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.

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

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.

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.

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.

A survey of management practices that influence performance and welfare of dairy calves reared in southern Brazil.

Here we report dairy calf management practices used by 242 smallholder family farmers in the South of Brazil. Data were collected via a semi-structured questionnaire with farmers, inspection of the production environment and an in-depth interview with a sample of 26 farmers. Herds had an average of 22.3 lactating cows and an average milk production of 12.7 L/cow/day. Calves were dehorned in 98% of the farms, with a hot iron in 95%. Male calves were castrated in 71% of the farms; methods were surgery (68%), emasculator (29%), or rubber rings (3%). No pain control was used for these interventions. In 51% of the farms all newborn male calves were reared, sold or donated to others; in 35% all newborn males were killed on the farm. Calves were separated from the dam up to 12 h after birth in 78% of the farms, and left to nurse colostrum from the dam without intervention in 55% of the farms. The typical amount of milk fed to calves was 4 L/day until a median age of 75 days. In 40% of the farms milk was provided in a bucket, in 49% with bottles, and in 11% calves suckled from a cow. Solid feeding in the milk-feeding period started at a median age of 10 days. Calves were housed individually in 70% of the farms; in 81% of the farms calves were housed in indoor pens, in 6% in outdoor hutches and in 13% they were kept on pasture. Diarrhoea was reported as the main cause of calf mortality in 71% of the farms. Farmers kept no records of calf disease, mortality, or use of medicines. Changing the scenario identified in this survey is essential to support the sustainable development of dairy production, an activity of great economic and social relevance for the region.