Tail docking dairy cattle: responses from an online engagement

Perceptions of dairy cow-handling situations: A comparison of public and industry samples

Inappropriate cattle handling poses a reputational threat to the dairy industry. To enhance social sustainability, handling practices must resonate with societal values about animal care. However, it has yet to be determined to what extent industry and public stakeholders differ in their perception of common cattle handling situations. We administered an online survey to samples of dairy industry (IND) and public (PUB) stakeholders to examine how they perceive a variety of cow-handling scenarios ranging from positive to negative in terms of effects on animal welfare. Participants were presented with 12 brief videos depicting a range of realistic cow-handling situations and responded to measures designed to assess their attitudes and beliefs about each scenario, their perception of the emotional response of the cows depicted in each scenario, as well as their own personal emotional response. Preexisting beliefs about cow treatment on US dairy farms and demographic data, including self-reported dairy consumption, were also collected and analyzed. Before viewing the videos, 52.9% of PUB (vs. 79.0% of IND) believed cows were treated well while 27.2% (vs. 9.0% of IND) believed cows were treated badly. Within IND, believing cows were treated badly was more common among nonwhites, those with greater formal education, more liberal politics, or from urban or suburban environments. In PUB, female and younger participants were more likely to believe cows were treated badly before viewing the videos. In both samples, participants with more positive preexisting beliefs about dairy cow treatment in the US reported consuming dairy products more frequently. In both PUB and IND, scenarios which were rated more positively for attitudes or for the cows' or respondents' emotional experiences were also perceived as more common. Within a given cow-handling scenario, qualitative attitudes (i.e., a positive, negative, or neutral valence) did not differ between the samples. In both samples, at the participant level, overall attitudes toward cow-handling scenarios were highly correlated with both their personal emotional response to the scenario and their perception of the cows' emotional responses. Although the participants' overall personal emotional responses did not differ between the samples, IND rated cows as experiencing more negative emotions overall. The consensus between industry and public stakeholders around dairy cow-handling practices observed in this study could provide a common starting point for addressing other, more contentious animal welfare issues.

To Treat or Not to Treat: Public Attitudes on the Therapeutic Use of Antibiotics in the Dairy Industry-A Qualitative Study

This paper describes the views of 779 U.S. residents on questions related to therapeutic antibiotic use in dairy cattle. An online survey was conducted with qualitative (open-ended) questions. Respondents were offered one of three scenarios with varying degrees of information describing a farmer with a sick cow that would benefit from antibiotic therapy. The text replies to the open-ended questions were analyzed by grouping responses with similar comments and identifying patterns or themes. Content analysis showed that many of the participants in this study provided farmers with the social license to treat sick cows with antibiotics; however, some participants commented on the social license not necessarily extending to antibiotic use for growth promotion or prophylactic use. Our findings are not generalizable, but may provide some insight that should be considered when developing policies and practices regarding the use of antibiotics on dairy farms that may promote improved alignment with societal values.

Consumers' Attitudes towards Animal Suffering: A Systematic Review on Awareness, Willingness and Dietary Change

Planetary and human health depend on Westerners' ability to reduce meat consumption. Meat production degrades the environment while excessive meat intake is associated with cancer and cardiovascular disease, among others. Effective reasons and motivations are needed for consumers to change their diet. The fact that modern animal agriculture inflicts a great deal of pain on animals from their birth to their slaughter, animal welfare/suffering may drive consumers to curtail their meat consumption. This systematic review examined a total of 90 papers to ascertain consumers' awareness of the pain animals experience in animal agriculture, as well as consumer attitudes towards meat reduction due to animal welfare. Results show that consumers have low awareness of animal agriculture. Awareness of animal agricultural practices and animal sentience is associated with increased negative attitudes towards animal suffering. Animal suffering due to farming practices, transportation, slaughter, and animal sentience are factors that may encourage a reduction in meat consumption, and even dietary change in the short term. There is also evidence that animal suffering may be a more compelling motivation for consumers' willingness to change their diet than for health or environmental reasons. Therefore, increasing consumers' awareness of animal suffering in meat production is paramount to contributing to reduced pressure on the environment and improved human health.

Factors influencing public support for dairy tie stall housing in the U.S

A number of studies have shown widespread public concern over housing animals in ways that restrict their ability to move freely. Dairy cows housed in tie stall barns are tethered continuously or for part of the day, but no study has assessed public support for this type of housing system. We report two experiments assessing public perceptions of tie stall housing for dairy cattle using a hypothetical referenda format. In Experiment 1, 65% of participants (n = 430) said they would support a ban on tie stalls. The probability of supporting a ban increased as the duration of time that cows were tethered increased. In Experiment 2, information about possible economic consequences was included. Relatively fewer (55%) participants (n = 372) indicated they would support a ban. Supporters of a ban were willing to pay an average dairy product price premium of 68% to see the ban enacted. Indirect measures of support indicated socially desirable responding was greater in Experiment 2 where the economic impacts of voting behavior were made explicit. In both studies, women and liberals were more likely to support a ban. The majority of participants in Experiment 1 (51%) and Experiment 2 (57%) said they had never heard or read anything about tie stalls before participating in our survey. We conclude that current knowledge of the use of tie stalls is low, but if this situation were to change there may be considerable public concern about the use of this housing method.

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.

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.

Online Chats to Assess Stakeholder Perceptions of Meat Chicken Intensification and Welfare

Simple Summary

Most people care about animal welfare. Nevertheless, divergent views remain on what constitutes animal welfare, despite a growing body of scientific evidence. We used online chats to trigger discussion among participants from various stakeholder groups: general public, animal advocacy group, meat chicken industry-affiliated, and researchers or veterinarians who were not industry-affiliated but had experience with chickens. The aim of this pilot study was to assess reasons for divergence in opinions or conversely agreement between participants, using the topic of the welfare implications of meat chicken farming intensification. Participants also completed a pre- and post-chat survey to evaluate their perceptions and knowledge of chicken farming. Reasons for supporting intensification included perceptions of better health for the chickens and the sustainability of the system. Reasons for opposition included perceptions of the large number of animals kept together, and limited ability to perform natural behaviours. Misunderstandings about current practices were clarified in chats which contained industry-affiliated participants. Participants agreed on the need for enforceable standards and industry transparency. On average, objective knowledge of intensification increased after participating in the chat, but support for intensification did not change over the course of the study, counter to assertions that lack of knowledge results in lack of support for some practices. Engaging stakeholders can provide valuable information to anyone interested in the relationship between perception and knowledge of specific farming practices.

Abstract

Evidence suggests that there is variation in support for specific chicken farming practices amongst stakeholder groups, and this should be explored in more detail to understand the nature of these differences and work towards convergence. Online focus groups were used to assess attitudes to animal welfare in meat chicken farming in this pilot study. Across six online chats, 25 participants (general public, n = 8; animal advocacy group, n = 11, meat chicken industry, n = 3; research or veterinary practice who had experience with poultry but no declared industry affiliation, n = 3) discussed meat chicken intensification and welfare. Of those, 21 participants completed pre- and post-chat surveys gauging perceptions and objective knowledge about meat chicken management. Main reasons for intensification support were perceptions of improved bird health, and perceptions that it is a cost-effective, sustainable farming system. Reasons for opposition included perceptions that a large number of birds kept are in close proximity and have limited ability to perform natural behaviours. Misunderstandings about current practices were clarified in chats which contained industry representation. Participants agreed on the need for enforceable standards and industry transparency. Industry-affiliated members rated welfare of meat chickens higher, and gave lower ratings for the importance of natural living, than other stakeholder groups (both p = 0.001). On average, while objective knowledge of intensification increased after chat participation (p = 0.03), general welfare ratings and support for intensification did not change over time, counter to assertions that lack of knowledge results in lack of support for some practices.

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.

Public Attitudes to Housing Systems for Pregnant Pigs

Understanding concerns about the welfare of farm animals is important for the development of socially sustainable production practices. This study used an online survey to test how views on group versus stall housing for pregnant sows varied when Canadian and US participants were provided information about these systems, including access to scientific papers, YouTube videos, Google images, and a frequently-asked-questions page (S1 Appendix). Initial responses and changes in responses after accessing the information were analyzed from Likert scores of 242 participants and from their written comments. Participants were less willing to accept the use of gestation stalls after viewing information on sow housing. For example, initially 30.4% of respondents indicated that they supported the use of gestation stalls; this declined to 17.8% after participants were provided additional information. Qualitative analysis of comments showed that supporters of gestation stalls expressed concern about the spread of disease and aggression between animals in less confined systems, whereas supporters of group housing placed more emphasis on the sow’s ability to interact socially and perform natural behaviors. These results point to public opposition to the use of gestation stalls, and indicate that the more that the public learns about gestation stalls the less willing they will be to accept their use.

Invited review: Changes in the dairy industry affecting dairy cattle health and welfare

The dairy industry in the developed world has undergone profound changes over recent decades. In this paper, we present an overview of some of the most important recent changes in the dairy industry that affect health and welfare of dairy cows, as well as the science associated with these changes. Additionally, knowledge gaps are identified where research is needed to guide the dairy industry through changes that are occurring now or that we expect will occur in the future. The number of farms has decreased considerably, whereas herd size has increased. As a result, an increasing number of dairy farms depend on hired (nonfamily) labor. Regular professional communication and establishment of farm-specific protocols are essential to minimize human errors and ensure consistency of practices. Average milk production per cow has increased, partly because of improvements in nutrition and management but also because of genetic selection for milk production. Adoption of new technologies (e.g., automated calf feeders, cow activity monitors, and automated milking systems) is accelerating. However, utilization of the data and action lists that these systems generate for health and welfare of livestock is still largely unrealized, and more training of dairy farmers, their employees, and their advisors is necessary. Concurrently, to remain competitive and to preserve their social license to operate, farmers are increasingly required to adopt increased standards for food safety and biosecurity, become less reliant on the use of antimicrobials and hormones, and provide assurances regarding animal welfare. Partly because of increasing herd size but also in response to animal welfare regulations in some countries, the proportion of dairy herds housed in tiestalls has decreased considerably. Although in some countries access to pasture is regulated, in countries that traditionally practiced seasonal grazing, fewer farmers let their dairy cows graze in the summer. The proportion of organic dairy farms has increased globally and, given the pressure to decrease the use of antimicrobials and hormones, conventional farms may be able to learn from well-managed organic farms. The possibilities of using milk for disease diagnostics and monitoring are considerable, and dairy herd improvement associations will continue to expand the number of tests offered to diagnose diseases and pregnancy. Genetic and genomic selection for increased resistance to disease offers substantial potential but requires collection of additional phenotypic data. There is every expectation that changes in the dairy industry will be further accentuated and additional novel technologies and different management practices will be adopted in the future.

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.

Invited review: Sustainability of the US dairy industry

The US dairy industry has realized tremendous improvements in efficiencies and milk production since the 1940s. During this time, farm and total cow numbers have decreased and average herd size has increased. This intensification, combined with the shift to a largely urban public, has resulted in increased scrutiny of the dairy industry by social and environmental movements and increased concern regarding the dairy industry's sustainability. In response to these concerns, a group of scientists specializing in animal welfare, nutrient management, greenhouse gas emissions, animal science, agronomy, agricultural engineering, microbiology, and economics undertook a critical review of the US dairy industry. Although the US dairy system was identified as having significant strengths, the consensus was that the current structure of the industry lacks the resilience to adapt to changing social and environmental landscapes. We identified several factors affecting the sustainability of the US dairy industry, including climate change, rapid scientific and technological innovation, globalization, integration of societal values, and multidisciplinary research initiatives. Specific challenges include the westward migration of milk production in the United States (which is at odds with projected reductions in precipitation and associated limitations in water availability for cattle and crops), and the growing divide between industry practices and public perceptions, resulting in less public trust. Addressing these issues will require improved alignment between industry practices and societal values, based upon leadership from within the industry and sustained engagement with other interested participants, including researchers, consumers, and the general public.

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.