Public attitudes toward different management scenarios for "surplus" dairy calves.

As awareness grows, some traditional management practices used by the dairy industry will be questioned by members of the public. Therefore, to maintain its social license to operate, the industry needs to account for public perspectives when developing future directions. Our aims were to assess attitudes of members of the public toward the management of surplus calves not needed for milk production on dairy farms, and to assess how specific calf management practices might influence these attitudes. A mixed-methods questionnaire was developed and distributed online in the United States and in Canada. After reading an introductory paragraph stating that surplus calves are generally used for meat production, participants were randomly allocated into groups and read 1 of 4 scenarios that described different surplus calf management practices in more detail. The scenarios followed a 2 × 2 factorial design, and the factors that differed were the calf's age at slaughter (≤2 wk vs. ≥12 mo), and whether the calf was separated from the cow at birth or sometime later. Data representative of key census demographics from 998 participants were analyzed. Quantitative data analysis included descriptive statistics, nonparametric tests, generalized partial credit models, and linear regression models. For qualitative data, we used reliability thematic analysis. Overall, participants were slightly positive in their attitudes toward the introductory paragraph, and participants in the groups in which the calf was slaughtered after 12 mo of age often specifically linked their acceptance of the practice to the fact that the calves' lives had a purpose (i.e., contributing meaningfully to the beef supply). In contrast, only 3% of the participants regarded a slaughter age of <1 mo as appropriate. Participants in the groups in which calves were slaughtered within 2 wk after birth had more negative attitudes, and these attitudes declined even further when the calf was separated from the cow soon after birth. Besides the 2 main factors (age at slaughter and cow-calf separation), information on pasture access, the healthiness of the meat from the calves, and the exact age of slaughter were also considered important by participants to make a more informed decision about their view on surplus calf management. Overall, our results indicate that failure by the dairy industry to provide assurances that excess dairy calves have a reasonable length of life and that this life has purpose (i.e., contributes to the beef supply chain) places the industry at odds with public values. Also, as awareness grows, the practice of early cow-calf separation will be increasingly questioned by the public; failure to begin discussions on this topic will increase the risk that future decisions about this topic will be made in the absence of the farmer.

Public perceptions of potential adaptations for mitigating heat stress on Australian dairy farms.

Temperature variability resulting from climate change poses challenges around the world for livestock production and the welfare of the animals in these systems. As animal industries attempt to combat these challenges, it is vital to understand how potential changes implemented by farmers resonate with societal values. The aims of this study were to determine how different proposed changes to mitigate heat stress in dairy cattle influence public perceptions toward Australian dairy farm systems, including perceptions of (1) cow welfare, (2) confidence in the industry, and (3) trust in farmers. Participants were presented with 1 of 4 treatments representing a potential solution to mitigate heat stress in dairy cattle: (1) indoor system (a fully indoor barn), (2) choice system (cows have agency to choose to be indoors or outdoors), (3) gene edition + pasture (cows are genetically modified to become more resilient to heat stress), and (4) pasture (outdoor system that is currently used in Australia, but the farmer plants more trees). Participants were then asked to respond to questions on a 7-point Likert scale. Questions were about cow welfare (3 questions), confidence in dairy industry (4 questions), and trust in farmers (9 questions), with each section followed by an open-ended question for participants to explain their answers. Participants perceived cow welfare to be the lowest in the indoor system (2.80 ± 0.10), followed by gene edition + pasture (4.48 ± 0.11), with choice and pasture systems being the highest but not different from each other (5.41 ± 0.11 and 5.32 ± 0.11, respectively). Confidence in the dairy industry was lower among participants in the indoor (4.78 ± 0.08) compared with participants assigned to the choice (5.28 ± 0.08) or pasture (5.25 ± 0.08) systems. Confidence was also lower among participants in the gene edition (4.95 ± 0.08) compared with the choice system. Trust in farmers was similar across all treatments. Our results provide the first evidence that the Australian public may be reluctant to accept heat stress mitigation strategies that either do not allow cows to have access to pasture or those that include gene-editing technologies.

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.