{"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.14288\/1.0379549":{"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#departmentOrSchool":[{"value":"Land and Food Systems, Faculty of","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"Other UBC","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"Non UBC","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/dataProvider":[{"value":"DSpace","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierCitation":[{"value":"Animals 7 (10): 75 (2017)","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/contributor":[{"value":"University of British Columbia. Animal Welfare Program","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/creator":[{"value":"Yunes, Maria C.","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"von Keyserlingk, Marina A. G.","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"H\u00f6tzel, Maria J.","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued":[{"value":"2019-06-24T18:27:31Z","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"2017-09-28","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/description":[{"value":"The inclusion of societal input is needed for food animal production industries to retain their \u201csocial license to operate\u201d; 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\u2019 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.","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/aggregatedCHO":[{"value":"https:\/\/circle.library.ubc.ca\/rest\/handle\/2429\/70763?expand=metadata","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2009\/08\/skos-reference\/skos.html#note":[{"value":"animalsArticleBrazilian Citizens\u2019 Opinions and Attitudes aboutFarm Animal Production SystemsMaria C. Yunes 1, Marina A. G. von Keyserlingk 2 and Maria J. H\u00f6tzel 1,*1 Laborat\u00f3rio de Etologia Aplicada e Bem-Estar Animal, Departamento de Zootecnia e Desenvolvimento Rural,Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florian\u00f3polis 88034-001, Brazil; mcyunes@hotmail.com2 Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, The University of British Columbia,Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada; nina@mail.ubc.ca* Correspondence: maria.j.hotzel@ufsc.brReceived: 2 September 2017; Accepted: 25 September 2017; Published: 28 September 2017Simple Summary: The inclusion of societal input is needed for food animal production industries toretain their \u201csocial license to operate\u201d. Little is known about the knowledge and attitudes of Braziliancitizens regarding food animal production systems. The aim of this study was to explore the beliefsand attitudes of Brazilians not associated with livestock production towards farm animal productionsystems. Overall, our participants expressed a preference for free-range, cage-free, and more \u201cnatural\u201dproduction systems. They also expressed concerns with livestock production systems that limitedthe movement or expression of natural behaviours, particularly those that they associated withanimal suffering or distress. They recognized farm animals as deserving respect and dignity beyondthe provision of basic needs. Our findings indicate that Brazil\u2019s current farm animal housing practicesthat are associated with restriction of movement may not align with societal expectations.Abstract: The inclusion of societal input is needed for food animal production industries to retaintheir \u201csocial license to operate\u201d; failure to engage with the public on this topic risks the long-termsustainability of these industries. The primary aim of this study was to explore the beliefs andattitudes of Brazilians citizens not associated with livestock production towards farm animalproduction. A related secondary aim was to identify the specific beliefs and attitudes towards systemsthat are associated with restriction of movement. Each participant was shown pictures representingtwo of five possible major food animal industries (laying hens, beef cattle, pregnant sows, lactatingsows, and poultry meat). Participants were presented a six pages survey that included demographicquestions plus two sets of two pictures and a series of questions pertaining to the pictures. Each setof pictures represented a particular industry where one picture represented a housing type that isassociated with behavioural restrictions and the other picture represented a system that allowed fora greater degree of movement. Participants were asked their perceptions on the prevalence of eachsystem in Brazil, then their preference of one picture vs. the other, and the reasons justifying theirpreference. Immediately following, the participant repeated the same exercise with the second set oftwo pictures representing another industry followed by the same series of questions as describedabove. Quantitative data were analysed with mixed effects logistic regression, and qualitative responseswere coded into themes. The proportion of participants that believed animals are reared in confinementvaried 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, participantspreferred systems that were not associated with behavioural restriction. The preference for free-rangeor cage-free systems was justified based on the following reasons: naturalness, animals\u2019 freedomto 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 systemsthat provide greater freedom of movement, which aligned with their perception that these systemsare better for the animal. Our results provide some evidence that the current farm animal housingAnimals 2017, 7, 75; doi:10.3390\/ani7100075 www.mdpi.com\/journal\/animalsAnimals 2017, 7, 75 2 of 15practices that are associated with restriction of movement, which are gaining traction in Brazil, maynot align with societal expectations.Keywords: animal welfare; ethics; livestock production; qualitative research; survey1. IntroductionIn many developed and developing countries, familiarity and knowledge about farm animalproduction systems has decreased among the general public due in part to the growing distancebetween locations where agriculture practices take place and where the majority of consumerslive [1\u20133]. In addition to urbanization, some also argue that media and advertisements [4] that reinforcethe historical romantic view of agriculture [1] also contribute to the growing lack of knowledgeof modern agricultural production practices. This disconnect may explain why the lay public,when confronted with the realities of the intensive animal industries, frequently express negativeattitudes towards them [5\u20138].Livestock production practices vary widely, with specific practices viewed by the public as moreor less favourable depending on what aspect is being questioned. For instance, the main animalwelfare concerns raised by the public regarding the use of confinement (no outdoor access) and cagesystems for farm animals are that they prevent animals from moving freely, provide inappropriatesocial contact, and are frequently associated with a barren environment with no outdoor access [9\u201314].European citizens identified caged hens, broilers and pigs as the top three farm animals they believedto have the poorest welfare [9]. Similarly, New Zealand citizens [15] specifically identified thesethree farm animals as requiring the most improvement in terms of animal welfare standards and inneed of legal protection.Farm animal welfare issues have often been viewed to be a consequence of conflict betweenproducers and citizens\/consumers. Citizens\u2019 attitudes towards different food production systemsare not only dependent on rational assessment of risks, benefits, economics, and nutrition, but alsoreflect ethical and moral considerations [16,17]. Positive responses from farm animal producers andretailers to society\u2019s concerns about controversial agricultural practices have led to some changes inlivestock production practices in several countries [18]. Policy makers and industry stakeholders insome countries have also begun to consult the public in the process of defining acceptable livestockwelfare standards [19].It has been argued that Brazilian lay citizens have little knowledge of animal productionsystems [20,21]. However, lack of knowledge does not mean that they have no concerns or negativeattitudes toward current animal production practices and systems. For example, urban Brazilianswere reported to be concerned with food quality, view food additives, hormones and pesticides ashazards [8,22,23] and have negative attitudes towards genetically-modified food, based on perceptionsof risk and lack of naturalness [24,25]. Several studies on public views of farm animals productionsystems have been undertaken in Europe and North America [10,26\u201330]. This issue, however,has received considerably less attention in Brazil, a leading food animal producing country anda large urban consumer market [31,32].The primary aim of this study was to explore the beliefs and attitudes of Brazilians not associatedwith livestock production towards farm animal production, and the underlying reasons. A secondaryaim was to identify the specific beliefs and attitudes towards systems that are associated with restrictionof movement.2. Materials and MethodsThis study was approved by Ethics Committee on Experimentation of the Santa Catarina State University1.111.587 (22\/06\/2015).Animals 2017, 7, 75 3 of 152.1. Participants\u2019 RecruitmentParticipants were recruited exclusively through direct approach at locations known to beassociated with intense movement of people or waiting times, such as technical and scientific eventsand fairs, the local airport and interstate bus terminal in Florian\u00f3polis, Santa Catarina. These venuesprovided the opportunity to identify participants of both sexes, of different ages and geographicbackgrounds. To increase the diversity of public opinions we tried, whenever possible, to achievea balanced distribution between participants\u2019 sex and ages.Participants were approached randomly and asked to voluntarily participate in the survey.Conditions to participate in the research were that the participant was at least 18 years old, a Braziliancitizen and was available and interested in voluntarily answering a short questionnaire coveringthe general theme \u201canimal production\u201d. Each participant received a consent form that they wereasked to read and if they agreed to participate were required to sign before they began the survey thatwas 6 pages long and included a total of 19 questions and two sets of two images. The identity ofthe participants was not required.2.2. Description of the SurveyData collection was conducted during the months of September 2014 to June 2015.The first questions addressed participants\u2019 socio-demographic information relating to sex(male, female), age (18\u201325, 26\u201335, 36\u201345, 46\u201355, 56\u201365, over 66 years), education (elementary school,high school, or higher education), the region of Brazil which they viewed to be their primaryresidence (south, southeast, north, northeast, midwest), whether they lived in a rural area, small town(up to 20,000 inhabitants), medium town (from 20,000 a 100,000 inhabitants), large city (more than100,000 inhabitants), or metropolis (more than one million inhabitants), if they had ever lived outsidethe country (yes, no), and their level of association with livestock production (\u201cnot associated\u201d\u2014no tieswith the animal industries\u2014or \u201cassociated\u201d\u2014any ties with the animal industries such as veterinarian,livestock production professional, consultant\/manager, producer, student or faculty in any fieldof animal agriculture). Participants were also asked how informed they considered themselvesto be regarding animal production (very informed, somewhat informed, intermediate, somewhatuninformed, totally uninformed); their main sources of information about raising animals usedfor food production (multiple choice: internet, TV or radio (general programs), TV or radio (ruralprograms), newspaper (printed or electronic), specialized magazines, animal protection societywebsites, university, friends, other); if they consumed animal products (yes, no); if they consideredfarm animals in Brazil to be well-treated (yes, no); and finally, how much they cared about the qualityof life of the animals used in food production (very, intermediate, not at all).Two pages with two images each were presented to each participant but separated bythree questions that were repeated after each set of pictures. Each page showed a set of two imagesshowing the same species but in two different production systems: free-range beef cattle andbeef cattle in intensive open-air confinement (feedlot); free-range broilers or broilers in intensiveindoor confinement; free-range laying hens or layers in battery cages; free-range farrowing sows orsows in farrowing cages; and, group housed gestating sows or gestating sows in individual cages.Each respondent compared one example of a non-confined system with a confined cage-free systemfor the same species (either beef cattle or poultry, Figure 1a) and one example of cage-free systemwith a caged system for a second species (either laying hens, gestating sows, or farrowing sows,Figure 1b). The order of the images was randomized so that each set of paired images (cases) appeared50% of the time either as the first or second. After each set of paired images the respondent wasasked to indicate their knowledge of the prevalence of these systems (\u201cIn your opinion, which of thesesituations is the most common in commercial production in Brazil?\u201d and offered as answer with choices\u201cA\u201d, \u201cB\u201d, \u201cboth are equally common in Brazil\u201d, \u201cneither is common in Brazil\u201d and \u201cI do not know\u201d).The respondent was then asked to indicate their preference for one of the two systems (\u201cWhich situationwould you like to be the more common in animal production in Brazil?\u201d with the answer options \u201cA\u201dAnimals 2017, 7, 75 4 of 15and \u201cB\u201d). Finally, the respondent was asked to justify their preference with an open answer (\u201cPleasejustify briefly why you prefer the livestock system you indicated above\u201d).Animals 2017, 7, 75  4 of 15  Figure 1. Each respondent were presented with a series of photos (a) one example of a non-confined system and a confined cage-free system for the same species (either beef cattle or poultry), and (b) one example of a cage-free system and a caged system for a second species (either laying hens, gestating sows, or farrowing sows). The order of the photos was randomized so that each set of paired photos appeared 50% of the time either as the first or second. In each case respondents were asked \u201cwhich situation (A or B) would you like to be the more common in animal production in Brazil?\u201d The entire questionnaire was initially tested using 20 randomly recruited participants, with their responses used to refine the questionnaire prior to release. The images used in the questionnaire were also tested to ensure that they represented the issue we intended to address and avoid examples that participants may have considered \u201cextreme\u201d of a given situation. To ensure that images followed this criterion, six people (three experts in animal production and three lay people) were consulted. Images that were considered to convey a typical example of a given production system were selected for use. After the initial testing, we concluded that presenting two cases yielded the most detailed answers and justifications. In contrast, when we provided three or more cases many respondents answered subsequent questions with phrases such as \u201csame as previous\u201d, or \u201csame reason\u201d.   Figure 1. Each respondent were presented with a series of photos (a) one example of a non-confinedsystem and a confined cage-free system for the same species (either beef cattle or poultry), and (b) oneexample of a cage-free system and a caged system for a second species (either laying hens, gestatingsows, or farrowing sows). The order of the photos was randomized so that each set of paired photosappeared 50% of the time either as the first or second. In each case respondents were asked \u201cwhichsituation (A or B) would you like to be the more common in animal production in Brazil?\u201dThe entire questionnaire was initially tested using 20 randomly recruited participants, with theirresponses used to refine the questionnaire prior to release. The images used i the questionnaire werealso tested to ensure that they r present d the issue we intended t address and avoid examples thatparticipants may have consid ed \u201cextreme\u201d f a given situation. To ensure that imag s followedthis criterion, x p ople (thr e experts in nimal production and hree lay peopl ) w re consult d.Images that were considered to onv y a typical xample f a given pro uction system were selectedfor use. After the initial testing, we conclude that pr senting two cases yielded th most detailedAnimals 2017, 7, 75 5 of 15answers and justifications. In contrast, when we provided three or more cases many respondentsanswered subsequent questions with phrases such as \u201csame as previous\u201d, or \u201csame reason\u201d.2.3. Data AnalysesApproximately 100 responses were collected for each case, totalling 612 questionnaires,which were considered complete if the respondent completed the entire questionnaire. Participantswith any level of association with livestock production were excluded from the current analysis,resulting in a final sample of 479 completed questionnaires.To analyze the quantitative data, we used a mixed effects logistic regression that was fittedaccounting for the random effect of region. Two models were fitted: one assessed respondents\u2019preference for cage or cage-free systems, and the other the preference for confined or free-rangesystems as response variables. Explanatory variables were screened using univariable analysis,with variable having a p < 0.2 included in the final multivariable models. Models were reduced usingmanual stepwise backward elimination using a p < 0.05 as threshold for keeping the predictors inthe model. Explanatory variables tested were: sex, age, education, rural or urban living, how informedrespondents considered themselves to be regarding animal production, if they considered farm animalsin Brazil to be well-treated, and how much they cared about the quality of life of the animals used infood production. Logistic regressions were fitted using lme4 package [33] on R [34].Open answers were analysed using qualitative analyses, based on the method described byHuberman [35], which has three stages completed in the following order: data reduction (information iscoded finding themes), data display (organization of the information permitting to reach conclusions)and conclusion drawing and verification (noting of patterns and themes and using confirmatory tacticssuch as triangulation between three readers). To ensure that the coding of themes was appropriateto the proposed objectives, and therefore valid (i.e., that it represented all content displayed onthe information collected), first three readers analysed 20 random responses, turning them into codesused to identify themes. The three readers then compared their results and discussed any discrepanciesand ambiguities until agreement was reached. Two readers then coded the first 100 answers to ensureagreement. From that point on the lead author undertook the remaining encodings with the codesorganized, counted and grouped into major themes.Twelve codes were identified from the responses presented by participants to justify theirpreference for a given image within a case, which were grouped into four themes: \u201canimal welfare\u201d,\u201cproduction\u201d, \u201cproduct quality\u201d and \u201cenvironmental issues\u201d. The theme \u201canimal welfare\u201d comprisedcodes related to the quality of life of animals: freedom (including aspects such as the ability to moveand issues related to amount of space provided to the animal or movement), natural life (relatedto expression of natural behaviours and the natural habitat of the animal), sentience (the ability ofanimals to express positive and negative feelings), animal health (physical and biological), animalstress (physiological or psychological), quality of feed offered to animals, and ethics (related tothe respondent\u2019s values regarding the use of animals by humans, references to the system as \u201ccruel\u201d or\u201cinhuman\u201d, or claims of the existence of better alternatives for animal production).The theme \u201cproduction\u201d comprised codes related to the productive systems, including naturalness(the production system should be as natural as possible), productivity (efficiency of the system, the costof the resulting product to consumers, or the area needed for animal production), control (referringto management, hygiene, animal health, and diseases), and ethics (participants expressed valuesregarding food production and food supply to the human population). The theme \u201cproduct quality\u201dincluded two codes: inputs used in production of food to humans and animal food (includingpesticides, hormones and antibiotics), and human health (references to the influence of the resultingfood product on human health). The theme \u201cenvironmental issues\u201d included possible benefits or risksof the particular production system on the environment.On some occasions, the topics coded under naturalness and inputs were not related to anytheme, as some participants gave short answers, like \u201cmore natural\u201d or \u201cless hormones\u201d; respondentsAnimals 2017, 7, 75 6 of 15did not explain if this concern referred to the animal, the system, the quality of the products,or the environment.Quotes were translated to English by the first and last author.3. ResultsThe demographics of participants (n = 479) are reported in Table 1. We did not recruit anyparticipant that identified himself or herself as illiterate. Six participants did not consume animalproducts. Most participants (79%) considered that farm animals are not well-treated in Brazil. For 39%of the participants, farm animal welfare was stated to be a major concern and for 52%, it was viewedto be of some concern.Table 1. Demographics of survey participants and of Brazilians according to latest Brazilian Instituteof Geography and Statistics (IBGE) census [31].Demographics Participants N (%) IBGE Census Data (%)SexFemale 255 (53) 51Male 224 (47) 49Age18\u201325 134 (28) 1926\u201335 128 (27) 2436\u201345 82 (17) 2046\u201355 73 (15) 1656\u201365 45 (9) 1166 or more 17 (4) 10EducationPrimary school 6 (1) 49High school 140 (29) 15University education 333 (70) 36Region of residence within BrazilSouth 314 (66) 15Southeast 103 (22) 42North 15 (3) 7Northeast 19 (4) 28Midwest 21 (4) 7Area of residenceRural\/city up to 20,000 72 (15) 16Urban 407 (85) 84In terms of how informed participants considered themselves to be about animal production,36 (7%) said very informed, 151 (31%) somewhat informed, 164 (34%) intermediate, 95 (20%) somewhatuninformed, and 36 (8%) totally uninformed. Participants indicated the following when askedspecifically about their main sources of information on farm animal rearing: Internet (65%), TV andradio (38%), friends (35%), newspapers (18%), specialized magazines (14%), universities (12%),and websites of animal protection societies (9%).The proportion of participants that believed that farm animals in Brazil are reared in intensiveconfinement or caged systems varied by animal industry: 23% for beef cattle, 82% for poultry, 81% forlaying hens, 56% for gestating sows, and 63% for farrowing sows. When asked about their preferredsystem, 87% chose free-range systems and 78% chose cage-free systems. The only variable tested thatshowed a significant relationship with the preference for the system was opinion regarding the qualityof treatment of farm animals in Brazil: respondents who thought that animals are not well-treated inAnimals 2017, 7, 75 7 of 15Brazil had a stronger preference (p < 0.05) for cage-free over the caged systems and free-range overthe confined systems (OR = 3.43; 95% confidence interval: 2.10\u20135.59, and OR = 3.8; 95% confidenceinterval: 1.92\u20137.27, respectively).3.1. Reasons to Justify the Preference for a Given ImageExamples are presented followed by the number of the respondent (R) and the image chosenwithin brackets. The frequency of the themes identified in the responses are summarised in Table 2.Table 2. Emerging themes in response to the question, \u201cPlease justify your preference on the livestockproduction system chosen in the previous answer.\u201d Questionnaire was applied between September 2014and June 2015, n = 479 Brazilian participants.Participants (n = 479) Free-Range (n = 437 1) Confinement (n = 42 1) Cage-Free (n = 382 1) Cage (n = 97 1)Themes 2Animal welfare 317 (68%) 7 (15%) 280 (71%) 20 (19%)Production 73 (16%) 27 (59%) 53 (13%) 69 (65%)Product quality 65 (14%) 8 (17%) 57 (14%) 13 (12%)Environmental issues 12 (2%) 4 (9%) 7 (2%) 4 (4%)Total 467 46 401 1061 Participants that chose a given system; 2 Number of times a given theme was mentioned by participants andthe percentage it represents for each group (free-range, confinement, cage-free and cage).3.2. Animal WelfareThe main reason offered by participants justifying their preference for free-range or cage-freesystems was the animals\u2019 freedom: Cattle should live free on pasture (R34 (free-range beef cattle));Because animals are raised with more freedom (R320 (free-range poultry)). Freedom was also implied inthe context of sufficient space for animals to walk or to move around: More space for animals to movearound (R109 (cage-free gestating sows)). Some respondents associated freedom with lack of stress,healthier animals, and better product quality: Animals are free, quiet in their habitat, without sufferingstress (R467 (free-range poultry)); I think that free animals are healthier (R67 (cage-free laying hens));In the chosen image animals are free, producing better eggs, and the animals themselves are in better shape(R45 (cage-free laying hens)).Many participants considered that animals should have the opportunity to live either in a naturalway or in their natural habitat: it is the natural habitat of animals (R318 (cage-free farrowing sows));a life closer to their natural environment may be better for the animals (R466 (free-range poultry)).Many participants also associated a natural life with freedom from stress and better productquality: The animals are less stressed living naturally, resulting in products of greater nutritional quality(R338 (free-range poultry)); I believe that farm animals raised in open environments, closer to nature, producefood of better quality, and the animals will have a better quality of life (R78 (cage-free laying hens)); I think itis closer to the natural habitat, causing less stress to the animals, and consequently reducing (the use of) harmfulchemical inputs and mistreatment (R449 (free-range poultry)).Some participants argued that animals deserve respect and must be well-treated: it is fairerto the animals and to consumers (R445 (free-range poultry)); I think it is more humane, more natural,and less cruel (R338 (free-range cattle)); Because animals do not deserve to be mistreated (R444 (cage-freegestating sows)).A few participants associated confined or caged systems with good welfare, e.g., animals beingwell cared for, free of stress or free of diseases better treatment and feeding (R412 (caged gestating sows));An appropriate place to raise piglets (R165 (caged farrowing sows)).Animals 2017, 7, 75 8 of 153.3. Product Quality Is a Desired Outcome of Livestock Production SystemsBesides perceiving an association between animal welfare and product quality, participants wereconcerned about the influence of the quality of food offered to the animals, the use of chemical inputsand potential residues on the food produced, and the hygiene of the system, on human health.The quality of the animals\u2019 feed was a salient topic among participants that preferred free-rangecattle, who emphasized the relation between animals\u2019 feed and product quality and showeda preference for providing feed to the animals that was free of chemicals: when we consume the product ofthese animals we are also ingesting what they ingested (R392 (free-range poultry)); The meat we eat nowadays(reflects) more concentrate feed than actual meat (R244 (cage-free laying hens)); The way animals are fedwith chemical inputs that bring us health problem (R72 (cage-free farrowing sows)). Many expressedconcerns about the use of chemical or veterinary drug residues on their food: Because of the excessive useof hormones and the non-organic fattening system (R193 (cage-free farrowing sows)); Because it is a betterproduct for our health, with less use of substances during its production that may make us sick. And becauseI think they are tastier (R290 (free-range poultry)); Animals develop naturally, producing healthier meat(R277 (cage-free laying hens)).For some participants good hygiene practices were a requirement for product quality;many related caged and confined systems with better hygiene and disease control: Because (on confinedsystems) diseases, hygiene can be controlled (R300 (confined poultry)); Apparently it (the confined system) ismore hygienic, conveys greater security and confidence for human consumption (R130 (caged farrowing sows)).The concern with hygiene was especially salient in the case of swine production, with cagedsystems often associated with better hygiene: better vaccination care, better sanitary control (R459 (cagedgestating sows)); Because there is more surveillance and control, and therefore, more hygiene and a healthierlife (R124 (caged gestating sows)). The same concerns with hygiene were also evident among someparticipants that preferred cage-free systems: Less confinement, though I do not know how the hygiene issuewould be solved (R90 (cage-free gestating sows)); It is obvious that the first image (cages) shows hygiene;but thinking of the animals the second image (group housing) is the best (R90 (cage-free gestating sows)).3.4. Naturalness of the Production SystemsNaturalness was an important and desired issue for participants that preferred free-range orcage-free systems. Respondents associated naturalness with freedom from suffering: Because it ismore natural and doesn\u2019t harm the animal (R161 (cage-free farrowing sows)); natural behaviours andnatural living: Animals should be raised in the open sky, free to be able to socialize and exercise their naturalbehaviours (R427 (cage-free laying hens)); Animals roaming free and able to express their natural behaviour(R473 (free-range poultry)); Because it seems more \u201cnatural\u201d, less harmful. Animals are free to roam,similar to their natural habitat (R93 (cage-free gestating sows)); absence of chemical inputs in the diets:A natural production system that does not rely on drugs to accelerate production in order to achieve a fastproduction and commercialization cycle (R372 (free-range poultry)); animals\u2019 natural growth and naturaldevelopment: In this case, the animal is raised naturally and has its normal life cycle (R53 (cage-freelaying hens); Natural cattle, without intensive fattening (R142 (free-range cattle)); and healthier production:In the image showing cage-free farrowing sows the system is more consistent with natural, healthier methods(R357 (cage-free farrowing sows)).Some participants simply expressed a preference for naturalness, e.g., Because it is natural,and the natural process is always better (R186 (free-range poultry)).3.5. Intensive Production for More Abundant and Cheaper FoodSome participants believed confined and caged systems can lead to higher productivity,lower costs of production, and meet consumer demand for low-cost food: Reduces the space requiredto raise animals (R423 (confined cattle)); It allows for lower costs of production, reducing the selling priceAnimals 2017, 7, 75 9 of 15and enabling low-income people to consume this product (R460 (confined poultry)); Because the system onthe image can meet the huge demand of the population (R201 (caged farrowing sows)).3.6. Concerns Regarding the Environmental Impacts of Livestock ProductionSome participants considered free-range and cage-free systems less aggressive to nature: it is betterfor the ecosystem to have animals free in nature (R211 (cage-free farrowing sows)); while others relatedintensive systems with less use of natural resources: Confinement requires less use of natural resources,correct control of cattle health and more production in less time (R205 (confined cattle)); Besides using lesspasture (therefore causing less deforestation), cattle are ready (for slaughter) in less time (in my lay opinion)(R148 (confined cattle)).4. DiscussionIn general, our participants expressed a preference for free-range, cage-free and more \u201cnatural\u201dproduction systems. Similar to reports from around the world (e.g., Europe [9\u201311,26], Canada [12,29],US [13,36,37]), participants expressed concerns with livestock production systems that they perceivedto cause animal suffering or distress, limit the movement or the expression of some natural behaviours,and reduce animal health. Many participants also emphasised ethical issues related to the quality ofanimals\u2019 lives, recognizing farm animals as deserving respect and dignity beyond the provision ofbasic needs. For some, having a good life was a requirement if the animals are destined for humanconsumption [26]. The similarity of our findings to studies done in other parts of world indicates thatthese values are common to contemporary society.A preference for systems perceived as being more \u201cnatural\u201d and a concern with the qualityof the food produced by these systems were salient in participants\u2019 justifications of their choices.Naturalness and better product quality were often related to production systems that do not use growthpromoters and antibiotics, that feed natural food to the animals, or that allow animals to express theirnatural behaviours and engage in social interactions. Concerns expressed by our participants regardingthe quality of food offered to the animals are in line with previous surveys with European [9,10,17,38,39]and North American citizens [13,40]. Positive values associated with naturalness in animal productionand rejection of use of growth promoters and additives for animal production have both been identifiedin several surveys of public attitudes [8,13,14,17,41].A perceived association between naturalness, animal welfare, and product quality also echoesseveral previous surveys done in other countries [9,13,14,42,43]. In many parts of the developed worldthis may be explained by abundant media coverage of cases of infectious pathogens in food, antibioticresistance, and other \u201cfood scares\u201d, possibly causing the public to associate food quality with goodanimal welfare (e.g., see [43,44]). Additionally, marketing instruments used to promote and sell animalproducts often rely on the use of discourses and images of naturalness that reinforce these ideals [4].In Brazil there are additional factors that may explain this perception. For example, antibiotics are usedas growth promoters in pig and poultry produced for domestic consumption [45], a practice that hasrecently received much attention by the Brazilian media (e.g., [46]). Additionally, there has been muchdebate about GMO (genetically modified organisms) food products in Brazil [47], and the data reportedby the annual publication of pesticide levels (including the presence of unauthorised products) invegetables available in the domestic market by the National Health Surveillance Agency, ANVISA [48].There are also numerous other media reports of presence of pesticides\u2019 residues in food [49]. Recentadvertisements within the media stating that no hormones are used in domestic poultry production [50]have likely added additional confusion to this discussion, given that many individuals now questionthis illegal practice [51].Previous studies have reported low levels of awareness among lay Brazilian citizens regardinganimal production systems and practices [20,21,52]. Our survey results suggest that, though true insome cases, this degree of awareness cannot be generalised. Although most participants assessed theirknowledge of livestock production systems as low and some declared total ignorance about how foodAnimals 2017, 7, 75 10 of 15animals are reared, or were brief and vague in their responses, others referred to specific practicesof intensive livestock systems that were not shown in the images, such as the use of feed additivesand veterinary drugs, production methods used to achieve high growth rates, as well as emphasisingthe importance (in their opinion) of animals expressing their natural behaviours. These statementsare also supported by a recent survey of Brazilian citizens where some participants showed someawareness of specific dairy farming management practices but also views that did not resonate withsome common management practices [8]. In the present survey, when asked which image they believeddepicted the most common situation in Brazil, most participants seemed to be aware that the majorityof pigs and poultry are reared in confined and caged systems and beef cattle on pasture [53,54].Therefore, despite their limited knowledge of the production systems and practices, participantswere able to express general expectations and criticisms regarding the quality of life of farm animals,which many associated with the quality of the food produced and thus affected human health.Historically, increased awareness of livestock production systems has been associated with societybecoming more involved in demanding and promoting changes in livestock production systems(e.g., [55,56]). In this context, the impact of knowledge of public acceptance of animal livestockproduction systems has been debated in recent years. Some researchers [14,57] and farmers [58,59]assume that a more educated public will become more accepting of technologies or systems consideredideal or acceptable by animal and veterinary scientists and the associated farm animal industries.This has been discussed as a \u201cdeficit model\u201d\u2014in short, ignorance is the basis for a lack of societalsupport for issues in science and technology, and can therefore be changed with education [60].However, it has also been discussed [42,61] that non-experts assess technologies based on risk andmoral values. Indeed, numerous reports show that increasing information tends to result in increaseopposition to contentious livestock production practices [8,29,40,62\u201364].Although most of our participants preferred free-range and cage-free systems, some, albeit a minorproportion, indicated a preference for confined and caged systems. These participants were concernedwith the impacts of the production systems on productivity and the cost of food produced, as well asthe need to produce sufficient and affordable food for a growing world population [65,66]. For someparticipants the latter can only be achieved with caged and confined systems, which may be based onthe belief that modernization and intensification are required for dramatic increases in meat productionto be achieved [67]. Some of our participants also perceived advantages for the intensive systems interms of easier animal handling and better hygiene (particularly when discussing swine production).This might be explained by the fact that Brazilian consumers perceive pork meat as a greater riskto health than beef [68]. Others have shown that, although some sensorial aspects, practicality andconvenience and production following animal welfare standards are highly valued by Brazilian porkconsumers, animal sanitary aspects are considered the most important [69]. Possibly due to historicaland cultural images of early pork production systems that existed in the country [68,70], manyBrazilians associate pork meat with a source of zoonotic diseases\u2014especially worm infestations\u2014andhigh cholesterol [71,72]. Accordingly, a Dutch survey [73] found that citizens appreciate some aspectsof modern animal farming, such as good hygiene practices and technological innovations that helpanimal management. Indeed, several studies have reported that food safety is the highest-rankingattribute mentioned by survey participants [38,74\u201377]. Other reasons for Brazilians to be concernedwith food safety and hygiene are the recurrent cases of milk frauds [78,79], or illegal slaughter ofanimals [80] that are usually conveyed with images of poor infrastructure by the media (e.g., [81]).Finally, this qualitative, exploratory study was based on a convenience sample of participants,and as such cannot be interpreted as representing the views of the Brazilian society. In comparisonto the Brazilian population [31] our sample contains a greater proportion of well-educated citizens,likely linked with citizens\u2019 wealth. There were respondents from all five regions of the country, but witha disproportionate over representation of the south and southeast regions and under representationof the northeast region. Although we acknowledge that the sample is unbalanced in terms ofsocioeconomic and educational stratification, we argue that the highly educated participants representAnimals 2017, 7, 75 11 of 15a segment of opinion holders that have substantial purchasing power, traits that may influence changesin production practices. This survey contributes original information on an issue underexplored indeveloping countries [82], which are the fastest growing producers and consumers of animal foodproducts [32].5. ConclusionsMany practices used in intensive animal production systems seem far removed from the moralvalues and expectations of our sample of the Brazilian public. Participants\u2019 showed limited awarenessof animal food production systems and practices used in Brazil, but were critical of perceived outcomesof practices and systems on the quality of the products and in regards to the lives led by the animals(e.g., suffering, freedom, health), and subsequent risks to human health. Legislation [83] or retail andindustry-led changes in husbandry practices that are starting to happen in developing countries likeBrazil (e.g., [84\u201388]), may be costly to producers if they are required to comply with mandatedrequirements [56]. However, these initiatives may not be sustainable if they are implementedin the absence of dialogue with society per se [32], for example, if these changes do not meetthe expectations of those demanding them [89,90].Acknowledgments: This study was funded by CNPq (National Council for Scientific and TechnologicalDevelopment, Brazil, P. 400850\/2013-3). Maria J. H\u00f6tzel was supported by CNPq (P. 311509\/2015-0) andMaria C. Yunes by FAPESC (Foundation for Research and Innovation of the State of Santa Catarina) that providedthe doctoral scholarship. Marina A.G. von Keyserlingk thanks CNPq (Science without Borders) for providingthe funds to allow her visit to Brazil that enabled this outstanding collaboration.Author Contributions: Maria J. H\u00f6tzel and Maria C. Yunes conceived, designed and performed the experiments;Maria J. H\u00f6tzel, Maria C. Yunes and Marina A. G. von Keyserlingk analysed the data and wrote the paper.Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.References1. Fraser, D. Animal welfare and the intensification of animal production. In Ethics of Intensification: AgriculturalDevelopment and Cultural Change; Thompson, P.B., Ed.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2008; pp. 167\u2013189.2. Schneider, S.A. Reconnecting consumers and producers: On the path toward a sustainable food andagricultural policy. Drake J. Agric. Law 2009, 14, 75.3. Marie, M. Ethics: The new challenge for animal agriculture. Livest. Sci. 2006, 103, 203\u2013207. [CrossRef]4. Borkfelt, S.; Kondrup, S.; Rocklinsberg, H.; Bjorkdahl, K.; Gjerris, M. Closer to nature? A critical discussionof the marketing of \u201cethical\u201d animal products. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2015, 28, 1053\u20131073. [CrossRef]5. Grunert, K.G. Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regard to meat consumption. Meat Sci. 2006, 74,149\u2013160. [CrossRef] [PubMed]6. Krystallis, A.; de Barcellos, M.D.; Kuegler, J.O.; Verbeke, W.; Grunert, K.G. Attitudes of european citizenstowards pig production systems. Livest. Sci. 2009, 126, 46\u201356. [CrossRef]7. Verbeke, W.; Viaene, J. Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat consumption in belgium: Empiricalevidence from a consumer survey. Food Qual. Preference 1999, 10, 437\u2013445. [CrossRef]8. H\u00f6tzel, M.J.; Roslindo, A.; Cardoso, C.S.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. Citizens\u2019 views on the practicesof zero-grazing and cow-calf separation in the dairy industry: Does providing information increaseacceptability? J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 4150\u20134160. [CrossRef] [PubMed]9. European Commission. Attitudes of EU Citizens towards Animal Welfare. Special Eurobarometer 270,Wave 66.1.TNS Opinion and Social. 2007. Available online: http:\/\/ec.europa.eu\/public_opinion\/archives\/ebs\/ebs_270_en.pdf (accessed on 25 September 2017).10. Miele, M.; Veissier, I.; Evans, A.; Botreau, R. Animal welfare: Establishing a dialogue between science andsociety. Anim. Welf. 2011, 20, 103\u2013117.11. Boogaard, B.K.; Boekhorst, L.J.S.; Oosting, S.J.; Sorensen, J.T. Socio-cultural sustainability of pig production:Citizen perceptions in The Netherlands and Denmark. Livest. Sci. 2011, 140, 189\u2013200. [CrossRef]12. Spooner, J.M.; Schuppli, C.A.; Fraser, D. Attitudes of Canadian beef producers toward animal welfare.Anim. Welf. 2012, 21, 273\u2013283. [CrossRef]Animals 2017, 7, 75 12 of 1513. Cardoso, C.S.; H\u00f6tzel, M.J.; Weary, D.M.; Robbins, J.A.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. Imagining the ideal dairyfarm. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 1663\u20131671. [CrossRef] [PubMed]14. You, X.; Li, Y.; Zhang, M.; Yan, H.; Zhao, R. A survey of Chinese citizens\u2019 perceptions on farm animal welfare.PLoS ONE 2014. [CrossRef] [PubMed]15. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. What New Zealanders Really Think about Animal Welfare; Ministry ofAgriculture and Forestry: Wellington, New Zealand, 2011.16. Perhac, R.M. Comparative risk assessment: Where does the public fit in? Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 1998, 23,221\u2013241. [CrossRef]17. Boogaard, B.K.; Bock, B.B.; Oosting, S.J.; Wiskerke, J.S.C.; van der Zijpp, A.J. Social acceptance of dairyfarming: The ambivalence between the two faces of modernity. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2011, 24, 259\u2013282.[CrossRef]18. Bayvel, A.C.D. Science-based animal welfare standards: The international role of the office international desepizooties. Anim. Welf. 2004, 13, 63\u201369.19. Rowe, G.; Frewer, L.J. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values2000, 25, 3\u201329. [CrossRef]20. Bonamigo, A.; Bonamigo, C.B.S.S.; Molento, C.F.M. Broiler meat characteristics relevant to the consumer:Focus on animal welfare. Braz. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 41, 1044\u20131050.21. De Barcellos, M.D.; Krystallis, A.; de Melo Saab, M.S.; Kuegler, J.O.; Grunert, K.G. Investigating the gapbetween citizens\u2019 sustainability attitudes and food purchasing behaviour: Empirical evidence from Brazilianpork consumers. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2011, 35, 391\u2013402. [CrossRef]22. Kher, S.V.; De Jonge, J.; Wentholt, M.T.A.; Deliza, R.; de Andrade, J.C.; Cnossen, H.J.; Luijckx, N.B.L.;Frewer, L.J. Consumer perceptions of risks of chemical and microbiological contaminants associated withfood chains: A cross-national study. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2013, 37, 73\u201383. [CrossRef]23. Behrens, J.H.; Barcellos, M.N.; Frewer, L.J.; Nunes, T.P.; Franco, B.D.G.M.; Destro, M.T.; Landgraf, M.Consumer purchase habits and views on food safety: A Brazilian study. Food Control 2010, 21, 963\u2013969.[CrossRef]24. Guivant, J.S.; Macnaghten, P. An analysis of the gm crop debate in Brazil. In Governing AgriculturalSustainability: Global Lessons from GM Crops; Macnaghten, P., Susana, C.R., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2015;pp. 74\u2013104.25. Ribeiro, T.G.; Barone, B.; Behrens, J.H. Genetically modified foods and their social representation. Food Res. Int.2016, 84, 120\u2013127. [CrossRef]26. Boogaard, B.K.; Oosting, S.J.; Bock, B.B. Elements of societal perception of farm animal welfare: A quantitativestudy in The Netherlands. Livest. Sci. 2006, 104, 13\u201322. [CrossRef]27. Ventura, B.A.; Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Schuppli, C.A.; Weary, D.M. Views on contentious practices in dairyfarming: The case of early cow-calf separation. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 6105\u20136116. [CrossRef] [PubMed]28. Spooner, J.M.; Schuppli, C.A.; Fraser, D. Attitudes of Canadian pig producers toward animal welfare. J. Agric.Environ. Ethics 2014, 27, 569\u2013589. [CrossRef]29. Ryan, E.B.; Fraser, D.; Weary, D.M. Public attitudes to housing systems for pregnant pigs. PLoS ONE 2015.[CrossRef] [PubMed]30. Cardoso, A.S.; Berndt, A.; Leytem, A.; Alves, B.J.R.; de Carvalho, I.; de Barros Soares, L.H.; Urquiaga, S.;Boddey, R.M. Impact of the intensification of beef production in Brazil on greenhouse gas emissions andland use. Agric. Syst. 2016, 143, 86\u201396. [CrossRef]31. IBGE. Sinopse do Censo Demogr\u00e1fico. 2010. Available online: https:\/\/biblioteca.ibge.gov.br\/visualizacao\/livros\/liv49230.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2017).32. Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; H\u00f6tzel, M.J. The ticking clock: Addressing farm animal welfare in emergingcountries. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2015, 28, 179\u2013195. [CrossRef]33. Bates, D.; M\u00e4chler, M.; Bolker, B.; Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 2016.[CrossRef]34. R_Core_Team. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing:Vienna, Austria, 2017.35. Huberman, A.M.; Miles, M.B. Data management and analysis methods. In Handbook of Qualitative Research;Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., Eds.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994; p. 643.Animals 2017, 7, 75 13 of 1536. Prickett, R.W.; Norwood, F.B.; Lusk, J.L. Consumer preferences for farm animal welfare: Results froma telephone survey of us households. Anim. Welf. 2010, 19, 335\u2013347.37. Sato, P.; H\u00f6tzel, M.; von Keyserlingk, M. American citizens\u2019 views of an ideal pig farm. Animals 2017, 7, 64.[CrossRef] [PubMed]38. Vanhonacker, F.; Van Poucke, E.; Tuyttens, F.; Verbeke, W. Citizens\u2019 views on farm animal welfare and relatedinformation provision: Exploratory insights from Flanders, Belgium. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2010, 23,551\u2013569. [CrossRef]39. Ellis, K.A.; Billington, K.; McNeil, B.; McKeegan, D.E.F. Public opinion on UK milk marketing and dairy cowwelfare. Anim. Welf. 2009, 18, 267\u2013282.40. Ventura, B.A.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Wittman, H.; Weary, D.M. What difference does a visit make?Changes in animal welfare perceptions after interested citizens tour a dairy farm. PLoS ONE 2016. [CrossRef][PubMed]41. Holm, L.; Kildevang, H. Consumers\u2019 views on food quality. A qualitative interview study. Appetite 1996, 27,1\u201314. [CrossRef] [PubMed]42. Hansen, J.; Holm, L.; Frewer, L.; Robinson, P.; Sand\u00f8e, P. Beyond the knowledge deficit: Recent research intolay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite 2003, 41, 111\u2013121. [CrossRef]43. Buller, H.; Morris, C. Farm animal welfare: A new repertoire of nature-society relations or modernismre-embedded? Soc. Ruralis 2003. [CrossRef]44. Verbeke, W.; Ward, R.W. A fresh meat almost ideal demand system incorporating negative TV press andadvertising impact. Agric. Econ. 2001, 25, 359\u2013374. [CrossRef]45. Bokma-Bakker, M.; Bondt, N.; Neijenhuis, F.; Mevius, D.; Ruiter, S. Antibiotic Use in Brazilian Broiler andPig Production: An Indication and Forecast of Trends; Wageningen UR Livestock Research: Wageningen,The Netherlands, 2014.46. Oliveira, E.; Bonfanti, C. Antibiotics, not Hormones, Are the Greatest Risk in Beef and Poultry. O GLOBO.Available online: http:\/\/oglobo.globo.com\/economia\/defesa-do-consumidor\/antibiotico-nao-hormonio-o-maior-risco-em-carnes-frangos-13551827#ixzz4NKyofnft (accessed on 26 September 2017).47. IDEC. Rotulagem de Transg\u00eanicos. Available online: http:\/\/www.idec.org.br\/em-acao\/em-foco\/rotulagem-de-transgenicos-saiba-como-esta-o-andamento-do-pl-no-congresso (accessed on 26 September 2017).48. Jardim, A.N.O.; Caldas, E.D. Brazilian monitoring programs for pesticide residues in food\u2013resultsfrom 2001 to 2010. Food Control 2012, 25, 607\u2013616. [CrossRef]49. Alvim, M. Analyses Find Presence of Irregular Pesticides in School Meals in Rio. O GLOBO. Available online:http:\/\/oglobo.globo.com\/sociedade\/saude\/analise-encontra-presenca-irregular-de-agrotoxico-em-merenda-escolar-do-rio-20299321#ixzz4NWNpBd8J (accessed on 26 September 2017).50. ABPA. Toda Carne de Frango Brasileira \u00e9 Produzida sem uso de Horm\u00f4nios e Conservantes. Available online:http:\/\/abpa-br.com.br\/noticia\/contato\/todas\/toda-carne-de-frango-brasileira-e-produzida-sem-uso-de-hormonios-e-conservantes-944 (accessed on 26 September 2017).51. Brasil. Instru\u00e7\u00e3o Normativa n. 55 de 02\/12\/2011. Available online: http:\/\/sistemasweb.agricultura.gov.br\/sislegis\/action\/detalhaAto.do?method=visualizarAtoPortalMapa&chave=2132393258 (accessed on26 September 2017).52. Lugnani de Souza, M.C.G.; Casotti, L.M.; Lemme, C.F. Conscious consumption as a driver for corporatesustainability: Can good business arise from respecting the animals? Rev. Admin. 2013, 6, 229\u2013246.53. ABPA. Brazilian Association of Animal Protein\u2014Annual Report; Brazilian Association of Animal Protein:S\u00e3o Paulo, Brazil, 2015; p. 248.54. ABPS. Panorama Setorial da Suinocultura 2015; Brazilian Association of Swine Producers: S\u00e3o Paulo,Brazil, 2015; p. 32.55. Velarde, A.; F\u00e0brega, E.; Blanco-Penedo, I.; Dalmau, A. Animal welfare towards sustainability in pork meatproduction. Meat Sci. 2015, 109, 13\u201317. [CrossRef] [PubMed]56. Centner, T.J. Limitations on the confinement of food animals in the United States. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics2010, 23, 469\u2013486. [CrossRef]57. Pieper, L.; Doherr, M.G.; Heuwieser, W. Consumers\u2019 attitudes about milk quality and fertilization methodsin dairy cows in Germany. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 3162\u20133170. [CrossRef] [PubMed]58. Hubbard, C.; Bourlakis, M.; Garrod, G. Pig in the middle: Farmers and the delivery of farm animal welfarestandards. Br. Food J. 2007, 109, 919\u2013930. [CrossRef]Animals 2017, 7, 75 14 of 1559. Benard, M.; de Cock Buning, T. Exploring the potential of Dutch pig farmers and urban-citizens to learnthrough frame reflection. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2013, 26, 1015\u20131036. [CrossRef]60. Bauer, M.W. Results of the essay competition on the \u201cdeficit concept\u201d. Public Underst. Sci. 2016, 25, 398\u2013399.[CrossRef] [PubMed]61. H\u00f6tzel, M.J. Letter to the editor: Engaging (but not \u201ceducating\u201d) the public in technology developments maycontribute to a socially sustainable dairy industry. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 6853\u20136854. [CrossRef] [PubMed]62. Richards, T.; Allender, W.; Fang, D. Media advertising and ballot initiatives: The case of animal welfareregulation. Contemp. Econ. Policy 2013, 31, 145\u2013162. [CrossRef]63. Howell, T.J.; Rohlf, V.I.; Coleman, G.J.; Rault, J.-L. Online chats to assess stakeholder perceptions of meatchicken intensification and welfare. Animals 2016, 6, 67. [CrossRef] [PubMed]64. Van Asselt, M.; Ekkel, E.D.; Kemp, B.; Stassen, E.N. Role of moral values in the trade-off betweenanimal welfare and food safety risks in broiler husbandry. In Food Futures; Olsson, I.A.S., Ara\u00fajo, S.M.,Vieira, M.F., Eds.; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 273\u2013278.65. Tilman, D.; Balzer, C.; Hill, J.; Befort, B.L. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification ofagriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 20260\u201320264. [CrossRef] [PubMed]66. Godfray, H.C.J.; Crute, I.R.; Haddad, L.; Lawrence, D.; Muir, J.F.; Nisbett, N.; Pretty, J.; Robinson, S.;Toulmin, C.; Whiteley, R. The future of the global food system. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Biol. Sci. 2010, 365,2769\u20132777. [CrossRef] [PubMed]67. Steinfeld, H.; Gerber, P.; Wassenaar, P.; Castle, V.; Rosales, M.; De Haan, D. Livestock\u2019s Long Shadow:Environmental Issues and Options; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2006.68. Zamberlan, L.; Sparemberger, A.A. Pork meat and asymmetry of food safety information: An exploratorystudy of the attributes of consumer\u2019s choice. Rev. Admin. 2003, 2, 93\u2013123. (In Portuguese)69. Dhein Dill, M.; Palma Revillion, J.P.; Jardim Barcellos, J.O.; Antunes Dias, E.; Zara M\u00e9rcio, T.; Esteves de Oliveira, T.Procedural priorities of the pork loin supply chain. J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2014, 9, 84\u201392. [CrossRef]70. De Barcellos, M.D.; de Melo Saab, M.S.; P\u00e9rez-Cueto, F.A.; Perin, M.G.; Neves, M.F.; Verbeke, W.Pork consumption in Brazil: Challenges and opportunities for the Brazilian pork production chain. J. ChainNetw. Sci. 2011, 11, 99\u2013114. [CrossRef]71. Dos Santos, T.M.B.; Cappi, N.; Sim\u00f5es, A.R.P.; dos Santos, V.A.C.; Paiano, D.; Garcia, E.R.d.M. Diagnostic ofthe swine meat consumer profile in Aquidauana-MS. Rev. Bras. Saude Prod. Animal 2011, 12, 1\u201313.72. Da Fonseca, M.d.C.P.; Salay, E. Beef, chicken and pork consumption and consumer safety and nutritionalconcerns in the city of Campinas, Brazil. Food Control 2008, 19, 1051\u20131058. [CrossRef]73. Boogaard, B.K.; Oosting, S.J.; Bock, B.B. Defining sustainability as a socio-cultural concept: Citizen panelsvisiting dairy farms in The Netherlands. Livest. Sci. 2008, 117, 24\u201333. [CrossRef]74. Ingenbleek, P.; Immink, V. Consumer decision-making for animal-friendly products: Synthesis and implications.Anim. Welf. 2011, 20, 11\u201319.75. Cummins, A.M.; Widmar, N.J.O.; Croney, C.C.; Fulton, J.R. Understanding consumer pork attributepreferences. J. Econ. Lett. 2016, 6, 166. [CrossRef]76. Miranda-de la Lama, G.C.; Est\u00e9vez-Moreno, L.X.; Sep\u00falveda, W.S.; Estrada-Chavero, M.C.; Rayas-Amor, A.A.;Villarroel, M.; Mar\u00eda, G.A. Mexican consumers\u2019 perceptions and attitudes towards farm animal welfare andwillingness to pay for welfare friendly meat products. Meat Sci. 2017, 125, 106\u2013113. [CrossRef] [PubMed]77. Cicia, G.; Caracciolo, F.; Cembalo, L.; Del Giudice, T.; Grunert, K.G.; Krystallis, A.; Lombardi, P.; Zhou, Y.Food safety concerns in urban China: Consumer preferences for pig process attributes. Food Control 2016, 60,166\u2013173. [CrossRef]78. Ramos, G. Milk or Poison? Fraud in Milk in Brazil. Available online: http:\/\/foodsafetybrazil.org\/leite-ou-veneno-fraudes-em-leites-no-brasil\/ (accessed on 30 November 2016).79. UOL. Leite Adulterado era Vendido para Parmalat e calu, diz pf. Available online: https:\/\/noticias.bol.uol.com.br\/brasil\/2007\/10\/22\/ult4733u6565.jhtm (accessed on 30 November 2016).80. MAPA. Olho Vivo! Voc\u00ea Tamb\u00e9m \u00e9 Fiscal. Available online: http:\/\/www.agricultura.gov.br\/animal\/dipoa\/dipoa-consumidor\/olho-vivo (accessed on 14 October 2016).81. G1. Opera\u00e7\u00e3o Combate Abate Clandestino de Animais em S\u00e3o Lu\u00eds do Quitunde. Available online:http:\/\/g1.globo.com\/al\/alagoas\/noticia\/2015\/03\/operacao-combate-abate-clandestino-de-animais-em-sao-luis-do-quitunde.html (accessed on 14 October 2016).Animals 2017, 7, 75 15 of 1582. Clark, B.; Stewart, G.B.; Panzone, L.A.; Kyriazakis, I.; Frewer, L.J. A systematic review of public attitudes,perceptions and behaviours towards production diseases associated with farm animal welfare. J. Agric.Environ. Ethics 2016, 29, 455\u2013478. [CrossRef]83. MAPA. Normative Instruction No. 56, November 6, 2008; Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply,Official Journal of the Union: Bras\u00edlia, Brazil, 2008. (In Portuguese)84. GloboRural. Brf Anuncia Fim de Gaiolas de Gesta\u00e7\u00e3o para Su\u00ednos. Available online: http:\/\/revistagloborural.globo.com\/Noticias\/Criacao\/Suinos\/noticia\/2014\/11\/brf-anuncia-fim-de-gaiolas-de-gestacao-para-suinos.html(accessed on 30 November 2016).85. Industrial, S. Jbs Is Committed to Leave the Confinement of Sows in Gestation Crates. Available online:http:\/\/www.suinoculturaindustrial.com.br\/imprensa\/jbs-se-compromete-a-abandonar-o-confinamento-de-porcas-reprodutoras-em-gaiolas-de-gestacao\/20150606-132441-o088 (accessed on 9 June 2017).86. GloboRural. Mcdonald\u2019s pede fim do uso de celas de Gesta\u00e7\u00e3o para Su\u00ednos. Available online:http:\/\/revistagloborural.globo.com\/Noticias\/Criacao\/Suinos\/noticia\/2014\/04\/mc-donalds-vai-limitar-uso-de-celas-de-gestacao-de-suinos.html (accessed on 12 June 2014).87. Industrial, S. Cargill Anuncia a Elimina\u00e7\u00e3o do uso de Gaiolas de Gesta\u00e7\u00e3o para Su\u00ednos. Available online: http:\/\/www.ruralpecuaria.com.br\/2014\/06\/cargill-anuncia-eliminacao-do-uso-de.html (accessed on 14 June 2014).88. Brasil, B.R. Operadora de Restaurantes do Mcdonald na America Latina Comprara ovos Livres de Gaiolas.Available online: http:\/\/www.businessreviewbrasil.com.br\/marketing\/2071\/Mcdonald\u2019s-na-amrica-latina-comprar-ovos-somente-de-galinhas-livres-de-gaiola (accessed on 26 September 2017).89. Lu, Y. Consumer Preference for Eggs from Enhanced Animal Welfare Production System: A Stated ChoiceAnalysis. Master\u2019s Thesis, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada, 2013.90. Weary, D.M.; Ventura, B.A.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. Societal views and animal welfare science:Understanding why the modified cage may fail and other stories. Animal 2016, 10, 309\u2013317. [CrossRef][PubMed]\u00a9 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open accessarticle distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution(CC BY) license (http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/).","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/hasType":[{"value":"Article","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/isShownAt":[{"value":"10.14288\/1.0379549","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/language":[{"value":"eng","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#peerReviewStatus":[{"value":"Reviewed","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/provider":[{"value":"Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/publisher":[{"value":"Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#publisherDOI":[{"value":"10.3390\/ani7100075","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/rights":[{"value":"CC BY 4.0","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#rightsURI":[{"value":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#scholarLevel":[{"value":"Faculty","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/subject":[{"value":"Animal welfare","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"Ethics","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"Livestock production","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"Qualitative research","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"Survey","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/title":[{"value":"Brazilian Citizens\u2019 Opinions and Attitudes about Farm Animal Production Systems","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/type":[{"value":"Text","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierURI":[{"value":"http:\/\/hdl.handle.net\/2429\/70763","type":"literal","lang":"en"}]}}