of the public value animal welfare as well as naturalness and grazing, but neither the relative importance of specific aspects of management nor the diversity of views underlying these preferences have been established. To better understand these issues, 2,054 UK citizens recruited through a research panel took part in an online survey. They were asked to rank 17 attributes relating to dairy cow management and milk production through the novel application of best-worst scaling, a discrete choice methodology that allows a trade-off between items. Hierarchical Bayesian analysis of the results revealed 3 attributes of equal top importance: (1) access to grazing, (2) cow health and welfare, and (3) cow comfort. Alongside this overarching ranking, underlying differences in preferences were identified in 6 approximately equally sized citizen groups within the sample, which were identified through latent class analysis. Each latent class expressed significantly different priorities from the other, and each had different indicative sociodemographic, attitudinal, experiential, and value-oriented characteristics, as established through a multinomial logistic model. If the diversity of preference between the citizen groups found in the sample is reflected within wider populations, there may be opportunities for the dairy industry to improve communication about positive practices, develop new dairy product markets, and consider changes to dairy farming systems to better meet different citizens' needs. Furthermore, the defining characteristics and priorities of each group raise the question of whether grazing in particular, but also other attributes presented within the study, is understood in different ways by different subgroups of citizens.

Effect of outdoor open pack space allowance on the behavior of freestall-housed dairy cows

Providing dairy cows access to pasture is desirable, given their strong motivation for pasture access, but this practice is hindered by several practical constraints, including lack of available pasture. An alternative to pasture is an outdoor area that is bedded with a soft material such as sand or wood chips that requires less space than pasture, given the absence of soil or grass that can otherwise be damaged by cow traffic. However, little is known about space requirements for alternative outdoor areas. This study investigated how space allowance affected cow preference to be outdoors as well as cow behavior on an outdoor pack. A total of 3 groups of 24 pregnant, lactating, healthy Holstein cows were used. Each group was given 3 d for social dynamics to stabilize; during this time cows were kept indoors in a freestall pen. A habituation phase of 5 d followed, where animals were given free access to the outdoor pack with a space allowance of 16 m²/cow. Cows were moved outside (if not already outdoors) at set times each day during the habituation phase (i.e., 5 times during the first 2 d and 2 times during the last 3 d). Cows were then given free access to the outdoor pack, but space allowance was changed every day. A total of 13 different space allowances were randomly applied, without replacement, ranging from 4 to 16 m²/cow in 1-m² increments. Using continuous video recordings, the location of the cows (i.e., in the freestall barn or on the outdoor pack) as well as displacements from a lying position on the outdoor pack were scored. Standing and lying behaviors were automatically measured using HOBO data loggers (Onset, Cape Cod, MA). Over the 24-h period, cows spent more time outside with increasing space allowance, but this result was driven almost entirely by the increased time spent outdoors during the nighttime hours. During the night, space allowance did not influence the number of displacements from lying on the outdoor pack or the proportion of time on the outdoor pack that cows spent lying down. Our results indicate that cows use an outdoor bedded pack mostly at night and that the time spent outside at night increases with increasing space allowance. Providing an outdoor bedded pack should be considered when designing dairy cattle housing systems.

Interspecies Sustainability to Ensure Animal Protection: Lessons from the Thoroughbred Racing Industry

There is a disconnect between dominant conceptions of sustainability and the protection of animals arising from the anthropocentric orientation of most conceptualisations of sustainability, including sustainable development. Critiques of this disconnect are primarily based in the context of industrial animal agriculture and a general model of a species-inclusive conception of sustainability has yet to emerge. The original contribution of this article is two-fold: First, it develops a theoretical framework for interspecies sustainability. Second, it applies this to a case study of the thoroughbred racing industry. Interviews were conducted with thoroughbred industry and animal advocacy informants in the US, Australia and Great Britain. While industry informants claim thoroughbred welfare is seminal for industry sustainability, they adopt a market-oriented anthropocentric conception of sustainability and do not consider animal welfare a sustainability domain in its own right. Animal advocacy informants demonstrate a deeper understanding of welfare but some express discomfort about linking sustainability, welfare and racing. Eight analytical layers have been identified in the discourse in the interface of sustainability and animal protection, of which two have transformational potential to advance interspecies sustainability. Interspecies sustainability urgently needs to be advanced to ensure animal protection in the sustainability transition, and to not leave the defining of animal welfare and sustainability to animal industries.

Structural characterization of piglet producing farms and their sow removal patterns in Finland

Background

The main objectives of this observational, cross-sectional study were to characterize piglet producing farms in Finland and to investigate how farm profiles are associated with sow culling and mortality.The study was conducted on 43 farms during 2014. A questionnaire survey was administered in-person and supplemented with observations in the housing facilities. Annual removal figures and average monthly sow inventories were retrieved from a centralized animal data recording system (National Swine Registry) administered by the Finnish Food Authority. Multiple correspondence analysis and hierarchical clustering were used to explore the complex underlying data-driven patterns.

Results

Sow removal varied markedly between farms with an overall average culling percentage of 38.0% (95% CI 34.1-42.0) and a relatively high average mortality percentage 9.7% (95% CI 7.9-11.5). We identified three farm clusters, which differed both in their typologies and removal patterns. Cluster 1 included farms with features indicative of a semi-intensive or intensive kind of farming, such as larger herd and room sizes, higher stocking density and more sows per caretaker. Most of the cluster 1 farms exceeded the investigated cut-off levels for culling and mortality. Cluster 2 farms were estimated to have the best animal welfare among the sample farms based on a combination of environmental indicators (e.g. amount of bedding, rooting and nesting materials, space allowance, pen cleanliness) and the lowest level of sow mortality as an animal-based indicator. Cluster 3 farms followed a strategy of a rather non-intensified system based on the predominance of smaller herd size, lower stocking density and less sows per caretaker, combined breeding and gestation rooms and rare use of farrowing induction. This cluster showed the lowest culling levels within the sample.

Conclusions

This study captures the diversity among Finnish sow farms and provides a baseline assessment of their practices and facilities. Our results support the notion that farm typologies are associated with sow culling and mortality. In summary, the control of suboptimal sow removal cannot be based on single improvements only, because of other limitations within the individual farm resources.

Views of dairy farmers, agricultural advisors, and lay citizens on the ideal dairy farm

The aim of this qualitative study was to explore the shared and divergent views among Brazilian dairy farmers, agricultural advisors, and lay citizens on what characteristics they viewed were most important on an ideal dairy farm. Responses from 107 dairy farmers, 170 agricultural advisors (including veterinarians), and 280 lay citizens were subjected to thematic analyses. Five themes were identified: milk quality, animal welfare, economics, society, and the environment. Although all 3 groups made reference to each of the 5 themes, they emphasized different characteristics. The lay citizens placed the most emphasis on milk quality. In contrast, both the farmers and the advisors highlighted economics as the most important characteristic of an ideal dairy farm. When considering only animal welfare, we noted differences in the use of the constructs of animal welfare: farmers and advisors referred mostly to aspects related to biological functioning, whereas lay citizens emphasized affective states and naturalness. All 3 stakeholder groups referred to the use of pasture as being an important component of an ideal dairy farm but again differed in their reasons; citizens referred to pasture in the context of naturalness, whereas the other 2 stakeholder groups almost always referred to pasture using economic terms. Technology was highlighted by all 3 groups as an important characteristic of an ideal dairy farm but differences were noted in their justification for this view. For example, lay citizens viewed technology as a tool to improve milk quality, whereas farmers and advisors both referred to technology as an important vehicle to improve quality of life for those working in the industry. Lay citizens raised several concerns associated with the overuse of antibiotics and other chemicals, but farmers and advisors rarely mentioned these types of concerns. The latter 2 stakeholders placed considerable emphasis on the quality of life of dairy farmers and workers, an issue rarely discussed by lay citizens. Overall, our findings highlight several disconnects between the expectations of the lay citizens, and farmers and their advisors. We suggest that dairy farmers and agricultural advisors should both reflect on the desires of the lay public in what they view to be an ideal dairy farm, as this may help bridge some of the current disconnects.

Hot and bothered: Public attitudes towards heat stress and outdoor access for dairy cows

On many dairy farms cows are kept indoors. Providing outdoor access is often considered desirable, but housing can protect animals from aversive climatic conditions. For example, by providing shade and fans, indoor housing can protect cows from heat stress they might otherwise experience on open pasture. This study tested how public attitudes to cattle rearing varied when participants were experimentally assigned to different scenarios using a 2 x 2 factorial design varying pasture versus indoor housing with or without heat stress. Participants (n = 581) were randomly assigned to a single scenario, and attitudes in response to the scenario were measured using a Likert scale (1 = "strongly disagree" to 5 = "strongly agree"). We also asked open-ended questions allowing participants to explain their responses. Participants responded most positively to the scenario that provided both pasture access and protection from heat stress (Likert 4.1±0.08), and least positively to scenario with indoor housing and heat stress (Likert 2.2±0.08). However, when the different animal welfare attributes were in conflict (i.e. naturalness as provided by pasture, and biological functioning/affective state as associated with protection from heat stress), participants placed priority on the latter: they were more supportive of the scenario providing indoor housing that protected cows from heat stress (Likert 3.5±0.08), than they were of a pasture rearing system that exposed cows to heat stress (Likert 2.4±0.08). Open-ended responses indicated that participants viewed the lack of protection from heat stress as a failure in the farmer's duty of care towards the cow. We conclude that participants valued both access to pasture and protection from heat stress for dairy cows, but prioritized protecting animal from heat stress when these features were in conflict.

Exploring the Framing of Animal Farming and Meat Consumption: On the Diversity of Topics Used and Qualitative Patterns in Selected Demographic Contexts

Simple Summary

In various contexts, people talk about the farming and consumption of animals using different arguments to construct and justify their (non-)acceptability. This paper reports on a qualitative research among consumers with different backgrounds in urban and rural areas in The Netherlands and Turkey. We present an elaborate methodology for qualitatively researching everyday-life talk about animal farming and meat consumption. We explain how we collected and organised topics people refer to, and looked at the possible relation of complete argumentations with the researched contexts. The resulting long list of topics includes animal welfare arguments, but shows that in everyday-life many others are used, such as health, taste, money, religion, and environmental impact. Our research indicates several ties between mentioned topics and the researched contexts—the most noticeable pattern being the difference between respondents in cities and rural areas. However, in contrast to what literature suggests, single contextual features, like country or gender, offered relatively little insight into the differences that showed up in the complete argumentations. This, we argue, does not imply that context does not matter, but rather that so many cultural and personal contextual aspects play a role that singular contextual features cannot sufficiently explain framing.

Abstract

In various contexts, people talk about animal farming and meat consumption using different arguments to construct and justify their (non-)acceptability. This article presents the results of an in-depth qualitative inquiry into the content of and contextual patterns in the everyday-life framing regarding this issue, performed among consumers in various settings in two extremes in the European sphere: the Netherlands and Turkey. We describe the methodological steps of collecting, coding, and organizing the variety of encountered framing topics, as well as our search for symbolic convergence in groups of consumers from different selected demographic contexts (country, urban-rural areas, gender, age, and education level). The framing of animal farming and meat consumption in everyday-life is not a simple one-issue rational display of facts; people referred to a vast range of topics in the categories knowledge, convictions, pronounced behaviour, values, norms, interests, and feelings. Looking at framing in relation to the researched demographic contexts, most patterns were found on the level of topics; symbolic convergence in lines of reasoning and composite framing was less prominent in groups based on single demographic contexts than anticipated. An explanation for this lies in the complexity of frame construction, happening in relation with multiple interdependent contextual features.

Rapid Assessment of Stakeholder Concerns about Public Health. An Introduction to a Fast and Inexpensive Approach Applied on Health Concerns about Intensive Animal Production Systems

To effectively manage environmental health risks, stakeholders often need to act collectively. Stakeholders vary in their desire to act due to many factors, such as knowledge, risk perception, interests, and worldviews. Understanding their perceptions of the issues at stake is crucial to support the risk governance process. Even though concern assessment is a pivotal element of risk governance, few tools for rapid assessment are reported in the literature. We tested a rapid and relatively cheap approach, taking the Dutch debate on Intensive Animal Production Systems (IAPS) and health as an example. Dutch policy-oriented publications on IAPS and health and ten semi-structured in-depth interviews with a variety of stakeholders were analyzed to identify stakeholders and concerns involved in the Dutch debate about IAPS and health. Concerns were mapped and a stakeholder network was derived. Three classes of concerns were recognized in the discussions about IAPS and health: concerns related to health risks, concerns regarding the activity causing the risks (IAPS), and concerns about the process to control the risks. The notions of 'trust' and 'scientific uncertainty' appeared as important themes in the discussions. Argumentation based on concerns directly related to health risks, the activity causing the risk (IAPS), and its risk management can easily become muddled up in a societal debate, limiting the development of effective action perspectives. Acknowledging these multiple stakeholder concerns can clarify the positions taken by stakeholders and allow for more and other action perspectives to develop.

Brazilian Citizens: Expectations Regarding Dairy Cattle Welfare and Awareness of Contentious Practices

Simple Summary

Animal welfare is an important issue for citizens in North America and Europe, but much less is known about how citizens from emergent countries, such as Brazil, view this topic. Our aim was to explore attitudes of urban Brazilian citizens about dairy production and, in particular, how they view four routine husbandry practices: early cow-calf separation; zero-grazing; culling of the newborn male calf; and dehorning without pain mitigation. Through in-depth interviews and a questionnaire using open-ended questions, we can conclude that animal welfare was a major issue for our participants, especially in terms of its perceived relation with milk quality. Although participants were initially unaware about any of the four management practices, they were all viewed as contentious and not supported. This study provides some insights that farmers and others working in the Brazilian dairy supply chain should take into consideration, particularly in terms of social sustainability.

Abstract

The primary aim of this study was to explore attitudes of urban Brazilian citizens about dairy production. A secondary aim was to determine their knowledge and attitudes about four potentially contentious routine dairy cattle management practices: early cow-calf separation; zero-grazing; culling of newborn male calves; and dehorning without pain mitigation. To address the first aim 40 participants were interviewed using open-ended semi-structured questions designed to probe their views and attitudes about dairy production in Brazil, and 300 participants answered a questionnaire that included an open-ended question about the welfare of dairy cattle. Primary concerns reported by the participants centered on milk quality, which included the rejection of any chemical additives, but also animal welfare, environmental and social issues. The interviewees rarely mentioned animal welfare directly but, when probed, expressed several concerns related to this topic. In particular, participants commented on factors that they perceived to influence milk quality, such as good animal health, feeding, clean facilities, and the need to avoid or reduce the use of drugs, hormones and pesticides, the avoidance of pain, frustration and suffering, and the ability of the animals to perform natural behaviors. To address our second aim, participants were asked questions about the four routine management practices. Although they self-reported being largely unaware of these practices, the majority of the participants rejected these practices outright. These data provide insight that animal welfare may be an important issue for members of the public. Failure to consider this information may increase the risk that certain dairy production practices may not be socially sustainable once lay citizens become aware of them.

Brazilian Citizens' Opinions and Attitudes about Farm Animal Production Systems

The inclusion of societal input is needed for food animal production industries to retain their "social license to operate"; failure to engage with the public on this topic risks the long-term sustainability of these industries. The primary aim of this study was to explore the beliefs and attitudes of Brazilians citizens not associated with livestock production towards farm animal production. A related secondary aim was to identify the specific beliefs and attitudes towards systems that are associated with restriction of movement. Each participant was shown pictures representing two of five possible major food animal industries (laying hens, beef cattle, pregnant sows, lactating sows, and poultry meat). Participants were presented a six pages survey that included demographic questions plus two sets of two pictures and a series of questions pertaining to the pictures. Each set of pictures represented a particular industry where one picture represented a housing type that is associated with behavioural restrictions and the other picture represented a system that allowed for a greater degree of movement. Participants were asked their perceptions on the prevalence of each system in Brazil, then their preference of one picture vs. the other, and the reasons justifying their preference. Immediately following, the participant repeated the same exercise with the second set of two pictures representing another industry followed by the same series of questions as described above. Quantitative data were analysed with mixed effects logistic regression, and qualitative responses were coded into themes. The proportion of participants that believed animals are reared in confinement varied by animal production type: 23% (beef cattle), 82% (poultry), 81% (laying hens), and 60% (swine). A large majority (79%) stated that farm animals are not well-treated in Brazil. Overall, participants preferred systems that were not associated with behavioural restriction. The preference for free-range or cage-free systems was justified based on the following reasons: naturalness, animals' freedom to move, and ethics. A minority of participants indicated a preference for more restrictive systems, citing reasons associated with food security and food safety, increased productivity and hygiene. Our results suggest that the majority of our participants, preferred farm animal production systems that provide greater freedom of movement, which aligned with their perception that these systems are better for the animal. Our results provide some evidence that the current farm animal housing practices that are associated with restriction of movement, which are gaining traction in Brazil, may not align with societal expectations.

American and German attitudes towards cow-calf separation on dairy farms

Public concerns regarding the quality of life of farm animals are often focused on specific practices such as separating the cow and calf immediately after birth. The available scientific literature provides some evidence in support of this practice (including reduced acute responses to separation when it does occur), as well as evidence of disadvantages (such as increased risk of uterine disease in cows). The aim of this study is to systematically examine public views around this practice. Specifically, this study analyzes the views of American and German citizens to separation of cow and calf at birth using a quantitative segmentation approach. Although the majority of participants opposed early separation, a small proportion of our sample supported the practice. According to participants’ preference for early and later separation and their evaluation of different arguments for both practices, three clusters were identified. US participants were more likely to support early separation compared to German participants. The arguments presented for and against both practices caused different reactions in the three clusters, but did not appear to sway the opinions of most participants. The results show considerable opposition to the practice of early separation in large parts of the sample and suggest that the dairy industry should consider approaches to address this concern.

Citizens' views on the practices of zero-grazing and cow-calf separation in the dairy industry: Does providing information increase acceptability?

The primary aim of this study was to assess the influence of provision of information on lay citizens' opinions regarding 2 common management practices, zero-grazing and cow-calf separation. To aid in the interpretation of the findings, our secondary aim was to explore the awareness and opinions of Brazilian citizens about these practices. We surveyed a convenience sample of Brazilian citizens (192 men and 208 women), recruited in a public place, with the majority stating that they were largely unfamiliar with animal production and lived in urban environments. Participants were presented short scenarios with information on the primary production factors and welfare concerns for and against zero-grazing (n = 200) or cow-calf separation (n = 200). Participants were then asked to state their position (reject, indifferent, or support), and to provide the reason(s) justifying their position. Immediately following, participants were provided a short statement describing either zero-grazing or cow-calf separation, depending on what question they responded to in the first part. Two closed questions (Q) followed each of these statements: (Q1) "Are you aware of this practice?" with choices yes, somewhat, or no, and (Q2) "What is your position regarding this practice?" with choices reject, indifferent, or support. Only 31 and 33% of the respondents were aware of zero-grazing and cow-calf separation, respectively. Previous awareness of existence of practice did not influence levels of support. Provision of information resulted in more people rejecting the practices of zero-grazing and cow-calf separation. Participants' main justifications to reject zero-grazing and cow-calf separation focused on perceived negative effects of practices on farm animal welfare and product quality, and loss of naturalness. Survey participants, Brazilians living in urban environments, with little or no association with dairy production, were generally unaware that many cows do not have access to pasture and that cows are separated from their calf at birth. Independent of provision of additional information, most participants did not support these practices. Provision of brief explanatory information played a minor role in influencing people's views, but failed to result in general acceptance.

Public concerns about dairy-cow welfare: how should the industry respond?

Common practices on dairy farms have fallen out of step with public values, such that the dairy industry has now become a target for public criticism. In the present paper, we describe some of the forces that have led to the current situation, and various potential methods to rectify the situation. One approach is to shield industry practices from public scrutiny, for example, by using ‘ag-gag’ legislation to stem the flow of videos exposing contentious practices. Another is to educate members of the public so that they better understand the nature of these practices and the reasons that they are used on farms. The literature we reviewed indicated that neither of these approaches is likely to be successful. Instead, we suggest that the dairy industry needs to develop methods of meaningful two-way engagement with concerned citizens, including research using social-science methods to document the values of different stakeholders and examine approaches to resolving conflicts. We also reviewed how biological research can help resolve issues, for example, by developing rearing systems that address public concerns around freedom of movement and social contact without putting animals at an increased risk of disease. We end with a discussion of how policy efforts by the dairy industry can be used to ensure compliance with commonly accepted standards, and more ambitiously, develop a common vision of dairying that positions the industry as a leader in animal welfare.

What are they thinking? Consumer attitudes to meat production in Australia

Meat production has come under increasing scrutiny from consumers and citizens who feel that certain practices are unethical and negatively affect farm-animal welfare. Animal welfare can be viewed as both a scientific and social concept, and purchasing products with animal welfare claims can be considered an act of ‘ethical consumption’. The present paper reviews research that examines consumer attitudes to animal welfare and highlights tensions between consumer and citizen attitudes and behaviours, and assumptions that are made within these studies. We present our own research into motivations to purchase free-range eggs as an example of research that attempts to unpack these assumptions, in particular, that such purchases are made out of concern for animal welfare. We present a further example of our own research that attempts to identify how attitudes to meat production are socially constructed. We conclude with recommended strategies to engage the broader community in discussions about animal production, so as to improve industry–community communication about farm-animal welfare in meat-production industries.

What Difference Does a Visit Make? Changes in Animal Welfare Perceptions after Interested Citizens Tour a Dairy Farm

Citizens’ concerns about farm animal welfare are often dismissed on the assumption that they are not well informed about farming practices. We conducted exploratory surveys of interested citizens (n = 50) before and after a self-guided tour of a 500-head dairy farm. ‘Before’ survey questions explored perceptions, concerns, and values about dairy cattle farming and welfare, in addition to a short knowledge-based quiz on dairy cattle husbandry. An ‘after’ survey explored the extent to which these constructs shifted after the tour. Before, most participants correctly answered quiz questions about general feeding and housing practices, but scores were low on questions about specific practices such as cow-calf separation. Participants considered several elements as necessary for a ‘good’ life for dairy cattle: fresh food and water, pasture access, gentle handling, space, shelter, hygiene, fresh air and sunshine, social companions, absence of stress, health, and safety from predators. These elements reflect a diverse conception of animal welfare that incorporates values for physical and mental well-being, natural living, and humane care. The visit had a mixed effect on perceptions of whether dairy cows had a ‘good’ life, improving perceptions for a quarter of participants, worsening perceptions in a third, with no shift in the remaining participants. The visit appeared to mitigate some concerns (e.g., provision of adequate food and water, gentle humane care) while reinforcing or eliciting others (e.g., lack of pasture access, early cow-calf separation). Moreover, animal welfare-relevant values held by participants (e.g., natural living, care) appeared to play an important role in influencing perceptions of farm practices. These results suggest that education and exposure to livestock farming may resolve certain concerns, but other concerns will likely persist, especially when practices conflict with deeply held values around animal care.

Imagining the ideal dairy farm

Practices in agriculture can have negative effects on the environment, rural communities, food safety, and animal welfare. Although disagreements are possible about specific issues and potential solutions, it is widely recognized that public input is needed in the development of socially sustainable agriculture systems. The aim of this study was to assess the views of people not affiliated with the dairy industry on what they perceived to be the ideal dairy farm and their associated reasons. Through an online survey, participants were invited to respond to the following open-ended question: "What do you consider to be an ideal dairy farm and why are these characteristics important to you?" Although participants referenced social, economic, and ecological aspects of dairy farming, animal welfare was the primary issue raised. Concern was expressed directly about the quality of life for the animals, and the indirect effect of animal welfare on milk quality. Thus participants appeared to hold an ethic for dairy farming that included concern for the animal, as well as economic, social, and environmental aspects of the dairy system.

Societal views and animal welfare science: understanding why the modified cage may fail and other stories

The innovations developed by scientists working on animal welfare are often not adopted in practice. In this paper, we argue that one important reason for this failure is that the solutions proposed do not adequately address the societal concerns that motivated the original research. Some solutions also fail because they do not adequately address perceived constraints within the industry. Using examples from our own recent work, we show how research methods from the social sciences can address both of these limitations. For example, those who persist in tail-docking cattle (despite an abundance of evidence showing that the practice has no benefits) often justify their position by citing concern for cow cleanliness. This result informs the nature of new extension efforts directed at farmers that continue to tail dock, suggesting that these efforts will be more effective if they focus on providing producers with methods (of proven efficacy) for keeping cows clean. Work on pain mitigation for dehorning shows that some participants reluctant to provide pain relief believe that the pain from this procedure is short lasting and has little impact on the calf. This result informs the direction of new biological research efforts to understand both the magnitude and duration of any suffering that result from this type of procedure. These, and other examples, illustrate how social science methodologies can document the shared and divergent values of different stakeholders (to ensure that proposed solutions align with mainstream values), beliefs regarding the available evidence (to help target new scientific research that meets the perceived gaps), and barriers in implementing changes (to ease adoption of ideas by addressing these barriers).

Access to pasture for dairy cows: responses from an online engagement

An online engagement exercise documented the views of Canadian and U.S. participants affiliated and unaffiliated with the dairy industry on the issue of pasture access for dairy cows. A total of 414 people participated in 10 independent web forums. Providing access to more natural living conditions, including pasture, was viewed as important for the large majority of participants, including those affiliated with the dairy industry. This finding is at odds with current practice on the majority of farms in North America that provide little or no access to pasture. Participant comments showed that the perceived value of pasture access for dairy cattle went beyond the benefits of eating grass; participants cited as benefits exposure to fresh air, ability to move freely, ability to live in social groups, improved health, and healthier milk products. To accommodate the challenges of allowing pasture access on farms, some participants argued in favor of hybrid systems that provide a mixture of indoor confinement housing and grazing. Understanding the beliefs and concerns of participants affiliated and unaffiliated with the dairy industry allows for the identification of contentious topics as well as areas of agreement; this is important in efforts to better harmonize industry practices with societal expectations.

Welfare-positive management and nutrition for the dairy herd: a European perspective

As European dairy farms become larger and diverge between grass-based and fully housed systems, interest in the welfare of the dairy cow and related environmental issues by consumers and legislators is increasing. These pressures mean that good nutrition and management, which underpin much dairy cow welfare, is critical. Despite considerable research into the management and nutrition of the dairy cow from calf to adulthood there is much on-farm variability in its application. While the incidences of many endemic diseases are reduced most are still significant, for example lameness. In addition, trade and climate change are bringing a more diverse range of pathogens, parasites and pests into Northern Europe. Housing aspects are limited in application by economics and in most cases still do not match grazing for welfare in temperate climates. Genomic technologies offer increased opportunities to breed for 'robustness' but like 'precision animal management systems' have still to be fully exploited.

Views on contentious practices in dairy farming: the case of early cow-calf separation

The public has become increasingly interested in the welfare of food animals, but the food animal industries possess few mechanisms for public engagement. Here we present results from a web-based forum designed to allow stakeholders to share views on controversial issues in dairying. In response to the question "Should dairy calves be separated from the cow within the first few hours after birth?" participants were able to indicate "yes," "no," or "neutral" and either write a reason in support of their view or select reasons provided by other participants. Four independent groups of participants were recruited (a total of 163 people); 31% said they had no involvement in the dairy industry; the remaining 69% (with some involvement in the industry) were students or teachers (33%), animal advocates (13%), producers (11%), veterinarians (9%) and other dairy industry professionals (3%). Overall, little consensus existed among participants across groups; 44% chose "yes," 48% "no," and 9% "neutral." Responses varied with demographics, with opposition to early separation higher among females, animal advocates, and those with no involvement with the dairy industry. A fifth group was recruited at a dairy industry conference (an additional 28 participants); 46% chose "yes," 32% "no," and 21% "neutral." Across all 5 groups, opponents and supporters often referenced similar issues in the reasons they provided. Opponents of early separation contended that it is emotionally stressful for the calf and cow, it compromises calf and cow health, it is unnatural, and the industry can and should accommodate cow-calf pairs. In contrast, supporters of early separation reasoned that emotional distress is minimized by separating before bonds develop, that it promotes calf and cow health, and that the industry is limited in its ability to accommodate cow-calf pairs. These results illustrate the potential of web-based forums to identify areas of agreement and conflict among stakeholders, providing a basis for the development of practices that address shared concerns.

The Prospect of Market-Driven Improvements in Animal Welfare: Lessons from the Case of Grass Milk in Denmark

Citizens in many European countries urge that the welfare of farm animals should be improved. Policy-makers propose that this could, at least to some extent, be achieved through increased consumption of animal products produced under labeling schemes guaranteeing higher standards of animal welfare. Yet considerable uncertainties exist about the ability of the market to promote animal welfare. So far the consumption of most welfare-friendly products has been limited, and the impact of driving and limiting factors is poorly understood. Reviewing market studies, we identify the factors that have shaped the relatively successful market for grass milk in Denmark. We conclude that the positive drivers such as an appealing animal welfare attribute and animal welfare being bundled with other qualities are essentially the same as those operating in connection with less successful animal welfare-friendly products. It is therefore to be expected that other animal welfare-friendly food products marketed via "natural behaviors" in the farm animals will catch the interest of consumers. However, grass milk consumption has been supported by proper labeling, ready availability and low price premiums as well as multifaceted public support. This suggests that successful cases require the joint presence of a number of positive drivers as well as low consumption barriers.

The sociocultural sustainability of livestock farming: an inquiry into social perceptions of dairy farming

Over the past 50 years, the scale and intensity of livestock farming have increased significantly. At the same time, Western societies have become more urbanised and fewer people have close relatives involved in farming. As a result, most citizens have little knowledge or direct experience of what farming entails. In addition, more people are expressing concerns over issues such as farm animal welfare. This has led to increasing public demand for more sustainable ways of livestock farming. To date, little research has been carried out on the social pillar of sustainable livestock farming. The aim of this study is to provide insights into the sociocultural sustainability of livestock farming systems. This study reviews the key findings of earlier published interdisciplinary research about the social perceptions of dairy farming in the Netherlands and Norway (Boogaard et al., 2006, 2008, 2010a and 2010b) and synthesises the implications for sociocultural sustainability of livestock farming. This study argues that the (sociocultural) sustainable development of livestock farming is not an objective concept, but that it is socially and culturally constructed by people in specific contexts. It explains the social pillar of the economics/ecological/social model sustainability in terms of the fields of tensions that exist between modernity, traditions and naturality - 'the MTN knot' - each of which has positive and negative faces. All three angles of vision can be seen in people's attitudes to dairy farming, but the weight given to each differs between individuals and cultures. Hence, sociocultural sustainability is context dependent and needs to be evaluated according to its local meaning. Moreover, sociocultural sustainability is about people's perceptions of livestock farming. Lay people might perceive livestock farming differently and ascribe different meanings to it than experts do, but their 'reality' is just as real. Finally, this study calls for an ongoing collaboration between social and animal scientists in order to develop livestock farming systems that are more socioculturally sustainable.