Land and Food Systems, Faculty of
DSpace
UBCV
Sirovica, Lara Victoria
Master of Science - MSc
University of British Columbia
Early cow-calf separation followed by individual housing is standard practice for calf rearing on dairy farms. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that as awareness grows the public will oppose these practices, which could compromise the dairy industryâs social license. Despite disagreement amongst different stakeholders over weighting and evaluations of effects of early separation (e.g. distress response, disease risk), recent reviews suggest there is little biological evidence supporting this practice. The acceptability of alternative cow-calf management systems differing in type of social and maternal contact is unknown. This thesis used a mixed methods online survey with a convenience sample of 307 Canadians to investigate perceptions of these systems, examining the effects of providing social or foster cow contact following early separation or not separating cow-calf pairs. Attitudes and perceptions of animal welfare were less negative (assessed on a 7-point scale where 1 is most negative, 7 is most positive, and 4 is a neutral midpoint) towards the system where calves were not separated from the cow (4.3 ± 0.30; 4.2 ± 0.28), compared to systems in which the calf was separated and individually housed (2.0 ± 0.29; 2.0 ± 0.27 ), separated and group housed (2.4 ± 0.31; 2.1 ± 0.29), or separated and kept with a foster cow (2.2 ± 0.29; 2.0 ± 0.27) (Fâ,âââ = 43.97, P < 0.0001; Fâ,âââ = 52.14, P < 0.0001). Participants were consistent in their scores of overall attitude to the system and scores in relation to individual aspects of cow and calf welfare (i.e. health, feelings, naturalness, standard of care), suggesting that participants took a holistic and value-oriented approach to the issue of cow-calf management regarding separation and the welfare issues. These results, in combination with many participantsâ concern for the importance of the mother cow-calf relationship and perceptions that severing of this bond was a breach of standard of care, suggest that there may be low acceptance of any cow-calf management system involving early separation; any compromises that involve early separation of cow and calf are thus unlikely to resonate with underlying values.
PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF DAIRY COW-CALF MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS DIFFERING IN TYPE OF SOCIAL AND MATERNAL CONTACT by Lara Victoria Sirovica B.Sc., The University of California, Davis 2018 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Applied Animal Biology) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) June 2021 © Lara Victoria Sirovica, 2021 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, a thesis entitled: Public perceptions of dairy cow-calf management systems differing in type of social and maternal contact submitted by Lara Victoria Sirovica in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Applied Animal Biology Examining Committee: Marina von Keyserlingk, Applied Animal Biology, UBC Supervisor Daniel Weary, Applied Animal Biology, UBC Supervisory Committee Member Sumeet Gulati, Environmental and Resource Economics, UBC Supervisory Committee Member David Fraser, Applied Animal Biology, UBC Additional Examiner iii Abstract Early cow-calf separation followed by individual housing is standard practice for calf rearing on dairy farms. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that as awareness grows the public will oppose these practices, which could compromise the dairy industryâs social license. Despite disagreement amongst different stakeholders over weighting and evaluations of effects of early separation (e.g. distress response, disease risk), recent reviews suggest there is little biological evidence supporting this practice. The acceptability of alternative cow-calf management systems differing in type of social and maternal contact is unknown. This thesis used a mixed methods online survey with a convenience sample of 307 Canadians to investigate perceptions of these systems, examining the effects of providing social or foster cow contact following early separation or not separating cow-calf pairs. Attitudes and perceptions of animal welfare were less negative (assessed on a 7-point scale where 1 is most negative, 7 is most positive, and 4 is a neutral midpoint) towards the system where calves were not separated from the cow (4.3 ± 0.30; 4.2 ± 0.28), compared to systems in which the calf was separated and individually housed (2.0 ± 0.29; 2.0 ± 0.27 ), separated and group housed (2.4 ± 0.31; 2.1 ± 0.29), or separated and kept with a foster cow (2.2 ± 0.29; 2.0 ± 0.27) (F3,293 = 43.97, P < 0.0001; F3,293 = 52.14, P < 0.0001). Participants were consistent in their scores of overall attitude to the system and scores in relation to individual aspects of cow and calf welfare (i.e. health, feelings, naturalness, standard of care), suggesting that participants took a holistic and value-oriented approach to the issue of cow-calf management regarding separation and the welfare issues. These results, in combination with many participantsâ concern for the importance of the mother cow-calf relationship and perceptions that severing of this bond was a breach of standard of care, suggest that there may be low acceptance of any cow-calf management system involving early separation; any iv compromises that involve early separation of cow and calf are thus unlikely to resonate with underlying values. v Lay Summary Early cow-calf separation followed by individual housing for calves is standard practice on most dairy farms. Previous studies on public perceptions suggest low support for this practice as awareness grows. There is also little scientific evidence supporting early separation to promote animal health, welfare, or production, despite these arguments being cited by farmers and veterinarians promoting this practice. There is some evidence that individually housing calves may also not resonate with the public, but little is known how separation followed by group housing of calves or rearing calves with a foster cow would be perceived. This study assessed 307 Canadian participantsâ perceptions of alternative cow-calf management systems differing in type of social and maternal contact compared to the standard practice of early separation followed by individual calf housing. Participants appeared to value the mother cow-calf relationship and disapproved of cow-calf management systems that involved separating the calf from their mother. vi Preface I completed this thesis with the supervision of Dr. Marina A.G. von Keyserlingk. My supervisory committee also included Dr. Daniel M. Weary and Dr. Sumeet Gulati. All three supervisors provided guidance and feedback on the manuscript. A version of Chapter 2 is being developed for future publication. Chapter 2 was co-authored with C. Ritter (The University of British Columbia and University of Prince Edward Island) and D.M. Weary and M.A.G. von Keyserlingk (The University of British Columbia). L.V. Sirovica collected and analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. All co-authors helped with development of the study, data analysis, and editing of drafts. C. Ritter also helped with development of the coding of the qualitative data and with inter-coder agreement. S. Gulati helped with development and analysis of the willingness to pay part of this study (see Appendix B). This study was approved by the Behavioural Research Ethics Board at The University of British Columbia, Canada (H19-02016). vii Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary .................................................................................................................................v Preface ........................................................................................................................................... vi Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ vii List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................x List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... xiii Dedication .....................................................................................................................................xv Prologue: Positionality............................................................................................................... xvi Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................1 1.1 Definitions and perceptions of animal welfare ............................................................... 1 1.2 Background on cow-calf management and perceptions of early separation and cow-calf contact in the dairy industry ........................................................................................................ 4 1.3 Social housing of calves................................................................................................ 10 1.4 Foster cows ................................................................................................................... 11 1.5 Importance of understanding perceptions and attitudes when discussing animal welfare....................................................................................................................................... 13 1.6 Thesis objectives ........................................................................................................... 16 Chapter 2: Canadian public perceptions of dairy cow-calf management systems differing in type of social and maternal contact ............................................................................................18 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 18 viii 2.2 Materials and methods .................................................................................................. 20 2.2.1 Survey design ............................................................................................................ 21 2.2.2 Participant recruitment and selection ........................................................................ 24 2.2.3 Data analysis ............................................................................................................. 24 2.2.3.1 Quantitative data ............................................................................................... 25 2.2.3.2 Qualitative data ................................................................................................. 29 2.3 Results and discussion .................................................................................................. 31 2.3.1 Quantitative findings ................................................................................................. 31 2.3.1.1 Attitude towards system .................................................................................... 31 2.3.1.2 Perception of animal welfare within systems ................................................... 34 2.3.1.3 Relationship between attitude and perception of animal welfare ..................... 37 2.3.2 Qualitative findings ................................................................................................... 37 2.3.2.1 Impact on animals ............................................................................................. 41 2.3.2.2 Cow-calf relationship ........................................................................................ 42 2.3.2.3 Use of animals and animal products ................................................................. 44 2.3.2.4 Standard of care ................................................................................................ 45 2.3.2.5 Production ......................................................................................................... 47 2.3.2.6 Knowledge reflection ........................................................................................ 48 2.3.3 Limitations and future directions .............................................................................. 50 2.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 52 Chapter 3: General discussion and conclusion .........................................................................53 3.1 Thesis findings and implications .................................................................................. 53 3.2 Limitations .................................................................................................................... 57 ix 3.3 Conclusions and future directions ................................................................................. 59 References .....................................................................................................................................61 Appendices ....................................................................................................................................75 Appendix A Online survey given to participants ...................................................................... 75 Appendix B Willingness to pay for milk from different cow-calf management systems ........ 89 B.1 Materials and methods .............................................................................................. 89 B.2 Results and discussion .............................................................................................. 90 B.3 References ................................................................................................................. 93 Appendix C Parameter estimates for models of Attitude and Perception of animal welfare ... 95 C.1 General linear model for attitude towards system .................................................... 96 C.2 General linear model for perception of animal welfare within system ..................... 97 x List of Tables Table 2.1 Vignettes (text given to participants is in italics) for each experimental condition describing a cow-calf management system differing with respect to whether the calf was separated from the mother cow and the type of social contact provided following separation. .. 21 Table 2.2 The number and percentage of participants (n = 307) sorted by socio-demographic categories and presented in relation to the 2016 Canadian census averages for the population (Statistics Canada, 2017). Area of residence census data is from 2011 (Statistics Canada, 2011)........................................................................................................................................................ 29 Table 2.3 Themes and sub-themes referenced by participants to describe their views regarding cow-calf management systems. .................................................................................................... 40 Table B.1 The parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald chi-square values, and P-values for all variables included in the binary logit model testing the effects of socio-demographics and cow-calf management system on participantsâ (n = 201) WTP same or more for milk from their given system compared to what they currently pay for milk. ................................................................ 92 Table B.2 The estimated odds ratios and their 99% Wald Confidence Limits of WTP same or more for milk between different systems from planned contrasts performed between each of the 4 different cow-calf management systems following a binary logit model testing the effects of socio-demographics and cow-calf management system on participants' (n = 201) WTP same or more for milk from their given system compared to what they currently pay for milk. .............. 93 Table C.1 The parameter estimates, standard errors, t-values, and P-values for all variables included in the general linear model testing the effects of socio-demographics and cow-calf management system on participantsâ (n = 307) attitude towards system. .................................... 96 xi Table C.2 The parameter estimates, standard errors, t-values, and P-values for all variables included in the general linear model testing the effects of socio-demographics and cow-calf management system on participantsâ (n = 307) perception of animal welfare within system. . .. 97 xii List of Figures Figure 2.1 Least square means ± SE attitude of participants (n = 307) to scenarios that described 4 different cow-calf management systems. .................................................................................. 32 Figure 2.2 Least square means ± SE of participantsâ (n = 307) perceptions of animal welfare of cows and calves in 4 different cow-calf management systems. ................................................... 35 xiii Acknowledgements A mere âthank youâ does not seem like enough to fully express my gratitude to the many people without whom none of this would have been possible. But I hope to convey that gratitude here all the same. To my supervisors and coauthors, thank you all for your generous support and time throughout this process. Dr. Marina (Nina) von Keyserlingk, thank you also so much for first welcoming me to UBC and for your constant kindness and mentorship. I have learned so much from you and am constantly inspired by your passion for animal welfare. Dr. Daniel (Dan) Weary, thank you also for your guidance and for pushing me to always think more critically and explore new questions. Dr. Sumeet Gulati, thank you also for challenging me to explore different areas of research and different methods. Dr. Caroline Ritter, thank you also for your help with all thingâs social science and for your kind encouragement. To all my colleagues, other students, and friends in the Animal Welfare Program (past and present affiliation), I would not have gotten through this process without you. I cannot thank you enough for the unconditional support, great advice, insightful discussions, learning opportunities, and many fun times. To Dr. David Fraser, thank you for the kindness and constant inspiration and teaching in the field of animal welfare. And to Chris McGill and Lesley Dampier (past and present essential members of the Animal Welfare Program), thank you so much for your tireless support and for facilitating so many great discussions and learning opportunities. To Lia Dragan and all the wonderful staff at UBC, thank you for your wonderful help and for providing a great place to live, learn, and study (in person or virtually). Thank you also to the professors and staff at the UBC Dairy Education and Research Centre. xiv To the participants who took the survey in this study, thank you so much your time and for providing your views. To all the incredible donors behind the fellowships and scholarships that helped fund my graduate study at UBC (the Elizabeth R. Howland Fellowship; Mrs. Mary J Sudbury, the Jean MacDonald Graduate Fellowship; the Hugo E. Meilicke Memorial Fellowship; and Mrs. Helen M. Shelford, the James A. Shelford Memorial Scholarship), thank you all for your generosity and support. And thank you to the Hans Sigrist Foundation (Bern, Switzerland) for funding for the study performed in Chapter 2 and for also providing part of my graduate funding. Finally, thank you to my friends and family for always being there for me through everything. Mom and Dad, thank you both especially for all the life lessons, encouragement, inspiration, and for your unconditional support. xv Dedication To the cows and calves. xvi Prologue: Positionality Researchers have positionalities, or relationships between themselves and their field of study and research material (Berger, 2015). My positionality is influenced by my experiences taking coursework on and performing research in the field of animal welfare. Prior to this thesis study focusing on public perceptions, my perspective was more focused on studying and assessing animal-centered aspects of animal welfare (following Fraser et al. (1997); health, affective states, and ability to perform motivated behaviours). Specific to the topic of cow-calf management and the issue of early separation, this even included time on a pasture-based dairy farm in Australia assessing cow and calf behavioural responses to a system where cows were kept with their calves. While still holding a passion for more "natural science" and animal-focused work and its importance, I have also come to place more recognition on the human component and how this influences animal welfare. To this end, I believe a better understanding of human perceptions of our relationships with animals and how we care for them is also integral to improving animal welfare. Personally, I believe we are responsible for providing a good standard of care to the animals whose lives we directly and indirectly influence through our relationships with and actions towards them. These considerations and my experiences in the study and field of animal welfare have influenced my approach to the study presented in this thesis. However, I also recognize the importance of remaining fully open to the data and perceptions presented by participants in research studies and not letting my own views direct my analysis and interpretation process. Ultimately, throughout this study process I have striven to acknowledge rather than ignore my xvii own positionality while at the same time remaining open to the data and perceptions expressed by the study participants and presenting their views in the most honest way possible.1 Chapter 1: Introduction This thesis focuses on perceptions of cow-calf management in the dairy industry, specifically the issue of early separation and the amount and type of social contact allowed to cows and calves. In this review, I will begin by discussing definitions and perceptions of animal welfare and their importance. Second, I will summarize the available literature regarding stakeholder perceptions of the conventional practice of early separation of cows and calves and effects of cow-calf contact. I will also address the available literature on alternatives to the standard practice of early separation followed by individual housing of calves (e.g. social housing of calves, use of foster cows) that may potentially address some concerns surrounding the standard practice. However, to my knowledge, little work has been published to assess the social acceptability of such practices. I will then address the importance of understanding perceptions of specific animal management practices in determining social sustainability and helping to develop best practices. Gaps in the literature and priority areas for new work will also be addressed. 1.1 Definitions and perceptions of animal welfare Animal welfare refers to the quality of life that animals have and is often broken down into the intersecting concepts of biological functioning, affective state, and naturalness (Fraser et al., 1997). Biological functioning refers to the health of an animal and their ability to achieve normal functioning through natural physiological processes such as growth and development; affective state refers to how an animal is feeling, including experiences of positively and negatively valenced emotions; and naturalness refers to the ability of an animal to use their natural capabilities to perform behaviours that satisfy motivational needs. Naturalness is also 2 sometimes used to refer to the ability of an animal to live a ânatural life,â although in captive environments, especially those characteristic of intensive production systems, living a ânatural lifeâ may not be possible, let alone always an ideal model for good welfare (Rushen et al., 2011; Beaver et al., 2019a). Fraser et al.âs (1997) framework highlights the complex and multidimensional nature of animal welfare. By presenting these 3 intersecting concepts together, this construct has helped advance the scientific study of animal welfare (e.g. Yeates and Main, 2008; Hemsworth et al., 2015), and enables a discussion of animal welfare that takes into consideration the values of different audiences. These audiences include stakeholders at the interface of human-animal relationships, such as veterinary students (e.g. Mota-Rojas et al., 2018), farmers (e.g. Balzani and Hanlon, 2020), the public (e.g. Cardoso et al., 2018), and regulatory bodies, including the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) (Mellor and Webster, 2014). I thus use the 3-sphere definition of animal welfare as themes throughout this literature review and the subsequent study described in Chapter 2 that investigated public perceptions of cow-calf management in the dairy industry. Different stakeholders often ascribe different levels of importance to the intersecting concepts that make up this framework of animal welfare. For example, Te Velde et al. (2002), Lassen et al. (2006), and Vanhonacker et al. (2008) found that when asked about animal welfare lay people tended to focus most on how animals were feeling and their abilities to live a natural life. In contrast, farmers tended to focus more on issues directly relating to animal health and productivity (or âbiological functioningâ) (Te Velde et al., 2002; Vanhonacker et al., 2008). Interestingly, Te Velde et al. (2002) and Vanhonacker et al. (2008) also noted a discrepancy in how lay people and farmers evaluated animal welfare, with farmers having a more positive 3 perception of farm animal housing conditions compared to lay people. Similarly, Duijvesteijn et al. (2014) found that farmers assessed pig welfare more positively than lay people and animal scientists, even when using the same qualitative behaviour assessment methods. It follows that while welfare can be viewed as intrinsic to the animal it is being assessed in, animal welfare as a concept is not just about animals. It exists in practice (i.e. the field of animal welfare science, measures to improve or protect animal welfare) because of the weight and importance that humans give it and in relation to our ethical framing of animal issues (Fraser, 1999; Broom, 2011). How we perceive animals and their treatment is integral to the practice of animal welfare. Therefore, understanding these perceptions is integral to understanding and promoting animal welfare. Studying human perceptions of animal welfare and the associated animal management practices helps to acknowledge and address the human component and effect on animal welfare. In the intersection of human and animal interests inherent in the field of animal production and in fact, in much of the highly integrated human and animal world we live in, animal welfare is not only affected by, but largely determined by human behaviours (Fraser and MacRae, 2011). Thus, animal welfare as a practice must also be defined in terms of human involvement. Fraser et al. (1997) highlight this acknowledgment of the human dimension of animal welfare when defining their framework, stating that âScientific research on âanimal welfareâ began because of ethical concerns over the quality of life of animals â¦ [and] The conception of animal welfare used by scientists must relate closely to these ethical concerns.â Thus, in addition to referring to the 3 aspects (biological functioning, affective state, naturalness) identified in Fraser et al.âs (1997) welfare framework as key areas of ethical concern, all of which can also be measured on an animal level, I also refer to an existing concept of âstandard of 4 careâ as a theme throughout this thesis to discuss and examine peopleâs perceptions of the intersection between humans and animals when they provide âcareâ for them. This concept of a standard of care is not new and is consistently brought up by scientists (e.g. Mellor and Webster, 2014; Weary and Robbins, 2019) and public members (e.g. Spooner et al., 2014; Faucitano et al., 2017) alike. It stems from our ancient and ongoing relationships with animals and the idea that by profiting from and engaging in these relationships we owe the animals a duty of care (Engster, 2006). It follows that there is a minimum quality of care, or âhumane care,â that animals must receive from humans in order to contribute to animalsâ overall welfare. An important implication of the standard of care concept is the acknowledgement of responsibility placed on human actions toward animals as an inherent part of animal welfare. The concept of a standard of care highlights the importance of our role in affecting animal welfare. In other words, it highlights the idea that in this world where animal lives are so directly and indirectly affected by human actions (Fraser and MacRae, 2011), we are responsible for animal welfare and that good animal welfare cannot exist without a conscious effort on our part (whether as producers, consumers, or scientists) to care for animals and their needs. What follows is further discussion of the concept and perceptions of animal welfare as they apply to the controversial issue of cow-calf separation in the dairy industry. 1.2 Background on cow-calf management and perceptions of early separation and cow-calf contact in the dairy industry To produce milk cows must first give birth to calves, the majority of which are removed from their mother cows within a few hours of birth and then individually housed (e.g. US, USDA, 2016; Brazil, Hötzel et al., 2014; Canada, Winder et al., 2018). However, recent research 5 has documented considerable public concern over both separation (North America, Ventura et al., 2013, 2016; Germany and USA, Busch et al., 2017; Brazil, Hötzel et al., 2017; the Netherlands and Norway, Boogaard et al., 2010) and individual housing (Widmar et al., 2017; Perttu et al., 2020). In contrast to public concerns over cow-calf separation, prolonged cow-calf contact is often viewed positively and is associated by the public with ânaturalness;â indeed, many opponents of early separation cite âunnaturalnessâ as a key concern surrounding early separation (e.g. Boogaard et al., 2011; Ventura et al., 2013, 2016). This result is consistent with the more general perception that ânaturalness,â or the ability of animals to have a more natural existence, leads to better welfare (e.g. Ventura et al., 2016; see review by Clark et al., 2016). Cow and calf emotions, specifically distress associated with separation, is also an area of concern for many stakeholders (e.g. mix of stakeholders, Ventura et al., 2013; farmers, Hötzel et al., 2014; public, Busch et al., 2017). Proponents of early separation (often â but not exclusively â primarily include those involved with the dairy industry, including many veterinarians and farmers) often cite the reduction of acute distress responses following early compared to later separation (Ventura et al., 2013). There is some evidence indicating that separating cows and calves at anytime will involve some distress response and limit the ability of cows to perform and of calves to receive motivated and beneficial maternal behaviours (see review by Meagher et al., 2019). Manipulating the timing (i.e. early versus late within 2 weeks post-calving) and the method of separation (i.e. with step-down levels of cow-calf contact versus abrupt) may help mitigate cowsâ and calvesâ acute distress responses to separation (see review by Meagher et al., 2019). However, opponents of early separation often bring up concerns around the emotional distress that any separation of mother and offspring potentially causes (Ventura et al., 2013; 6 Busch et al., 2017), suggesting that separation will likely be an area of contention regardless of how it is approached in practice. Such concerns that the emotional distress of cows and calves may extend beyond the acute effects of separation commonly addressed in the literature (e.g. review by Meagher et al, 2019) and cited by proponents of early separation (Ventura et al., 2013) is in line with the potential for long-term stress resulting from separation in both cows and calves (see review by Meagher et al., 2019). For example, calves separated early display more stereotypic behaviours than calves allowed extended cow-calf contact (Roth et al., 2009), and maternal deprivation is associated with stress and the development of stereotypic behaviour in many species (Latham and Mason, 2008). While there is as of yet no published research on postpartum depression following early separation in cows, there is some speculation that cows may suffer from this (e.g. Meagher et al., 2019); especially considering the high incidences of both disease and stress in cows during the transition period (3 weeks pre- and 3 weeks post-calving) (see review by Sundrum, 2015) and links between depression and reduced immunity and health in humans (Stein et al., 1991; Kiecolt-Glaser and Glaser, 2002). Ultimately, more research is needed into longer term stress and overall welfare effects of early separation in cows. Calf nutrition in early separation systems is another area of concern to many stakeholders regardless of industry involvement (Ventura et al., 2013). Some public members have suggested that the calf would have better access to good quality milk and colostrum if suckling from its mother as opposed to being fed artificially by the farmer (Ventura et al., 2013). Much work has been done to assess the production, behavioural, and health benefits of increased milk allowance to calves (e.g. Ballou, 2012; Rosenberger et al., 2017). However, as milk allowance can be increased with or without access to cows, so this concern is not specific to early separation. 7 Both the concern that milk production may be reduced by nursing (brought up by proponents of early separation: Ventura et al., 2013; Busch et al., 2017) and the contrasting belief that it may be increased when the calf is able to suckle (brought up by opponents of early separation: Ventura et al., 2013; Busch et al., 2017) have been the topics of some research. In their recent systematic review summarizing this body of research, Meagher et al., (2019) suggested that the available evidence suggests that while cows will temporarily produce less saleable milk when nursing calves, this temporary reduction in saleable milk yield may balance out over the entire lactation cycle, depending on when suckling calves are weaned. It is also important to note that farmers will not have the extra expense and labor of feeding nursing calves with milk replacer. Ultimately, concerns surrounding milk production, production costs, and profitability are important to all stakeholders, not just producers. For example, these concerns are frequently brought up by public members, whether or not they actually support or oppose the practice of early separation (Ventura et al., 2013; Busch et al., 2017). This suggests that some members of the public are sympathetic to challenges faced by farmers in balancing cow-calf care and productivity. However, other public members have explicitly expressed âdissatisfaction with industry motivationsâ in prioritizing productivity and profit over cow-calf care through the practice of early separation (Ventura et al., 2013; Busch et al., 2017). There are also many health effects thought to be associated both with cow-calf contact and lack of contact. Disease risk to calves from prolonged cow-calf contact is of particular concern to those supporting early cow-calf separation (Ventura et al., 2013; Busch et al., 2017); often brought up by those involved in the dairy industry (Ventura et al., 2013). Importantly, separating cows and calves to reduce disease risk has also often been advocated by veterinarians and researchers (e.g. McGuirk, 2008). However, despite these long-held beliefs there is no 8 conclusive evidence to support the argument that keeping calves in contact with cows increases disease in calves (as reviewed by Beaver et al., 2019b). Many people involved with the dairy industry also express concerns over the physical safety of calves kept with cows (e.g. risk of getting crushed) (Ventura et al., 2013). Clearly any changes to the amount of contact between cows and calves will have to be made with considerations to the physical environment that cows and calves are kept in. As with the large role of environmental hygiene in disease risk, there is a role of housing environment in physical safety risk that must be accounted for and disentangled from risks of actual cow-calf contact (see review by Beaver et al., 2019b). In fact, as demonstrated by many cow-calf contact studies (e.g. Fröberg et al., 2011; Wenker et al., 2020) it is possible to house cows and calves together in production settings (although some housing adjustments may have to be made depending on individual farm design). The public is likely not unaware of challenges farmers may face in having to make changes to implement cow-calf contact, with some people acknowledging or even empathizing with the changeability of dairy farming structures as a barrier to accepting cow-calf contact (Ventura et al., 2013; Busch et al., 2017). Ultimately, similar concerns over the effects of separating or not separating cows and calves are referenced by stakeholders from those with no industry involvement to those with extensive involvement. However, stakeholders from these different groups often perceive these effects differently (e.g. separation distress is more commonly cited as a reason to separate cows and calves early by farmers and veterinarians, and seen as a reason to not separate cows and calves by public members; Ventura et al., 2013). Different stakeholders also tend to associate different levels of importance with different effects. For example, in a recent review of the literature on public attitudes towards cow-calf separation, Placzek et al. (2020) concluded that 9 âunnaturalness of the practiceâ was the most common argument participants gave against early cow-calf separation. In contrast, in their study examining perceptions from different stakeholders (not just public members), Ventura et al. (2013) found that proponents of early separation (many of whom were farmers or veterinarians) never brought up concerns over ânaturalness,â and instead focused more on other concerns like health and production. This is in line with the tendency of different stakeholders to assign different levels of importance to individual concepts of animal welfare, as discussed in the previous section (section 1.1). Such differences between different stakeholders in level of importance placed on different aspects of animal welfare, and in the evaluation of effects of early cow-calf separation, present challenges to the development of mutually sustainable and welfare-friendly cow-calf management practices. Solely providing people with more information regarding cow-calf management, and the science surrounding effects of early separation or cow-calf contact, is unlikely to change value-oriented beliefs. Studies informing participants about early cow-calf separation through a farm visit (Ventura et al., 2016) and through background information (Hötzel et al., 2017) reduced participantsâ confidence that dairy cows had a âgood lifeâ following the visit and resulted in more participants rejecting early separation following the provision of more information, respectively. This is often the case with controversial management practices, where providing the public with more background information often has either no effect or worsens perceptions (e.g. Benard and de Cock Buning, 2013; see review by Weary and von Keyserlingk, 2017). While there has been some reflection on stakeholder perceptions of early separation versus cow-calf contact in the dairy industry (as discussed above, and with work on public perceptions recently reviewed by Placzek et al 2020), little work has examined perceptions of 10 other calf rearing management practices such as social housing of calves or placing calves with foster cows in combination with early separation and in comparison to the industry standard of housing calves individually following separation. Therefore, it remains to be seen if these practices could be acceptable alternate practices between the standard management system of early separation followed by individual housing and a system involving no separation of cows and calves. For example, some opponents to early separation in the study by Ventura et al. (2013) suggested that they may view early separation more favorably if cow-calf management systems provided what they perceived would be âbetterâ care for the calf following separation, such as through social housing of calves with conspecifics. However, many of the participants in the study by Ventura et al. (2013) were more familiar with the dairy industry (and thus more exposed to discussions of specific aspects of cow and calf care and management decisions on dairy farms) than the lay public. It is still unknown how the lay public and, indeed, other stakeholders specifically asked about these alternate management practices, may respond. Similarly, it is not known how effectively such alternate practices may address stakeholder concerns surrounding management systems that ultimately still involve early separation, and even if such practices do address some concerns, if they will address enough or even the most valued concerns to be considered viable alternatives. The next 2 sections discuss what is known about the practices of social housing of calves (section 1.3) and the use of foster cows (section 1.4). 1.3 Social housing of calves Benefits of housing calves with other calves are well documented and include improved solid feed intake and calf weight gains, improved social skills and coping abilities, and improved 11 behavioural development (as reviewed by Costa et al., 2016). Calves also appear highly motivated to engage in full social contact with other calves (Holm et al., 2002). There is also some evidence of public concerns regarding individual housing (Boogaard et al., 2010; Ventura et al., 2013; Perttu et al., 2020), suggesting some merit to social housing options. Calves also appear to benefit from social housing with older conspecifics. For example, calves housed with older, weaned companions had improved feeding and weight gain performances compared to calves housed with other calves of the same age (De Paula Vieira et al., 2012). These latter authors hypothesized that the calves housed with older, weaned companions benefited from social learning in this experiment. This could be important for calves separated from their mothers as social learning is also seen by calves reared with their mothers, leading to the beneficial development of adaptive feeding behaviours (Provenza and Balph, 1987) and of pro-social behaviours (Wagner et al., 2012; Buchli et al., 2017). However, to my knowledge, there is no literature assessing the social acceptability of social housing calves with older conspecifics, nor whether this practice would be perceived as a suitable alternative to calf contact with their own mother cow. 1.4 Foster cows Little literature has addressed the use of foster cows (also sometimes referred to as ânurse cowsâ) in the dairy industry. This practice is often associated with the practice of restricted suckling (where calves can suckle for limited periods of time from cows; Carfas and Vaccaro, 1984; Sandoval-Castro et al., 1999) and the use of dual-purpose cattle (cattle raised for both milk and meat production; Margerison et al., 2002; Asheim et al., 2016). Benefits of restricted suckling systems that involve extended cow-calf contact include increased milk yield and calf 12 weight gains (Carfas and Vaccaro, 1984; Margerison et al., 2002), reduced abnormal suckling in calves (Fröberg et al., 2007), and improved udder health in cows (Mdegela et al., 2004; Fröberg et al., 2007; González-Sedano et al., 2010). It follows that cows and calves in systems that allow for extended cow-calf contact (whether within original cow-calf pairs or between unrelated foster cows and calves) may reap similar benefits compared to cows and calves separated within a few hours of birth. Foster cows in such systems are often further along in lactation (and thus already producing lower quantities of saleable milk) and each cow may be used to nurse multiple calves, reducing the loss of saleable milk compared to each cow nursing her own calf. However, while foster cows are arguably able to perform some natural maternal behaviours, potentially benefiting cow and calf, there is concern for the welfare of cows and calves forced into these foster relationships, as cows form specific and differential bonds with their own calves (von Keyserlingk and Weary, 2007; Kent, 2020). For example, potential complications of such specific and differential cow-calf bonds in foster cow systems are ensuring the acceptability of alien calves and even distribution of maternal care to multiple calves at once by each foster cow (see review by Johnsen et al., 2016). In addition, cows and calves in foster cow systems still have to undergo the stress of early separation (from their biological mother cow/calf) in addition to later separation stress (from their foster cow/calf at weaning). Indeed, foster cows and calves have been observed to display similar distress responses to separation (including increased vocalizations) as do biological cow-calf pairs (Loberg et al., 2007; 2008). Furthermore, I am aware of no previous study that has addressed perceptions of the use of foster cows in the dairy industry, bringing into question the social acceptance of this practice. 13 1.5 Importance of understanding perceptions and attitudes when discussing animal welfare With the role that human actions play in determining animal care on farms, it follows that the goal of improving farm animal welfare is inherently human action focused. As human behaviour is influenced by attitudes, or peopleâs evaluations and perceptions of a particular concept, object, or situation (Vaske, 2008), I return to the importance of studying human attitudes and underlying perceptions as they relate to animal welfare, including specific animal management practices. Understanding these is essential both in the evaluation of existing management practices and the development of more socially sustainable and welfare-friendly practices. Public members are expressing increasing interest in the social sustainability of food products (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006), including dairy (e.g. de Graaf et al., 2016; Markova-Nenova and Wätzold, 2018). Animal welfare is also a critical component of the sustainability of management practices when sustainability is defined as a socio-cultural concept that reflects peopleâs concerns about a practice being consistent with their values and able to preserve itself and its components for the future (i.e. not self-limiting in its exploitation of resources) (Boogaard et al., 2008). Animal health and welfare recommendations are increasingly being considered alongside the development of other sustainability considerations including food security (Buller et al., 2018). Animal welfare is also often valued on its own and expressed as an area of concern by many consumers. For example, 93% of public respondents to a UK survey investigating perceptions of milk marketing and animal welfare reported that they would pay more for âgood dairy welfareâ (Ellis et al., 2009). Similarly, there are a growing number of studies reporting 14 higher willingness to pay for products from welfare friendly animal production systems compared to standard systems or those perceived as less welfare friendly (e.g. Napolitano et al., 2008; de Graaf et al., 2016; Miranda-de la Lama et al., 2017). However, it is interesting to note that some researchers believe targeting animal welfare assurance schemes by tying them to overall sustainability schemes may be more effective, perhaps by harnessing the larger recognition and number of associated issues encompassed by the term âsustainability,â of which animal welfare is only one part (Verbeke, 2009). This potential limitation of simplifying interest in, or even willingness to pay more, for animal welfare friendly products out of solely a concern for animal welfare is also supported by Miranda-de la Lama et al. (2017), who found that respondentsâ willingness to pay more for welfare friendly meat products was driven more by perceived benefits in terms of product quality and human health rather than animal welfare. Concerns for animal welfare and the sustainability of animal production practices will likely become especially important as public members are becoming more aware of production practices and also more involved in expressing their concerns on what it means to employ welfare-friendly livestock practices (e.g. through pressure on governmental and non-governmental policy and regulatory bodies) (Buller et al., 2018). There are also links between perceptions of farm animal welfare and consumption of animal products (Clark et al., 2017). Furthermore, in addition to determining social sustainability and licensing of animal practices, the public is increasingly having a direct influence on government and corporate approaches towards animal care policies and marketing, both through their purchasing habits and by expressing their perceptions of such policies (Krystallis et al., 2009; Clark et al., 2017). Further examples of specific animal management practices of particular concern include intensive housing of pigs (e.g. Ryan et al., 2015), cages for laying hens (e.g. Savory, 2004; Heng 15 et al., 2013), and early cow-calf separation in the dairy industry (e.g. Ventura et al., 2013; Busch et al., 2017; Hötzel et al., 2017). Considerable research has already gone into assessing alternative management options to the contentious practices of gestation stalls for sows (as reviewed by Barnett et al., 2001; e.g. Karlen et al., 2007) and to conventional cages (often referred to as âbattery cagesâ) for hens (e.g. Baker et al., 2020; as reviewed by Schuck-Paim et al., 2021). As discussed in the preceding sections, some research has focused on identifying alternatives to early cow-calf separation, such as allowing restricted or unrestricted cow-calf contact (e.g. Roth et al., 2009; as reviewed by Johnsen et al., 2016). Providing group housing for calves (e.g. Chua et al., 2002; as reviewed by Costa et al., 2016) has also been investigated as an alternative to individual housing of calves. Importantly, work investigating public and industry perceptions has also been performed in the case of specific alternative practices for sows (industry, Spooner et al., 2014b; public, Ryan et al., 2015 and Yunes et al., 2018) and for hens (mix of different stakeholders, Swanson et al., 2011; public, Heng et al., 2013). This is important as if industry or scientist led alternative management systems do not resonate with societal values there is a risk that these alternatives may be rejected once public awareness of them grows. A key example of this is the failure of the public to accept enriched cages as an adequate alternative to conventional cages for laying hens, despite widespread support for and investment in developing this specific alternative by the scientific community (Weary et al., 2016). While there now exists some research results on public perceptions toward alternatives to conventional cages for laying hens, there was little knowledge in this area prior to the investment in enrichment cages by scientists and the poultry industry. Industry scientists working to develop enriched cages focused on factors associated with hen health (such as reduced risks of feather 16 pecking and cannibalism) and behavioural and affective state benefits (such as the ability to perform certain motivated behaviours including nesting and dust bathing), but likely failed to fully consider and address societal values around naturalness and rejection of the behavioural restriction resulting from cage housing (Weary et al., 2016). This disconnect resulted in the development of an alternative management system that failed to win public support and was ultimately doomed to market failure (Savory, 2004). The example of modified cages for laying hens illustrates the need to consider all stakeholder values in addition to animal outcomes and welfare effects when assessing and developing production practices though to be mutually sustainable and more welfare friendly. To help avoid a similar situation to that of modified cages for laying hens, we advocate for research on public perceptions towards alternative management practices to the conventional and contentious practice of early cow-calf separation followed by individual housing of calves. 1.6 Thesis objectives To our knowledge there are no prior studies investigating public perceptions towards specific management alternatives to the practice of early cow-calf separation followed by individual housing of calves (excluding recent work solely comparing perceptions of individually-housed versus group-housed calves (e.g. Perttu et al., 2020)). This gap in the literature has important implications for assessing social acceptability and sustainability of proposed systems. Furthermore, an understanding of what aspects about cow-calf management relating to separation and social contact the public is most concerned about may help scientists better understand which aspects to target to provide more relevant information to the debate on 17 which management practices will be both socially viable and most effective in promoting animal welfare. The specific aims of this thesis were: 1. Investigate participantsâ attitudes and perceptions towards the management of cows and calves in rearing systems that differ in the type of social and maternal contact. 2. Describe the considerations and concerns of participants regarding these different cow-calf management systems and how these influenced their attitudes and perceptions. 18 Chapter 2: Canadian public perceptions of dairy cow-calf management systems differing in type of social and maternal contact 2.1 Introduction Public interest in, and concern for, the treatment and welfare of production animals appears to be growing, or is at least becoming more visible (Verbeke, 2009; Alonso et al., 2020). Much of this concern centres on contentious practices and the call for more socially sustainable management practices (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006; Boogaard et al., 2008). Of particular concern in the dairy industry is calf management, including early separation of cows and calves (Placzek et al., 2020; Hötzel et al., 2017) and the practice of individual housing after removal from the dam (reviewed by Costa et al., 2016). In most dairy production systems cows are separated from their calves within a few hours of birth (reviewed by Beaver et al., 2019b), causing acute distress responses (Newberry and Swanson, 2008) and preventing cows from performing and calves from receiving natural maternal behaviours (Flower and Weary, 2003). There is also some evidence that separation poses additional welfare concerns for both cows and calves; for the calf this includes reduced growth (Krohn et al., 1999), impaired development of social behaviours (Wagner et al., 2012; Buchli et al., 2017), and performance of stereotypic behaviours (Roth et al., 2009), and for the cow increased risk of mastitis (Mdegela et al., 2004). From a management perspective, early separation can improve ease of handling animals in modern facilities and the sale of more milk (Flower and Weary, 2003) and when done soon after birth reduces vocalizations and other signs of acute separation distress compared to later 19 separation (e.g. StÄhulová et al., 2008). Proponents of early separation argue that this practice protects calves from exposure to pathogens (Ventura et al., 2013; Pempek et al., 2017), although a recent systematic review of the available evidences concludes that hygiene practices (e.g. maintaining a clean calving and barn environment) play a greater role in determining pathogen risk than cow-calf contact itself (Beaver et al., 2019b). Globally it is still common to separate cows and calves within a few hours of birth and in many parts of the world the calves are individually housed (e.g. Brazil, Hötzel et al., 2014; US, USDA, 2016; Canada, Winder et al., 2018). An alternative practice to individual housing is to socially house the calves in groups of 2 or more (Cantor et al., 2019); a practice believed by many working within the dairy industry to address some public concerns around social isolation (Ventura et al., 2013; Widmar et al., 2017; Perttu et al., 2020). Some, however, argue that socially housing calves fails to address concerns regarding the removal of the cow (Roth et al., 2009). One alternative to keeping the cow and her calf together is the foster cow system, where calves are still removed from the mother at birth but are then fostered (usually with 2 or 3 other calves) by another lactating cow (described by Hudson, 1977; Vaarst et al., 2001). There has been some work done on foster cow systems, but the majority of this work has focused on calf growth, maternal behaviour, and the cow-calf bond (see Kent, 2020). While previous studies have revealed public opposition towards early cow-calf separation (in North America, Ventura et al., 2013, 2016; Germany and USA, Busch et al., 2017; Brazil, Hötzel et al., 2017; the Netherlands and Norway, Boogaard et al., 2010), to our knowledge, no studies have examined perceptions of alternative cow-calf management systems (excluding recent work solely comparing perceptions of individually-housed versus group-housed calves 20 (e.g. (Perttu et al., 2020)). When investigating socially sustainable systems it follows that an important consideration is understanding public attitudes towards specific systems (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006; Verbeke, 2009); industry led alternatives may not necessarily resonate with societal values and there is risk that a particular system may be rejected once awareness grows amongst the public. The primary aim of this study was to investigate participantsâ attitudes and perceptions towards the management of cows and calves in systems that differ in the type of social and maternal contact. On the basis of previous research we predicted that attitudes would be most favorable towards the management system that allowed continued cow-calf contact and least favorable to early separation followed by individual housing, but we did not have clear basis for predicting attitudes towards the separated and kept with a foster cow system and the separated and group housed system. We also describe the considerations and concerns of participants regarding these different cow-calf management systems and how these influenced their attitudes and perceptions. 2.2 Materials and methods We conducted an online survey (see Appendix A) using a convenience sample of Canadian citizens 18 years of age and older. This study was approved by the Behavioural Research Ethics Board at The University of British Columbia, Canada (H19-02016). All participants consented to the study and were informed that data would be collected and treated anonymously. 21 2.2.1 Survey design Participants were given a brief statement to read introducing the topic of cow-calf management in the dairy industry and asking for their views: âTo produce milk, cows must give birth to a calf approximately once a year. We wish to hear your views regarding the methods used to manage (i.e. house and care for) cows and calves.â Each participant was then randomly assigned to one of four cow-calf management systems that differed in when cows and calves were separated and in the type of social contact provided (see Table 2.1). Separated and individually housed: Dairy cows must give birth to a calf in order to produce milk. Within a few hours after birth the calf is separated from the cow. The cow is then housed with other cows and milked by the farmer. The calf is individually housed by itself and is fed milk by the farmer. Separated and group housed: Dairy cows must give birth to a calf in order to produce milk. Within a few hours after birth the calf is separated from the cow. The cow is then housed with other cows and milked by the farmer. The calf is housed with other calves and is fed milk by the farmer. Separated and kept with foster cow: Dairy cows must give birth to a calf in order to produce milk. Within a few hours after birth the calf is separated from the cow. The cow is then housed with other cows and milked by the farmer. The calf is housed with other calves and with unrelated âfosterâ cows from which the calves are able to nurse. Not separated and group housed: Dairy cows must give birth to a calf in order to produce milk. Within a few hours after birth the calf is not separated from the cow. The cow and calf are housed together as a pair with other cow-calf pairs. The cow is milked by the farmer, but the calf is also able to nurse from its mother cow. Table 2.1 Vignettes (text given to participants is in italics) for each experimental condition describing a cow-calf management system differing with respect to whether the calf was separated from the mother cow and the type of social contact provided following separation. Following Cardoso et al. (2018), participants were then asked to respond to 3 questions, all on a 7-point Semantic differential scale (Friborg et al., 2006) and designed to assess attitudes 22 towards the scenario (see Ajzen and Fishbein, 2000): 1) âHow much do you disagree/agree with the use of this system for managing cows and calves?â (1 = âstrongly disagreeâ to 7 = âstrongly agreeâ); 2) âHow inappropriate/appropriate do you consider this system for managing cows and calves?â (1 = âcompletely inappropriateâ to 7 = âcompletely appropriateâ); and 3) âHow unacceptable/acceptable do you consider this system for managing cows and calves?â (1 = âtotally unacceptableâ to 7 = âtotally acceptableâ). A score of 4 was neutral on all scales (e.g. âneither unacceptable nor acceptableâ for the preceding question). As quantitative questions can be limiting (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Guest et al., 2014), we followed with an open-ended question asking participants to âPlease explain your views about this cow-calf management system.â To investigate if and how participants factored in the perceived quality of life of the animals in their judgement of the system, participants were asked to rate how relevant their considerations of the quality of life of each of the animals (cows and calves in all systems; and cows, calves, and foster cows in the Separated and kept with foster cow system) were in determining their views regarding the cow-calf management system. Answer were on a Semantic differential scale of 1 = ânot at all relevantâ to 6 = âextremely relevantâ. Participants were highly consistent (Cronbach alpha = 0.86) in their responses to this question across cows and calves, so the relevance score for cows and calves was averaged. Participants were then asked to describe the quality of life of animals in the cow-calf management system on a Semantic differential scale of 1 = âvery badâ to 7 = âvery good,â again with 4 being neutral at âneither good nor bad.â No definition of quality of life was given to allow participants space to approach this question with their own conceptions. As a result of high internal consistency and unidimensionality during data analysis, participantsâ responses to this 23 latter question (i.e. their perceptions of quality of life) were later collapsed into the construct perception of animal welfare along with participantsâ responses to the questions about individual aspects of animal welfare asked in the next section and described below. The next section of the survey investigated potential reasons for participantsâ attitudes towards the system based on the 3-sphere animal welfare conception proposed by Fraser et al. (1997), again following Cardoso et al. (2018); participants were asked to describe the âhealth,â âfeelings,â and âability to live a natural life,â of the cows and the calves (and the foster cows in the Separated and kept with foster cow system only) in the cow-calf management system. In addition, we asked how participants perceived the âstandard of careâ for animals in this system, as discussed by Weary and Robbins (2019). Answer choices in this section were on a Semantic differential scale of 1 to 7, with 1 = very negative perception (e.g., âvery unhealthyâ for the âhealthâ question, or âvery badâ for the âfeelingsâ question, etc.), 7 = very positive perception (e.g. âvery unhealthyâ for the âhealthâ question, or âvery goodâ for the âfeelingsâ question, etc.), and 4 being a neutral midpoint (e.g. âneither unhealthy nor healthyâ for the âhealthâ question, or âneither bad nor goodâ for the âfeelingsâ question, etc.). Participants were also asked a couple of questions intended to assess their willingness to pay for milk from their given management system in relation to how much they currently pay for milk. See Appendix B for a supplementary analysis and a brief discussion of these willingness to pay results and their relation to the main study described here. Lastly, participants were asked socio-demographic questions (age, gender, level of education, urban or suburban versus rural residence, income, presence of children, presence of pets, familiarity with the dairy industry (1 = ânot at all familiarâ to 6 = âextremely familiarâ), if they were involved or not with the dairy industry, and if they consumed dairy). 24 2.2.2 Participant recruitment and selection The survey was developed in Qualtrics (www.qualtrics.com) and released on Amazonâs Mechanical Turk (MTurk) platform from September 26, 2019 to October 6, 2019 (see Appendix 1 for the full survey). Crowdsourcing platforms such as Amazonâs MTurk are commonly used in perception research and considered to be relatively reliable and cost-effective in comparison to more traditional face or telephone surveying methods (Woods et al., 2015; Lutz, 2016). The survey was available to Canadian participants on MTurk who were 18 years of age and older and who signed the consent form after reading a brief description of the topic of the survey. Participants who completed the survey received $2 CAD in compensation. Our intention was to investigate a range of views; our participants constitute a convenience sample and should not be considered representative of the Canadian population as a whole. A total of 461 people took part in the survey. Following the removal of 154 participants who either failed the attention check (an institutional manipulation check adapted from Oppenheimer et al., 2009), supplied duplicate responses (submitted multiple surveys), or failed to answer all of the questions, 307 responses were retained for further analysis. Qualitative responses from 5 of these 307 participants were excluded from the qualitative analysis as a result of containing no content relevant to the survey question. 2.2.3 Data analysis 25 2.2.3.1 Quantitative data The data were analyzed using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) (version 9.4, SAS Institute Inc.). Of the 307 participants included in the quantitative analysis, 71 participants received the Separated and individually housed system, 65 received the Separated and group housed system, 87 received the Separated and kept with foster cow system, and 84 received the Not separated and group housed system. Internal consistency reliability of related questions was assessed using Cronbachâs alpha (Ellis, 2016). Participants were highly consistent (Cronbachâs alpha of 0.95) in their responses to the 3 attitude questions asking how much they agreed with the cow-calf management system described, how appropriate they considered it, and how acceptable they considered it for managing cows and calves. Additionally, we assessed the unidimensionality of these welfare aspects using principal factor analysis (Bartholomew et al., 2011). Here, unidimensionality was pronounced with an eigenvalue of the first factor being 2.52, remaining factors being negative and communality values > 0.8 (Slocum-Gori and Zumbo, 2011; Ellis, 2016). Thus, individual responses to these questions were averaged to create a construct of a mean attitude score for each participant. Participants were also highly consistent (Cronbachâs alpha of 0.97) in how they responded to questions about each individual animal welfare aspect (health, feelings, ability to perform natural behaviours, standard of care provided) and to the question asking them to describe quality of life as applied to both cows and to calves in the described management systems.. Here unidimensionality was also confirmed. The first retained factor had an eigenvalue of 7.51; whereas, all remaining factors had eigenvalues of < 0.57, which together with communality values of > 0.8 confirmed unidimensionality of the dataset (Slocum-Gori and 26 Zumbo, 2011; Ellis, 2016). As a result of this high internal consistency reliability and unidimensionality, perceptions of each individual aspect of animal welfare and of quality of life for both cows and for calves were collapsed into a single construct representing perception of animal welfare. The relationship between participantsâ perceptions of animal welfare within that system and participantsâ attitudes towards their given cow-calf management system was tested with Pearsonâs correlation. General linear models were created for each construct as a dependent measure (attitude and perception of animal welfare) testing the effects of: cow-calf management system; self-reported socio-demographic factors â age (continuous), gender (binary â identifies as female or does not identify as female (male or prefers not to say)), level of education (continuous), residence (binary â rural or not rural (urban or suburban)), income (continuous), presence of children (binary â yes or no), presence of pets (binary â yes or no), familiarity with the dairy industry (continuous), and dairy consumption (binary â yes or no), and the interactions between each of these socio-demographic variables and cow-calf management system. Type III sum of squares and Tukey-Kramer adjustments for pairwise comparisons were used for all models. There were no correlations stronger than 0.50 (Pearsonâs r(305)) between any of the socio-demographic variables. However, as no interactions between socio-demographic variables and cow-calf management system exceeded P > 0.05 in preliminary models, all such interactions were excluded from the final models. In the following results and discussion section (section 2.3), least square means and standard errors (± SE) are presented from these models for categorical variables with P â¤ 0.05. Slopes and standard errors (± SE) are presented for continuous variables with P â¤ 0.05. Tables displaying the parameter estimates, standard errors, t-27 values, and P-values for all of the variables included in the final general linear models for attitude and for perception of animal welfare are provided in Appendix C. Participant socio-demographics used in the models are summarized and compared to Canadian census averages from 2016 (Statistics Canada, 2017) in Table 2.2. Participants were on average younger (average age of 32.8 years as opposed to Canadian average age of 41 years), more likely to not identify as female, and more likely to have attained a higher level of education compared to Canadian census averages. 28 Socio-demographics Variable n % Canadian census % 1Gender âDoes not identify as Femaleâ (=Male (n=187) OR âPrefer not to sayâ (n=3)) 190 61.9 50.9 (="Maleâ) âIdentifies as Femaleâ 117 38.1 49.1 (=âFemaleâ) Level of education Less than high school 5 1.6 18.3 High school graduate 36 11.7 26.5 Some college but no degree 58 18.9 n.a. Associate degree 43 14.0 n.a. Bachelor's degree 117 38.1 15.5 Some Post-graduate or Professional but no degree 12 3.9 n.a. Post-graduate or Professional degree 36 11.7 7.7 Area of residence Rural 48 15.6 18.9 Not rural (= Urban (n=150) OR Suburban (n=109)) 259 84.4 81.1 Income (entire household before taxes) Less than $25,000 47 15.4 14.0 $25,000-$34,999 35 11.4 8.1 $35,000-$49,999 38 12.4 12.6 $50,000-$74,999 60 19.6 $75,000-$99,999 65 21.2 ($50,000-$99,999) = 32.8 $100,000-$149,999 46 15 17.6 $150,000 or more 15 4.9 14.7 Children Yes 118 38.4 n.a. No 189 61.6 n.a. Pets Yes 182 59.3 n.a. No 125 40.7 n.a. Dairy consumption Yes 297 96.7 n.a. No 10 3.3 n.a. 1 For the purposes of this study we treated gender as a binary variable by presenting the number of our participants who selected âFemaleâ for gender as âIdentifies as Femaleâ and the combined number of our participants who either selected âMaleâ or âPrefer not to sayâ as âDoes not identify as Female.â Statistics Canada (2017) reports gender only as âMaleâ or âFemale.â We present our results for gender in relation to census averages by comparing the value of âIdentifies as Femaleâ in our study to the value of âFemaleâ in the census report. We present numbers for the value âDoes not identify as Femaleâ next to the census numbers for the value âMale,â but recognize that gender is not truly binary and our value of âDoes not identify as Femaleâ also included participants who âpreferred not to sayâ which gender they identified with. 29 Table 2.2 The number and percentage of participants (n = 307) sorted by socio-demographic categories and presented in relation to the 2016 Canadian census averages for the population (Statistics Canada, 2017). Area of residence census data is from 2011 (Statistics Canada, 2011). 2.2.3.2 Qualitative data We used generic qualitative inquiry in our mixed methods approach towards the qualitative data. Generic qualitative inquiry, as described by Percy et al. (2015), is useful to âinvestigate peopleâs reports of their subjective opinions, attitudes, beliefs, or reflections on their experiences, of things in the outer worldâ and is particularly useful for mixed methods studies. Within this framework we used thematic analysis (Miles et al., 2014; Percy et al., 2015) to analyze the qualitative data. During this process we used an iterative coding process to find themes and subthemes expressed in participantsâ free responses. This iterative coding process combined a priori codes determined from the existing literature with a set of codes discovered through inductive coding of the qualitative data that fit within the existing codes (Miles et al., 2014; Onwuegbuzie and Combs, 2015). It is also important to note our position, specifically as animal welfare researchers, our close links with the dairy industry and our association with the UBC dairy farm; our research process, coding, and interpretation of the results was likely influenced by these factors (Walker et al., 2013; Berger, 2015). For the a priori coding we focused our approach using the theoretical framework from Fraser et al. (1997), which defines animal welfare as consisting of biological functioning and health; affective states; and naturalness, including the ability of animals to express natural behaviours. The other a priori codes came from themes identified in previous cow-calf perception work, i.e. calf nutrition, separation, separation distress, cow-calf relationship (or bond), dissatisfaction with motivations, change, milk production (Ventura et al., 2013; Busch et al., 2017; Hötzel et al., 2017). During the iterative phase any a priori themes that were expressed 30 by our participants were kept. We were also open to any new themes that emerged which were then added to the codebook through open coding. Codes and themes were repeatedly discussed among the research team during the coding process. The resulting codebook was checked for consistency and finalized by having two researchers (Sirovica and Ritter) code randomized sub-samples of the responses. Differences in coding were discussed, resolved, and used to update the codebook before the final codebook was used by both researchers to code a final sub-sample of responses. Intercoder reliability was assessed at this stage using NVivo (QSR International Pty Ltd., version 12; https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home). The Cohenâs Kappa coefficient was 0.65, suggesting substantial agreement between coders (Landis and Koch, 1997). One researcher (Sirovica) then coded all the responses with the finalized codebook. Results are presented by theme as opposed to by treatment but include discussion of how participants of different attitude valences brought up similar themes and the different integration of these themes and subthemes by participants. We focus on the range and integration of themes presented by participants as opposed to the quantity. Unique and anonymous identifiers (i.e. a random number from 1-307) were assigned to each participant and used to label quotes presented in this paper. Each quote was also labeled with the system (Separated and individually housed, Separated and group housed, Separated and kept with foster cow, or Not separated and group housed system) the participant was assigned to following their unique identifier (e.g., 97; Separated and individually housed system). Any explanatory information to maintain meaning of quotes or use of an ellipsis to shorten quotes were presented in square brackets (e.g. [â¦]) within the quotes. Minor spelling errors within quotes were edited for presentation unless such edits would change the meaning of quotes. 31 2.3 Results and discussion 2.3.1 Quantitative findings 2.3.1.1 Attitude towards system Participants had a less negative attitude towards the Not separated and group housed system (4.3 ± 0.30) compared to the Separated and individually housed (2.0 ± 0.29), Separated and group housed (2.4 ± 0.31), and Separated and kept with foster cow systems (2.2 ± 0.29) (Figure 2.1; F3,293 = 43.97, P < 0.0001). There were no differences between attitudes within the Separated and individually housed, Separated and group housed, and Separated and kept with foster cow systems, all of which employed early separation of original cow-calf pairs. Participants who identified as female had slightly lower attitudes towards their given system (2.5 ± 0.28) than those who did not identify as female (2.9 ± 0.27) (F1,293 = 5.89; P = 0.016). This was not surprising given that women generally express more concern for the welfare and management of animals than men do (Beardsworth et al., 2002; Mckendree et al., 2014). Ventura et al. (2013) also found that women showed less support for the specific practice of early separation than men did. 32 Figure 2.1 Least square means ± SE attitude of participants (n = 307) to scenarios that described 4 different cow-calf management systems. Attitude was a construct consisting of the average of three Semantic differential-scale (1 to 7) questions, where higher numbers indicate a more positive attitude. A score of 4 indicates a neutral attitude, scores of less than 4 indicate a more negative attitude, and scores of greater than 4 indicates a more positive attitude towards the cow-calf management system. Least square means and SE are from a general linear model with Tukey-Kramer pairwise comparison adjustments testing the effects of socio-demographics and cow-calf management system on attitude. There were differences (P < 0.05) in participantsâ attitudes towards the Not separated and group housed system compared to each of the Separated and individually housed, Separated and group housed, and the Separated and kept with foster cow systems. There were no differences between attitudes towards the Separated and individually housed, Separated and group housed, and Separated and kept with foster cow systems, all of which employed early separation of original cow-calf pairs. Ventura et al. (2013) also reported that respondents less familiar with the dairy industry showed less support for early cow-calf separation than respondents directly involved (i.e. veterinarians and farmers) with the industry or respondents who self-reported being âvery familiar with dairy production.â This lower support for early separation amongst people less familiar with the dairy industry could explain why attitudes were lower amongst our respondents 1234567AttitudeCow-calf management systemSeparated and individually housedSeparated and group housedSeparated and kept with foster cowNot separated and group housed33 with less experience with the dairy industry, as illustrated by a positive slope of 0.36 (± 0.07) between industry familiarity and attitude (F1,293 = 24.87; P < 0.0001). Age had a positive effect on attitude; for every decade increase in participant age, attitude increased by 0.22 (± 0.10) on the Semantic differential scale (F1,293 = 5.39; P = 0.021). Older participants thus appeared to have more positive attitudes towards their given management system. This is consistent with the findings of a national Dutch survey performed by Boogaard et al. (2011) that older participants (in this case, specifically those older than 65) were more satisfied with âcontemporaryâ (i.e. conventional and not providing more ânaturalâ alternatives such as keeping cows and calves together) dairy farming and management methods. Dairy consumption (F1,293 = 36.41; P < 0.0001) also had an effect on attitude, with no consumption of dairy products being associated with lower attitude scores (1.2 ± 0.50) compared to the attitude scores (4.2 ± 0.12) of people who consume dairy. While only 3.3% of participants in this study reported not consuming dairy products, it is not surprising that some participants with negative attitudes toward the system were less likely to drink milk (or vice versa); attitudes are expected to be predictive and explicative of future behaviour (Vaske, 2008). Collectively these results support our primary prediction that attitudes would be most favorable towards prolonged cow-calf contact, but show no evidence of increased support for alternatives thought to provide benefits over the standard system of early separation and individual housing. Instead, we found that attitudes were unfavorable towards all systems involving early separation from the mother, regardless of what form of additional social contact was provided. Previous work has shown evidence of public concern for the ability of all dairy animals to interact socially (Widmar et al., 2017) and for calves to be housed together (Perttu et al., 34 2020), so it is perhaps surprising that the alternate management systems that allowed for social contact (either with foster cows or other calves) failed to elicit more favorable attitudes. We suggest that the participants did not view these alternate forms of social contact as adequate replacements for social contact from the mother. In studies where participants were only given a choice between individually housed calves and group housed calves (e.g., Perttu et al., 2020), participants had to choose between the two systems (essentially forcing the participants to trade off attributes of one system over the other). Work by Ryan et al. (2015) indicated that citizens asked to choose between gestation stalls, group housing for sows, or another system that was not described chose the other system; suggesting that they found both options unsatisfactory. In the current study participants were not asked to choose, but rather presented with just a single option. More work is required to understand how these methodological considerations may affect responses. 2.3.1.2 Perception of animal welfare within systems Similar to their attitudes towards the system, participants had a less negative perception of animal welfare within the Not separated and group housed system (4.2 ± 0.28) compared to those that received the Separated and individually housed (2.0 ± 0.27), Separated and group housed (2.1 ± 0.29), and Separated and kept with foster cow systems (2.0 ± 0.27) (Figure 2.2; (F3,293 = 52.14, P < 0.0001). There were again no differences between perceptions of animal welfare within the latter 3 systems, all of which employed early separation of original cow-calf pairs. 35 Figure 2.2 Least square means ± SE of participantsâ (n = 307) perceptions of animal welfare of cows and calves in 4 different cow-calf management systems. Perception of animal welfare was a construct consisting of the average of 10 Semantic differential-scale (1 to 7) questions asking about both cowsâ and calvesâ quality of life, health, feelings, abilities to live natural lives, and standard of care. Higher numbers indicate a more positive perception of animal welfare for animals in the described system. A score of 4 indicates a neutral perception, scores of less than 4 indicate a more negative perception, and scores of greater than 4 indicate a more positive perception. Least square means ± SE are from a general linear model with Tukey-Kramer pairwise comparison adjustments testing the effects of socio-demographics and cow-calf management system on perceptions of animal welfare. There were differences (P < 0.05) in participantsâ perceptions of animal welfare within the Not separated and group housed system compared to within each of the Separated and individually housed, Separated and group housed, and the Separated and kept with foster cow systems. There were no differences between perceptions of animal welfare within system between the Separated and individually housed, Separated and group housed, and Separated and kept with foster cow systems, all of which employed early separation of original cow-calf pairs. Similar to the positive effect of industry familiarity on attitude, the more familiar participants were with the dairy industry, the more likely they were to have a positive perception of animal welfare within their given system, as illustrated by a positive slope of 0.40 (± 0.07) between industry familiarity and perception of animal welfare (F1,293 = 35.85; P < 0.0001). This 1234567Perception of animal welfareCow-calf management systemSeparated and individually housedSeparated and group housedSeparated and kept with foster cowNot separated and group housed36 is consistent with previous reports of individuals involved with livestock expressing less concern for animal management and production practices (Clark et al., 2016). Age had a positive effect on perception of animal welfare; for every decade increase in participant age, perception of animal welfare increased by 0.26 (± 0.09) on the Semantic differential scale (F1,293 = 8.65; P = 0.0035). In effect, younger participants tended to have lower perceptions of animal welfare in their given system. These lower perceptions could be a result of younger people tending to express greater concern for animal welfare (Mckendree et al., 2014; Alonso et al., 2020). Dairy consumption (F1,293 = 32.31; P < 0.0001) also had an effect on perception of animal welfare, with no consumption of dairy products being associated with more negative perceptions of animal welfare within a cow-calf management system (1.2 ± 0.46) compared to the perceptions of animal welfare within system of people who did consume dairy products (3.9 ± 0.11). Given the fact that perceptions of products and how they are produced can influence consumption habits (Gomez-Corona et al., 2016), it is possible that the poor perceptions of animal welfare within the described management systems from these participants could influence their consumption habits. In fact, there are prior reports of some US consumers specifically reducing dairy consumption due to welfare concerns (Mckendree et al., 2012). While animal welfare continues to be a growing concern amongst consumers, it is one of many considerations (e.g. ethics, health, food quality, taste, etc.) consumers have regarding animal products (Beardsworth et al., 2002; Codron et al., 2005; Grunert et al., 2018; Nijland et al., 2018). 37 2.3.1.3 Relationship between attitude and perception of animal welfare Amongst the participants in this study, attitude correlated highly with perception of animal welfare (Pearson's r(305) = 0.85; P < 0.0001). This positive association suggests that participantsâ attitudes were associated with their perception of the animalsâ welfare in the system. In addition, many participants (75 %) rated the quality of life of both cows and of calves as at least âsomewhat relevantâ in determining their views regarding the cow-calf management system. This evidence is in line with previous work suggesting that there is increasing interest in and concern amongst consumers and public members on how food animals are treated (e.g. Mckendree et al., 2014; de Graaf et al., 2016; Nijland et al., 2018), including dairy cattle welfare (Wolf et al., 2016). However, it is also important to note that there are many additional concerns besides animal welfare (e.g. cost, food safety and quality, nutrition, environmental effects) known to contribute to peoplesâ perceptions of animal products and production systems (e.g. Verbeke et al., 2009; Miranda-de la Lama et al., 2017). No information nor specific questions targeting these potential additional concerns were provided in this study, so the potential role of such additional concerns in peopleâs perceptions of cow-calf management systems requires further investigation. 2.3.2 Qualitative findings The results reviewed above, in particular the high internal consistency participants displayed in their attitudes towards the system and in their perceptions of different animal welfare aspects within the system, indicate that participants often took a holistic and highly value-oriented view of the rearing system. However, in their qualitative responses, participants also demonstrated nuanced views regarding cow-calf management. The diversity of views 38 encompassed a wide range of concerns and arguments distributed across six themes: impact on animals, cow-calf relationship, use of animals and animal products, standard of care, production, and knowledge reflection (see Table 2.3). These themes were brought up by participants across all four treatments but in some cases included different attitude valences (i.e. positive, neutral, or negative) towards treatments. These themes and their subthemes are discussed below. 39 Theme Sub-themes Description Impact on animals health, disease risk, calf nutrition; feelings; naturalness Reference to how animals are affected by management system and discussion of the status of animals: i.e. their health, risk of disease, nutritional status; how they are feeling; their ability to live a natural life and perform natural behaviours Cow-calf relationship separation, separation distress; nursing, nursing from own mother cow; human-animal identification Reference to a relationship or a bond between a cow and her calf: discussion of, or expression of concern over, the separation of a mother cow from her own calf, and concern for a distress response to this separation; importance of nursing, or of nursing specifically from own mother cow; discussion of cow-calf relationship in relation to human parent-child relationship Use of animals and animal products ethics, cost-benefit; human-consumption Reference to how humans use animals and animal products and/or if they should: how ethical or unethical it is to use animals, reference to utilitarian type of cost-benefit analysis of animal use for production purposes; discussion of human consumption of dairy products, can include a discussion of nutritional benefit or need of dairy consumption, or of a lack of benefits or need of dairy consumption Standard of care Discussion of the quality, humaneness, and/or appropriateness of care provided to the animals in the management system Production dissatisfaction with motivations; dairy farming structure, change; milk production Discussion of management decisions and implications at a farm and industry level: disapproval of actions and/or motivations behind production practice or system; discussion of how farms operate or are structured, and whether or not they can or should change; production of milk, including for farmer Knowledge reflection limited knowledge; compromising trade-offs; alternate view acknowledgement Reference to how participants organize or interpret their own knowledge and perceptions of the described cow-calf management system: acknowledgement of not having 40 Theme Sub-themes Description enough or needing more information; discussion of making compromises between, or balancing, impacts on animals and production within management system and/or difficulty in balancing trade-offs of positively perceived and negatively perceived effects or aspects when making management decisions (can include expression of ambivalence or cognitive dissonance towards system as a whole or acknowledgement of complexity of issues); reference to considering and/or attempting to understand another point of view (e.g. discussion of looking at the issue(s) from a farmer's perspective, or from a consumer's perspective if participant is a farmer) Table 2.3 Themes and sub-themes referenced by participants to describe their views regarding cow-calf management systems. 41 2.3.2.1 Impact on animals Participants brought up sub-themes that incorporated Fraser et al.âs (1997) animal welfare construct; raising concerns regarding the animalsâ affective states (or feelings), animalsâ ability to perform natural behaviours (or naturalness), and biological functioning (including health). These responses have been reported by others; for example, when investigating perspectives on early cow-calf separation (Ventura et al., 2013) and heat stress in dairy cattle (Cardoso et al., 2018). Interestingly, many participants, regardless of which system they were asked to evaluate, were concerned about how the cows and the calves would âfeelâ following separation: â[â¦] the calf is probably scared because it's being separated from its mother [â¦] On the flip side the mother is probably super depressed after being separated from her calf [â¦]â (97; Separated and individually housed system) and âPhysically the calves are being taken care of, but emotionally the separation of the calf from its mom is not okay in my opinionâ (103; Separated and kept with foster cow system). Some participants voiced concerns about naturalness (nature or a natural state); arguing that any system that separated cows from their calves was in contradiction to this view of naturalness: âNot a big fan of immediate separation of the calf from his mother. Almost always in nature a huge bond is immediately formed and the mother plays an enormous role in her youngâs developmentâ (81; Separated and kept with foster cow system). Participant concerns regarding loss of naturalness have been reported in previous studies investigating attitudes towards cow-calf separation (North America, Ventura et al., 2013; US and Germany, Busch et al., 2017; Brazil, Hötzel et al., 2017). 42 Participants in our study also raised concerns regarding the health of the calf, frequently referring to nutrition of the calf, as opposed to concerns over disease risk. When disease risk was discussed, it was usually in terms of how the motherâs milk could help mitigate disease risk in the calf: â[â¦] The calf needs a lot of immunity it gets only from their cowâs (motherâs) milk. The calf wants to be healthy and free from diseases, it needs cow milk [â¦]â (22; Separated and kept with foster cow system). In contrast, participants that were supportive of separation in the Ventura et al. (2013) study frequently commented on their belief that increased cow-calf contact increased disease risk. The latter finding is not surprising given that many of the participants in the latter study were farmers or veterinarians who worked in the dairy industry. In contrast, most participants in the current study likely had little knowledge of the dairy industry and focused on the calf and its ability to have access to not only milk but also its mother. This view included those participants that were presented the foster cow scenario: â[â¦the calf] does not get the benefits (seemingly ever) of itâs own motherâs milk, which is likely tailored to suit the needs of her specific calfâ (182; Separated and kept with foster cow system). This finding suggests that any cow-calf management system that does not allow for contact between cows and their own calves may be viewed as inadequate. 2.3.2.2 Cow-calf relationship The emphasis that the public places on the perceived importance of the cow-calf relationship has been discussed by others (e.g., Ventura et al., 2013 and Busch et al., 2017). Not surprisingly, participants in the current study also highlighted the presence and importance of separation distress and the effect of the cow-calf relationship, or a lack of such a relationship, on levels of distress: âThere is general awareness that cows and calves have an emotional life and 43 the bond between cow and calf is a concern if separated because it ultimately ends in distress for the calfâ (176; Separated and group housed system). While the majority of participants referencing concerns surrounding the cow-calf relationship and animal feelings were against the practice of early separation, some participants were in favor of early cow-calf separation, as also noted by Ventura et al. (2013). However, in the study by Ventura et al. (2013) where participant support for early separation cited health risks and the increased distress responses observed the longer the pair has been together, the participants in our study who favoured early separation focused almost exclusively on the latter point: â[â¦] it is better to do it [separate cow and calf] before a bond has developed [â¦] Why go through that struggle when you can easily break it off in the beginning?â (3; Separated and kept with foster cow system). Increased vocalisations from cows and calves have been observed in cases of separation performed more than 24 hours but before 2 weeks post-calving (Weary and Chua, 2000; Flower and Weary, 2001). However, other studies where separation was performed after 45 days report decreased distress response in both cows (Pérez-Torres et al., 2016; StÄhulová et al., 2017) and calves (StÄhulová et al., 2017). In contrast to the greater focus placed on separation response as opposed to health risks by our participants, the focus on health risks exhibited by participants in the study by Ventura et al. (2013) could be due in part to the fact that their study included more participants with self-reported involvement with the dairy industry (69% of participants compared to only 3.3% of participants in our study). Calf management and how it relates to mortality and disease risk are areas of ongoing research and concern in the dairy industry (e.g. Vasseur et al., 2010; Winder et al., 2018). Some participants also drew connections between the cow-calf relationship and the human parent-child relationship. These participants often questioned the acceptability of 44 breaking any parent-offspring bond: âThe idea of separating a mother from their offspring is upsetting. Just because they're animals and they can't stand up for themselves, doesn't mean they don't feel the mother-child connection. It is devastating to hear that they are separated right after birth, an offspring needs their motherâ (7; Separated and individually housed system) and âYou are taking a baby from a mother. Could you imagine doing that to a human?â (215; Separated and individually housed system). 2.3.2.3 Use of animals and animal products Some participants defended their specific attitudes towards the described cow-calf management systems by bringing up their views of the use of animals and animal products in general. A few participants expressed views on ethics consistent with views supporting abolition of all animal use (Beauchamp et al., 2008; Munro, 2012; Lund et al., 2019). However, others took a more utilitarian approach (Beauchamp et al., 2008; Lund et al., 2019), bringing up costs and benefits and arguing that it was also important to consider the importance of dairy as a human food source, including nutritional consequences of dairy consumption, and necessity or lack of necessity of such consumption. These types of responses often brought up considerations that included having to balance dairy consumption with how animals are used by people. There is much discussion on the association between dairy consumption and a healthy diet (i.e., Pereira, 2014). However, the growing concerns regarding animals used for human consumption has also increased discussions associated with limiting consumption of animal products (Haverstock and Forgays, 2012; Ruby, 2012). In contrast to justifying their attitudes in relation to their beliefs surrounding the use of animals and animal products, other participants justified their beliefs and practices on this issue 45 in terms of their own future actions and thoughts given the new knowledge about how cows and calves are cared for: âI am really saddened to learn this, both as a human being and a lover of animals. It makes me a lot more self conscious about what I consume as food products and have more thoughts about the process in which these products are created. It is absolutely shocking to hear how cruel and inhuman the process is. The poor animals are disposable and not looked at as living life forms with emotions. Imagine doing this to a person, how appropriate and sane would that be to do? Any baby needs their mother. Consumerism needs to change and animals need to be treated with decency.â (223; Separated and kept with foster cow system). As awareness of cow-calf separation increases throughout society there is risk that this may elicit behavioural change in purchasing behaviour (Ventura et al., 2013, 2016). One study showed changes in purchasing habits of UK participants who reported an interest in more information on production practices and a willingness to pay more for practices that would improve welfare (Ellis et al., 2009). 2.3.2.4 Standard of care Concerns for how animals are used by people were also expressed by the participants, particularly when associated with the practice of early separation (i.e., those that received descriptions of the Separated and group housed, Separated and kept with foster cow, or Separated and individually housed systems); words such as âunacceptable,â âinhumaneâ or âcruelâ were used and often in conjunction with a total rejection of the system. In the voice of one participant, âTo separate a mother and calf so soon after birth is brutal and cruel.â (37; Separated and group housed system; attitude score of 1) and in the words of another, âSeparating a calf after birth from the mom is totally unacceptable and inappropriate whatever 46 living being it isâ (141; Separated and individually housed system; attitude score of 2). In contrast, participants who were presented with the Not separated and group housed system often used words that implied that they viewed the animals were cared for appropriately, such as âI totally agree with this system, because the cow and calves do not get separated at birth, the other way around would be animal cruelty [â¦]â (262; Not separated and group housed system; attitude score of 6.67). The perceived relationship between standard of care given by the farmer and perceptions of animal welfare also arose in the responses. This concept that farmers must uphold a certain standard of care and that this is owed to the animals is not new; the idea is that humans have a âdutyâ to care for animals as a result of our relationships with them, particularly when this relationship is one in which we profit from (Engster, 2006). Weary and Robbins (2019) discuss this as the publicâs desire for âhumane care,â often in combination with an assumption that a âduty of careâ to animals is inherent to being a farmer. Concerns for providing animals with an owed standard of care have also been reported in studies investigating public conceptions of an ideal dairy farm (Cardoso et al., 2016) and an ideal pig farm (Sato et al., 2017). Such concerns point to a focus on a human-animal interaction dimension of animal welfare. This suggests an acknowledgement of the responsibility humans may have in providing for the animals that we use for production purposes or even just interact with on any level. This could have important implications for the social licensing of production practices, especially for any practices perceived to compromise a minimum standard of care. . 47 2.3.2.5 Production Some participants were dissatisfied and had clear expectations that the animals be treated to a âhigherâ standard than what is presently given to the animals. For example, in the voice of a participant who was given the individual housing scenario: â[â¦are] separating the calf from its mother just to steal the milk from the mother [â¦]â (1; Separated and individually housed system). This concern around the âexploitationâ of cows for milk production, has been noted by others regarding the publicâs view on cow calf separation (Ventura et al. 2013) but also in reports summarizing the publicâs views on how cows and other farm animals are used solely for production goals without consideration for animalsâ welfare and management (Boogaard et al., 2006, 2011). Some participants also questioned the ability and willingness of farmers and the industry to change current management practices. Some participants discussed the idea of change as a barrier, a point also raised by previous participants asked about cow calf separation (Ventura et al., 2013; Busch et al., 2017). Interestingly, some participants that were in the Not separated and group housed system stated the ability to change as a positive, or as a call to move away from the negatively perceived practice of early separation inherent to the Separated and kept with foster cow, Separated and group housed, and Separated and individually housed systems. While many participants expressed their dissatisfaction with motivations and the failure by the industry to change, some participants expressed support of farmers and milk production. In the latter case, concerns often were in relation to the impact on the farmers livelihood: for example, one participant stated that the âfarmer [was] getting some of the milk he worked forâ (262; Not separated and group housed system). Some participants cited milk production concerns as a means to support the practice of early cow-calf separation (Separated and individually 48 housed, Separated and group housed, and Separated and kept with foster cow systems): âI think this [management system] is unfortunate, but this is probably what is required for the most efficient mass-production of milk [â¦]â (14; Separated and individually housed system). However, concerns about milk production were also used by participants in support of the Not separated and group housed system which did not employ early separation practices, âI think it's good the mother gets to stay with the baby calf and nurse as well, as this will likely stimulate the mother to produce more milk and improve the mental health of wellbeing of the mother and the calfâ (284; Not separated and group housed system). Both the concern that milk production may be reduced by nursing and the contrasting belief that it may be increased when the calf is able to nurse were also highlighted by Ventura et al. (2013). These conflicting concerns are also the topics of research; a recent systematic review summarizing this body of research suggests that while cows will temporarily produce less saleable milk when nursing calves, this reduction in saleable milk yield may be balance out over the entire lactation cycle, depending on when suckling calves are weaned (Meagher et al., 2019). 2.3.2.6 Knowledge reflection Some participants reflected on how they organized or weighed their own perceptions and the amount of knowledge they felt that they had or was relevant to the formation of their attitude towards their given system. While some participants conveyed very one-sided - either heavily in favor or against separation - others were more nuanced and addressed multiple, even conflicting, concerns and themes. These latter participants discussed trade offs, and concerns about balancing the interests of animals and that of different stakeholders. For example, some participants discussed the importance of integrating production with proper care and concern for all animals 49 involved: âThis seems like a humane way for the farmer to collect milk while maintaining the nurturing relationship between the cow and the calf. The calf is not separated from its mother and therefore will gain nourishment from the cow, thus creating a sustainable way to gather milk for human consumersâ (17; Not separated and group housed system), and âI believe that separating the calf from it's mother immediately after birth is not ideal for the mother and calf from an emotional standpoint of the cow. At the same time milk and its by-products are an integral part of the human diet. It would be better if the calf can obtain milk from it's mother directly and be balanced/alternated with milking by the farmerâ (169; Separated and individually housed system). Equally interesting was that while many participants expressed concerns for the animals and their welfare, many also expressed concerns for the farmers and for all members of society who rely on animals for food. This nuanced concern for both the animals and the farmers was expressed by one individual as: âHard on the emotional side to know a mother and her child [are] separated, but know [this] is needed for the efficiency of the farmersâ (188; Separated and individually housed system; no industry involvement). This expression of concern for both the farmers and for the animals was also noted by Cardoso et al. (2016) and by Sato et al. (2017) after asking participants to describe characteristics they considered most important to an ideal dairy farm or pig farm, respectively. Such findings suggest the importance of emphasis on the âone welfareâ approach (e.g. Tarazona et al., 2020); how improving conditions for farmers could benefit animals and vice versa. That some participants acknowledged that there are alternate viewpoints did not mean that they were necessarily persuaded or even agreed with these. Rather, they acknowledged and appeared to respect that others may think differently, but overall retained their own opposing or 50 contrary viewpoint. This further suggests the highly value-oriented approach many participants took towards the issue of cow-calf separation. For example, participant 106 still maintained their negative attitude towards the Separated and individually housed system (score of 3.33) despite acknowledging alternate âeconomic and morality sidesâ of the argument in support of the Separated and individually housed system. That some participants empathized with farmers and industry-specific concerns (e.g. economic constraints) was also discussed by Benard and de Cock Buning (2013) who interviewed pig farmers and urban citizens. The citizens reflected that pig farming was, in their view, a difficult profession and although they did not agree with many aspects of pig housing they also acknowledged that change could not take place overnight, instead requesting that the farmers try to do better. 2.3.3 Limitations and future directions A limitation of this study is that it was performed with a convenience sample. Therefore, results are not representative of views of the Canadian population. However, our results do provide insight into a range of public views expressed on cow-calf management systems varying in the type of social and maternal contact provided. Future studies with more representative samples are needed to further investigate views across a wider range of socio-demographics. In particular, incorporation of more participants with involvement in the dairy industry (e.g. veterinarians, farmers, etc.) is necessary to better address the views of more stakeholders. This is especially important given the different levels of emphasis placed on different aspects of animal welfare (i.e. including but not limited to: health, emotions, naturalness, standard of care) by different stakeholders (Lassen et al., 2006; Vanhonacker et al., 2008). Furthermore, the use of participatory methodologies (van Dijk et al., 2016; Bolton and von Keyserlingk, 2021) may be 51 ways to help ease tensions between different stakeholder groups and facilitate discussions on mutually developed improvements to complex conventional practices such as early cow-calf separation. However, that our participants tended to focus most on concerns about the cow-calf relationship (in particular, the issue of separation itself) and how early separation is a breach of standard of care ultimately brings into question the social sustainability of alternative management practices that still require separation from the mother. Clearly any system that involves removing the calf from its mother was a key concern for most participants; profoundly affecting their perception of animal welfare within any of the cow-calf management systems that involved separation and their overall attitude towards these systems. Despite some industry stakeholders suggesting that a foster system (Kälber and Barth, 2014) may be a viable solution moving forward, our work indicates that this system will likely not be accepted by members of the public. Overall, the participants in our study struggled with the breaking of the parent-offspring bond and this resulted in their rejection of any system that included this aspect. Similar to the failure of the modified cage as a socially acceptable and widely adopted alternate housing system for laying hens in part due to its inability to address public concerns (Weary et al., 2016), results of our study suggest that alternative cow-calf management systems that do not address public concerns surrounding the breaking of the parent-offspring bond will not be acceptable. Ultimately, more research into the feasibility of alternate systems that address public concerns by not involving the early breaking of this bond is necessary, alongside more research to address other key stakeholdersâ (e.g. farmers and veterinarians) perceptions of barriers to such systems. 52 2.4 Conclusions The findings of this study highlight the negative attitudes and perceptions of animal welfare of participants provided a brief description of cow-calf management systems involving early cow-calf separation, and show that this negative assessment extends even to options thought to provide benefits to calves over standard practice of early separation and individual housing. Collectively these results suggest that participants are largely unwilling to compromise when it comes to finding alternatives to the practice of early cow-calf separation. 53 Chapter 3: General discussion and conclusion As reviewed in Chapter 1, public opposition to early cow-calf separation threatens the social sustainability of the dairy industry (e.g. Boogaard et al., 2008, 2011; Weary et al., 2016), especially in context with the scientific evidence of benefits associated with increased cow-calf contact (e.g. ability for calves to receive and for cows to perform motivated maternal behaviours, improved development of social and feeding behaviours and reduction of stereotypic behaviours in calves and reduced mastitis risk in cows). Additionally, there is little scientific evidence supporting cow-calf separation as a means to promote animal welfare and production. For example, recent literature reviews suggest that there is a complexity of factors involved in cow-calf management beyond early separation (e.g. how cows and calves are separated, how much milk calves are given or allowed to suckle, cleanliness of the calving and housing environments, etc.) that can affect stress, the acute distress response at separation (Meagher et al., 2019), as well as health and disease risk (Beaver et al., 2019b). The aim of this thesis was to assess Canadian attitudes towards and perceptions of animal welfare within cow-calf management systems differing in whether the calf was separated early from the mother cow and the type of social contact provided following separation. Qualitative analyses of the reasoning that participants invoked to explain their views on these systems was used to better understand the basis for, or considerations and concerns behind participant attitudes and perceptions. 3.1 Thesis findings and implications In agreement with previous work, participants in Chapter 2 expressed negative attitudes towards and negative perceptions of animal welfare within all systems involving early 54 separation. Interestingly, there were no differences in attitudes and perceptions of animal welfare between any of the systems involving early cow-calf separation, despite the provisioning of more social contact to calves in the two alternative systems to the conventional system of separation followed by individually housing of calves. Social isolation of calves is a known source of public concern (Ventura et al., 2013; Widmar et al., 2017; Perttu et al., 2020). In contrast, the participants presented with a system involving no separation of mother cows from their calves expressed less negative attitudes towards and less negative perceptions of animal welfare within this alternative system. This result suggests that neither the use of group housing for calves nor the allowance for foster cow-calf contact are sufficient to address other concerns that public members have involving early separation of the calf from its mother. However, it is also important to note that while participants presented with the Not separated and group housed system had higher attitudes towards and higher perceptions of animal welfare within the system than those of participants presented with systems involving early separation, these attitudes towards and perceptions of animal welfare within the Not separated and group housed system were still of neutral valence on the Semantic differential scale (i.e. not actually positive). This suggests that while the Not separated and group housed system was viewed less negatively than the systems involving early separation, it was still not viewed positively by participants and thus there are likely additional issues of concern important to participants aside from cow-calf contact when evaluating dairy management systems. The study described in Chapter 2 used a mixed methods approach with an open-ended question that allowed participants to explain their views regarding their given cow-calf management system, providing more nuanced views than would be available in a purely quantitative survey (i.e. using only some sort of Likert or Semantic differential scale; Brannen, 55 2005; Percy et al., 2015). The participants in this study did bring up multiple themes concerning animals and different stakeholders. These themes included impact on animals, cow-calf relationship, use of animals and animal products, standard of care, production, and knowledge reflection (i.e. of trade-offs and alternate views) (see Chapter 2, Table 2.3). One concern consistently brought up by participants across all four treatments was the perception that the mother cow-calf relationship was indeed inherently important, and that early separation compromised a minimum standard of care owed to cows and calves. This, along with the high correlation between participantsâ attitude and their perception of animal welfare, in addition to the high internal consistency participantsâ displayed in their responses both between individual aspects of animal welfare and across cows and calves, suggests that participants often approached the issue of cow-calf separation holistically. This is to say that many participants did not appear to break down and differentiate cow-calf separation into component issues predominately affecting or concerning only cows or only calves or one component of their welfare. This more holistic framing of the issue of cow-calf management regarding separation and its effects on animal welfare is consistent with a previous study on Dutch consumersâ attitudes towards the management of pigs and fish and the development of welfare-friendly husbandry systems (Frewer et al., 2005). These authors found that consumers were concerned about husbandry systems affecting animal welfare in a broad sense but were unlikely to consider system details and their individual effects on the separate components of animal welfare when making decisions about the acceptability of such systems. Similarly, in their systematic review of studies looking at willingness to pay for animal welfare, Clark et al. (2017) discuss how consumers appear to express concern about all aspects of animal welfare; and thus, a holistic approach to addressing animal welfare needs to be considered to target consumer concerns. 56 Given this more holistic framing of the issue, it is not surprising that any system that involved early separation of the original cow-calf pair was perceived negatively, regardless of details regarding how calves were housed and fed thereafter. It appears that in situations where the mother-offspring bond is severed many participants perceived this practice as inherently and holistically unacceptable and in breach of standard of care owed to cows and calves. These results suggest that there may be little room for compromise on this issue, for example, through the provisioning of alternate social contact for separated calves. In contrast, Ventura et al. (2013) reported that some of their participants (many of whom reported being more familiar with or involved with the dairy industry than participants in our study) suggested that some of their concerns surrounding early separation would be alleviated by practices thought to improve calf care and welfare, such as group housing. Similarly, in their review of social science research addressing contentious animal welfare issues, Weary et al. (2016) wondered if âopposition to conventional methods of calf rearing may wane if the dairy industry is able to adopt and maintain consistently high standards of calf care.â The differences in responses between our study and past work may relate to differences in the participants sampled, or more generally may reflect a hardening of public attitudes on this issue. Further work, using demographically representative samples and with more participants from different stakeholder groups, will be necessary to make stronger inferences on this point. Ventura et al. (2013) and Weary et al. (2016), in addition to Bolton and von Keyserlingk (2021) in their article on the controversial issue of âsurplusâ dairy calves, also cautioned that it is important to perform continuing assessment of public concerns surrounding controversial management practices and potential alternatives to ensure that scientific efforts to find compromises between stakeholders actually address the key concerns of each stakeholder group. In the case of early cow-calf 57 separation, our results suggest that participants were largely unwilling to accept any compromises posed by alternative systems as long as these systems still involved early cow-calf separation. 3.2 Limitations This study has a number of limitations. First and foremost, the survey was performed with a convenience sample of participants; results cannot be considered representative of the views of the Canadian population. Results were also limited in the lack of diversity in socio-demographics represented and in a potential survey familiarity bias resulting from the hypothesized over-familiarity of many MTurk participants with survey research (see review by Woods et al., 2015). However, MTurk is considered a reliable and cost-effective approach to survey research (as reviewed by Woods et al., 2015), and is likely more reliable and diverse than common in-person survey methods such as traditional university participant pools (Behrend et al., 2011; Kees et al., 2017). Especially important for studies like ours that involve a qualitative element, MTurk participants have been found to be more attentive, reliable (e.g. in reading content, following instructions, and not multitasking), and provide longer qualitative answers than participants from online panel services (which can be used to target more diverse or representative demographics than MTurk; Kees et al., 2017). While content is more important than length of qualitative answers (Braun et al., 2020), length in addition to higher attention and reliability suggests that many MTurk participants provide higher quality qualitative data than many participants from other online panel services. Kees et al. (2017) also considered the MTurk 58 participants to be more attentive and reliable overall than in-person student participants, although there were no differences in length of qualitative answers provided. Unfortunately, MTurk biases participant selection towards people of certain demographics more inclined to use its platform, usually those of younger age, more liberal, and more educated (Paolacci and Chandler, 2014). More attention needs to be paid to the views of people of more diverse socio-demographic backgrounds and who may not use such platforms. Additionally, this survey was limited by only using Canadian participants; future work should consider the views of those from other jurisdictions. Other limitations stem from restrictions in survey length and complexity, including in part the amount of background information given on the management systems. Shorter surveys are known to increase response rates, with surveys under 15 minutes being more appealing to participants (Saleh and Bista, 2017). When reflecting on best practices for qualitative surveys, Braun et al. (2020) suggested that participant fatigue can lead to more incomplete responses in surveys that are too long. These length considerations were made in addition to attention checks (including an institutional manipulation check adapted from Oppenheimer et al. (2009); see section 2.2.2) to help check that data included for analysis were from participants who read and paid attention to both the descriptions and questions. Ensuring participant attention and willingness to read and respond to a survey is a common concern (e.g. Huang et al., 2015; see review by Woods et al., 2015). Thus, our survey should be seen as a compromise between our desire to know more about the participantsâ views, and the need to provide a streamlined and efficient survey that generated high quality responses. Future work could include other methodologies, including interviews and focus groups (e.g. Clark and Ivankova, 2017), to better understand participant views on this topic. 59 3.3 Conclusions and future directions Different stakeholders, including producers, the public, and the cows and calves may have conflicting perspectives on the issue of early cow-calf separation. Results of the current study indicate that any cow-calf management system that involves early separation of the calf from the mother cow is unlikely to be perceived as acceptable by Canadian citizens. Most interesting was that cow-calf management options that included early separation but not individual housing of the calf (instead, involving group housing with other calves or in a foster cow system) also failed to be perceived as any more acceptable by participants. Of key concern to many participants was the perception of the inherent importance of the mother cow-calf relationship, and that early separation was a breach of standard of care. Previous work on perceptions of cow-calf separation has reported that despite variable attitudes, participants often cite similar concerns (e.g. distress response, animal health) even if they disagreed over the available evidence and hence arrived at different conclusions (Ventura et al., 2013). Similarly, participants in the current study with different attitudes towards the management systems often cited similar underlying concerns. More research is needed on both the overall efficacy of, and on aspects of, different types of cow-calf management systems, beyond the direct effects of issues of the amount and type of cow-calf contact allowed. For example, systems that allow extended cow-calf contact (i.e. through the use of foster cows or when cow-calf pairs are kept together) must still address distress responses to weaning and eventual separation (see review on weaning distress by Weary et al., 2008). 60 Ideally, research on stakeholder attitudes should occur in parallel with further natural science research on practices thought to improve cow-calf care, with the results informing the discussion, and the discussion identifying approaches more likely to resonate with public values. It is also important to disentangle aspects of participant attitudes towards animal welfare issues, following the example of Frewer et al., 2005 (regarding pig and fish management). More research is needed on public perceptions of animal welfare as both a concept and in practice to better understand peopleâs approaches to evaluating management systems. This is essential given the importance of understanding and addressing the underlying values of all stakeholders to the development and actual implementation of more welfare-friendly practices (e.g. Weary et al., 2016; Weary and von Keyserlingk, 2017). This thesis explored Canadian participantsâ attitudes towards, and perceptions of animal welfare within, a controversial cow-calf management system and three alternatives. Future studies should expand on this by examining attitudes and perceptions of a more diverse sample, including participants from other countries and those with more industry involvement, including veterinarians and farmers. 61 References Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 2000. Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation: Reasoned and automatic processes. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 11:1â33. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779943000116. Alonso, M.E., J.R. González-Montaña, and J.M. Lomillos. 2020. Consumersâ concerns and perceptions of farm animal welfare. Animals 10:385. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030385. Asheim, L.J., J.F. Johnsen, Ã. Havrevoll, C.M. Mejdell, and A.M. Grøndahl. 2016. The economic effects of suckling and milk feeding to calves in dual purpose dairy and beef farming. Rev. Agric. Food Environ. Stud. 97:225â236. https://doi:10.1007/s41130-016-0023-4. Baker, S.L., C.I. Robison, D.M. Karcher, M.J. Toscano, and M.M. Makagon. 2020. Keel impacts and associated behaviors in laying hens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 222:104886. https://doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2019.104886. Ballou, M.A. 2012. Immune responses of Holstein and Jersey calves during the preweaning and immediate postweaned periods when fed varying planes of milk replacer. J. Dairy Sci. 95:7319â7330. https://doi:10.3168/jds.2012-5970. Balzani, A., and A. Hanlon. 2020. Factors that influence farmersâ views on farm animal welfare: A semi-systematic review and thematic analysis. Animals 10:1524. https://doi:10.3390/ani10091524. Barnett, J.L., P.H. Hemsworth, G.M. Cronin, E.C. Jongman, and G.D. Hutson. 2001. A review of the welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 52:1â28. https://doi:10.1071/AR00057. Bartholomew, D.J., M. Knott, and I. Moustaki. 2011. Latent Variable Models and Factor Analysis: A Unified Approach. 3rd ed. Jon Wiley & Sons, London, UK Beardsworth, A., A. Bryman, T. Keil, J. Goode, C. Haslam, and E. Lancashire. 2002. Women, men and food: The significance of gender for nutritional attitudes and choices. Br. Food J. 104:470â491. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700210418767. Beauchamp, T.L., F.B. Orlans, R. Dresser, D.B. Morton, and J.P. Gluck. 2008. Moral Issues about Animals. Pages 3-44 in The Human Use of Animals: case studies in ethical choice. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, Inc., New York. Beaver, A., C. Ritter, and M.A.G. von Keyserlingk. 2019a. The dairy cattle housing dilemma: Natural behavior versus animal care. Vet. Clin. North Am. - Food Anim. Pract. 35:11â27. https://doi:10.1016/j.cvfa.2018.11.001. 62 Beaver, A., R.K. Meagher, M.A.G. von Keyserlingk, and D.M. Weary. 2019b. Invited review: A systematic review of the effects of early separation on dairy cow and calf health. J. Dairy Sci. 102:5784â5810. https://doi:10.3168/JDS.2018-15603. Behrend, T.S., D.J. Sharek, A.W. Meade, and E.N. Wiebe. 2011. The viability of crowdsourcing for survey research. Behav. Res. Methods 43:800â813. https://doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0081-0. Benard, M., and T. de Cock Buning. 2013. Exploring the potential of Dutch pig farmers and urban-citizens to learn through frame reflection. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 26:1015â1036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9438-y. Berger, R. 2015. Now I see it, now I donât: researcherâs position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qual. Res. 15:219â234. https://doi:10.1177/1468794112468475. Bolton, S.E., and M.A.G. von Keyserlingk. 2021. The dispensable âsurplusâ dairy calf: Is this issue a âwicked problemâ and where do we go from here? Front. Vet. Sci. 8:660934. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.660934. Boogaard, B.K., B.B. Bock, S.J. Oosting, and E. Krogh. 2010. Visiting a farm: An exploratory study of the social construction of animal farming in Norway and the Netherlands based on sensory perception. Int. J. Sociol. Agric. Food 17:24â50. https://doi.org/10.48416/ijsaf.v17i1.266. Boogaard, B.K., B.B. Bock, S.J. Oosting, J.S.C. Wiskerke, and A.J. van der Zijpp. 2011. Social acceptance of dairy farming: The ambivalence between the two faces of modernity. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 24:259â282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9256-4. Boogaard, B.K., S.J. Oosting, and B.B. Bock. 2006. Elements of societal perception of farm animal welfare: A quantitative study in the Netherlands. Livest. Sci. 104:13â22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.02.010. Boogaard, B.K., S.J. Oosting, and B.B. Bock. 2008. Defining sustainability as a socio-cultural concept: Citizen panels visiting dairy farms in the Netherlands. Livest. Sci. 117:24â33. https://doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2007.11.004. Brannen, J. 2005. Mixing methods: the entry of qualitative and quantitative approaches into the research process. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 8:173â184. https://doi:10.1080/13645570500154642. Braun, V., V. Clarke, E. Boulton, L. Davey, and C. McEvoy. 2020. The online survey as a qualitative research tool. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 1â14. https://doi:10.1080/13645579.2020.1805550. 63 Broom, D.M. 2011. A history of animal welfare science. Acta Biotheor. 59:121â137. https://doi:10.1007/s10441-011-9123-3. Buchli, C., A. Raselli, R. Bruckmaier, and E. Hillmann. 2017. Contact with cows during the young age increases social competence and lowers the cardiac stress reaction in dairy calves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 187:1â7. https://doi:10.1016/J.APPLANIM.2016.12.002. Buller, H., H. Blokhuis, P. Jensen, and L. Keeling. 2018. Towards farm animal welfare and sustainability. Animals 8:81. https://doi:10.3390/ani8060081. Busch, G., D.M. Weary, A. Spiller, and M.A.G. von Keyserlingk. 2017. American and German attitudes towards cow-calf separation on dairy farms. PLoS One 12: e0174013. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174013. Belluz, M. 2018. Lâélevage des veaux laitiers par des vaches adultes, une technique innovante en élevage biologique. MS thesis. VetAgro-Sup, Campus Agronomique de Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France. Cantor, M.C., H.W. Neave, and J.H.C. Costa. 2019. Current perspectives on the short- and long-term effects of conventional dairy calf raising systems: A comparison with the natural environment. Transl. Anim. Sci. 3:549â563. https://doi.org/10.1093/TAS/TXY144. Cardoso, C.S., M.J. Hötzel, D.M. Weary, J.A. Robbins, and M.A.G. von Keyserlingk. 2016. Imagining the ideal dairy farm. J. Dairy Sci. 99:1663â1671. https://doi.org/10.3168/JDS.2015-9925. Cardoso, C.S., M.A.G. von Keyserlingk, M.J. Hötzel, J. Robbins, and D.M. Weary. 2018. Hot and bothered: Public attitudes towards heat stress and outdoor access for dairy cows. PLoS One 13:e0205352. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205352. Carfas, L., and R. Vaccaro. 1984. Rearing Holstein Friesian and Brown Swiss calves on nurse cows. Trop. Anim. Prod. 9:257â263. Chua, B., E. Coenen, J. van Delen, and D.M. Weary. 2002. Effects of pair versus individual housing on the behavior and performance of dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 85:360â364. https://doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(02)74082-4. Clark, B., G.B. Stewart, L.A. Panzone, I. Kyriazakis, and L.J. Frewer. 2016. A systematic review of public attitudes, perceptions and behaviours towards production diseases associated with farm animal welfare. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 29:455â478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-016-9615-x. Clark, B., G.B. Stewart, L.A. Panzone, I. Kyriazakis, and L.J. Frewer. 2017. Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies. Food Policy 68:112â127. https://doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.01.006. 64 Clark, V.L.P., and N. V. Ivankova. 2017. How to use Mixed Methods Research?: Understanding the Basic Mixed Methods Designs. Pages 105-134 in Mixed Methods Research: A Guide to the Field. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483398341. Codron, J., K. Grunert, E. Giraud-Heraud, L. Soler, and A. Regmi. 2005. Retail sector responses to changing consumer preferences: The European experience. Pages 32-46 in New Directions in Global Food Markets. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 794. Economic Research Service, USDA. Accessed May 18, 2021. https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=42591. Costa, J.H.C., M.A.G. von Keyserlingk, and D.M. Weary. 2016. Invited review: Effects of group housing of dairy calves on behavior, cognition, performance, and health. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2453â2467. https://doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10144. van Dijk, L., A. Hayton, D.C.J. Main, A. Booth, A. King, D.C. Barrett, H.J. Buller, and K.K. Reyher. 2016. Participatory policy making by dairy producers to reduce anti-microbial use on farms. Zoonoses Public Health 64:476â484. https://doi.org/10.1111/zph.12329. Duijvesteijn, N., M. Benard, I. Reimert, I. Camerlink. 2014. Same pig, different conclusions: Stakeholders differ in qualitative behaviour assessment. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 27:1019â1047. https://doi:10.1007/s10806-014-9513-z. Ellis, J.L. 2016. Factor analysis and item analysis. Part VII Pages 3-151 in Applying Statistics in Behavioural Research. 1st ed. Boom, Amsterdam, NL. Ellis, K.A., K. Billington, B. McNeil, and D.E.F. McKeegan. 2009. Public opinion on UK milk marketing and dairy cow welfare. Anim. Welf. 18:267â282. Engster, D. 2006. Care ethics and animal welfare. J. Soc. Philos. 37:521â536. https://doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2006.00355.x. Faucitano, L., G. Martelli, E. Nannoni, and T. Widowski. 2017. Fundamentals of Animal Welfare in Meat Animals and Consumer Attitudes to Animal Welfare. Pages 537-568 in New Aspects of Meat Quality: From Genes to Ethics. P.P. Purslow, ed. Elsevier Ltd., Duxford, UK. Flower, F.C., and D.M. Weary. 2001. Effects of early separation on the dairy cow and calf: 2. Separation at 1 day and 2 weeks after birth. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 70:275â284. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00164-7. Flower, F.C., and D.M. Weary. 2003. The effects of early separation on the dairy cow and calf. Anim. Welf. 12:339â348. 65 Fraser, D. 1999. Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 65:171â189. Fraser, D., and A.M. MacRae. 2011. Four types of activities that affect animals: implications for animal welfare science and animal ethics philosophy. Anim. Welf. 20:581â590. Fraser, D., D.M. Weary, E.A. Pajor, and B.N. Milligan. 1997. A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Anim. Welf. 6:187â205. Frewer, L.J., A. Kole, S.M. van de Kroon, and C. de Lauwere. 2005. Consumer attitudes towards the development of animal-friendly husbandry systems. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 18:345â367. https://doi:10.1007/s10806-005-1489-2. Friborg, O., M. Martinussen, and J.H. Rosenvinge. 2006. Likert-based vs. semantic differential-based scorings of positive psychological constructs: A psychometric comparison of two versions of a scale measuring resilience. Pers. Individ. Dif. 40:873â884. https://doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.08.015. Fröberg, S., A. Aspegren-Güldorff, I. Olsson, B. Marin, C. Berg, C. Hernández, C.S. Galina, L. Lidfors, and K. Svennersten-Sjaunja. 2007. Effect of restricted suckling on milk yield, milk composition and udder health in cows and behaviour and weight gain in calves, in dual-purpose cattle in the tropics. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 39:71â81. https://doi:10.1007/s11250-006-4418-0. Fröberg, S., L. Lidfors, K. Svennersten-Sjaunja, and I. Olsson. 2011. Performance of free suckling dairy calves in an automatic milking system and their behaviour at weaning. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A - Anim. Sci. 61:145â156. https://doi:10.1080/09064702.2011.632433. Gomez-Corona, C., H.B. Escalona-Buendia, M. Garcia, S. Chollet, and D. Valentin. 2016. Craft vs. industrial: Habits, attitudes and motivations towards beer consumption in Mexico. Appetite 96:358â367. https://doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.10.002. González-Sedano, M., B. Marın-Mejıa, M.I. Maranto, A.C. Leme de Magalhães-Labarthe, and M.A. Alonso-Dıaz. 2010. Effect of residual calf suckling on clinical and sub-clinical infections of mastitis in dual-purpose cows: Epidemiological measurements. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:362â366. https://doi:10.1016/J.RVSC.2010.04.002. de Graaf, S., E.J. Van Loo, J. Bijttebier, F. Vanhonacker, L. Lauwers, F.A.M. Tuyttens, and W. Verbeke. 2016. Determinants of consumer intention to purchase animal-friendly milk. J. Dairy Sci. 99:8304â8313. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-10886. Grunert, K.G., W.I. Sonntag, V. Glanz-Chanos, and S. Forum. 2018. Consumer interest in environmental impact, safety, health and animal welfare aspects of modern pig 66 production: Results of a cross-national choice experiment. Meat Sci. 137:123â129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.11.022. Guest, G., K.M. MacQueen, and E.E. Namey. 2014. Applied Thematic Analysis. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483384436. Haverstock, K., and D.K. Forgays. 2012. To eat or not to eat. A comparison of current and former animal product limiters. Appetite 58:1030â1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.02.048. Hemsworth, P.H., D.J. Mellor, G.M. Cronin, and A.J. Tilbrook. 2015. Scientific assessment of animal welfare. N. Z. Vet. J. 63:24â30. https://doi:10.1080/00480169.2014.966167. Heng, Y., H.H. Peterson, and X. Li. 2013. Consumer attitudes toward farm-animal welfare: The case of laying hens. J. Agr. Resour. Econ. 38:418â434. Holm, L., M.B. Jensen, and L.L. Jeppesen. 2002. Calvesâ motivation for access to two different types of social contact measured by operant conditioning. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 79:175â194. https://doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00137-5. Hötzel, M.J., C.S. Cardoso, A. Roslindo, and M.A.G. von Keyserlingk. 2017. Citizensâ views on the practices of zero-grazing and cow-calf separation in the dairy industry: Does providing information increase acceptability? J. Dairy Sci. 100:4150â4160. https://doi.org/10.3168/JDS.2016-11933. Hötzel, M.J., C. Longo, L.F. Balcão, C.S. Cardoso, and J.H.C. Costa. 2014. A survey of management practices that influence performance and welfare of dairy calves reared in Southern Brazil. PLoS One 9:e114995. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114995. Huang, J.L., M. Liu, and N.A. Bowling. 2015. Insufficient effort responding: Examining an insidious confound in survey data. J. Appl. Psychol. 100:828â845. https://doi:10.1037/a0038510. Hudson, S.J. 1977. Multiple fostering of calves onto nurse cows at birth. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 3:57â63. https://doi:10.1016/0304-3762(77)90071-2. Johnsen, J.F., K.A. Zipp, T. Kälber, A.M. de Passillé, U. Knierim, K. Barth, and C.M. Mejdell. 2016. Is rearing calves with the dam a feasible option for dairy farms?âCurrent and future research. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 181:1â11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.11.011. Johnson, R.B., and A.J. Onwuegbuzie. 2004. Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educ. Res. 33:14â26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014. 67 Kälber, T., and K. Barth. 2014. Practical implications of suckling systems for dairy calves in organic production systems â a review. Landbauforschung 64:45â58. https://doi.org/ 10.3220/LBF_2014_45-58. Karlen, G.A.M., P.H. Hemsworth, H.W. Gonyou, E. Fabrega, A. David Strom, and R.J. Smits. 2007. The welfare of gestating sows in conventional stalls and large groups on deep litter. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 105:87â101. https://doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.014. Kees, J., C. Berry, S. Burton, and K. Sheehan. 2017. An analysis of data quality: Professional panels, student subject pools, and Amazonâs Mechanical Turk. J. Advertising 46:141â155. https://doi:10.1080/00913367.2016.1269304. Kent, J.P. 2020. The cow-calf relationship: From maternal responsiveness to the maternal bond and the possibilities for fostering. J. Dairy Res. 87:101â107. https://doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0022029920000436. von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., and D.M. Weary. 2007. Maternal behavior in cattle. Horm. Behav. 52:106â113. https://doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2007.03.015. Kiecolt-Glaser, J.K., and R. Glaser. 2002. Depression and immune function central pathways to morbidity and mortality. J. Psychosom. Res. 53:873â876. Krohn, C.C., J. Foldager, and L. Mogensen. 1999. Long-term effect of colostrum feeding methods on behaviour in female dairy calves. Acta Agric. Scand. A Anim. Sci. 49:57â64. https://doi.org/10.1080/090647099421540. Krystallis, A., M.D. de Barcellos, J.O. Kügler, W. Verbeke, and K.G. Grunert. 2009. Attitudes of European citizens towards pig production systems. Livest. Sci. 126:46â56. https://doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2009.05.016. Landis, J.R., and G.G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159â174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310. Lassen, J., P. Sandøe, and B. Forkman. 2006. Happy pigs are dirty! - conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livest. Sci. 103:221â230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.008. Latham, N.R., and G.J. Mason. 2008. Maternal deprivation and the development of stereotypic behaviour. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 110:84â108. https://doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2007.03.026. Loberg, J., and L. Lidfors. 2001. Effect of stage of lactation and breed on dairy cowsâ acceptance of foster calves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 74:97â108. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00157-5. 68 Loberg, J.M., C.E. Hernandez, T. Thierfelder, M.B. Jensen, C. Berg, and L. Lidfors. 2007. Reaction of foster cows to prevention of suckling from and separation from four calves simultaneously or in two steps. J. Anim. Sci. 85:1522â1529. https://doi:10.2527/jas.2006-813. Loberg, J.M., C.E. Hernandez, T. Thierfelder, M.B. Jensen, C. Berg, and L. Lidfors. 2008. Weaning and separation in two steps-A way to decrease stress in dairy calves suckled by foster cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 111:222â234. https://doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2007.06.011. Lund, T.B., S.V. Kondrup, and P. Sandøe. 2019. A multidimensional measure of animal ethics orientation â Developed and applied to a representative sample of the Danish public. PLoS One 14:e0211656. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211656. Lutz, J. 2016. The validity of crowdsourcing data in studying anger and aggressive behavior: A comparison of online and laboratory data. Soc. Psychol. (Gott). 47:38â51. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000256. Margerison, J.K., T.R. Preston, and C.J.C. Phillips. 2002. Restricted suckling of tropical dairy cows by their own calf or other cowsâ calves. J. Anim. Sci. 80:1663â1670. https://doi:10.2527/2002.8061663x. Markova-Nenova, N., and F. Wätzold. 2018. Fair to the cow or fair to the farmer? The preferences of conventional milk buyers for ethical attributes of milk. Land Use Policy 79:223â239. https://doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.07.045. McGuirk, S.M. 2008. Disease management of dairy calves and heifers. Vet. Clin. N. Am-Food A. 24:139â153. https://doi:10.1016/j.cvfa.2007.10.003. Mckendree, M.G.S., C.C. Croney, and N.J.O. Widmar. 2014. Effects of demographic factors and information sources on United States consumer perceptions of animal welfare. J. Anim. Sci. 92:3161-3173. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2014-6874. McKendree, M.G.S., N.J. Olynk, and D.L. Ortega. 2012. Consumer preferences and perceptions on food safety, production practices and food product labeling: A spotlight on dairy product purchasing behavior in 2011. CAB RP 12.1. Center for Food and Agricultural Business, Purdue University. Accessed Feb. 10, 2021. https://agribusiness.purdue.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/r-1-2012-mckendree-olynk-ortega.pdf. Mdegela, R.H., L.J.M. Kusiluka, A.M. Kapaga, E.D. Karimuribo, F.M. Turuka, A. Bundala, F. Kivaria, B. Kabula, A. Manjurano, T. Loken, and D.M. Kambarage. 2004. Prevalence and determinants of mastitis and milk-borne zoonoses in smallholder dairy farming sector in Kibaha and Morogoro districts in Eastern Tanzania. J. Vet. Med. B Infect. Dis. Vet. Public Health 51:123â128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0450.2004.00735.x. 69 Meagher, R.K., A. Beaver, D.M. Weary, and M.A.G. von Keyserlingk. 2019. Invited review: A systematic review of the effects of prolonged cow-calf contact on behavior, welfare, and productivity. J. Dairy Sci. 102:5765â5783. https://doi:10.3168/jds.2018-16021. Mellor, D.J., and J.R. Webster. 2014. Development of animal welfare understanding drives change in minimum welfare standards. OIE Rev. Sci. Tech. 33:121â130. https://doi:10.20506/rst.33.1.2258. Miles, M.B., A.M. Huberman, and J. Saldaña. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 3rd ed. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA. Miranda-de la Lama, G.C., L.X. Estévez-Moreno, W.S. Sepúlveda, M.C. Estrada-Chavero, A.A. Rayas-Amor, M. Villarroel, and G.A. María. 2017. Mexican consumersâ perceptions and attitudes towards farm animal welfare and willingness to pay for welfare friendly meat products. Meat Sci. 125:106â113. https://doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.12.001. Mota-Rojas, D., A. Orihuela, A. Strappini-Asteggiano, M. Nelly Cajiao-Pachón, E. Agüera-Buendía, P. Mora-Medina, M. Ghezzi, and M. Alonso-Spilsbury. 2018. Teaching animal welfare in veterinary schools in Latin America. Int. J. Vet. Sci. Med. 6:131â140. https://doi:10.1016/j.ijvsm.2018.07.003. Munro, L. 2012. The animal rights movement in theory and practice: A review of the sociological literature. Sociol. Compass 6:166â181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00440.x. Napolitano, F., C. Pacelli, A. Girolami, and A. Braghieri. 2008. Effect of information about animal welfare on consumer willingness to pay for yogurt. J. Dairy Sci. 91:910â917. https://doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0709. Newberry, R.C., and J.C. Swanson. 2008. Implications of breaking motherâyoung social bonds. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 110:3â23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.03.021. Nijland, H.J., N. Aarts, and C.M.J. van Woerkum. 2018. Exploring the framing of animal farming and meat consumption: On the diversity of topics used and qualitative patterns in selected demographic contexts. Animals 8:17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8020017. Onwuegbuzie, A.J., and J.P. Combs. 2015. Emergent data analysis techniques in mixed methods research: A synthesis. Pages 1-46 in SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. Tashakkori, A., and C. Teddlie, ed. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193.n17. Oppenheimer, D.M., T. Meyvis, and N. Davidenko. 2009. Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 45:867â872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009. 70 Paolacci, G., and J. Chandler. 2014. Inside the Turk: understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 23:184â188. https://doi:10.1177/0963721414531598. De Paula Vieira, A., M.A.G. von Keyserlingk, and D.M. Weary. 2012. Presence of an older weaned companion influences feeding behavior and improves performance of dairy calves before and after weaning from milk. J. Dairy Sci. 95:3218â3224. https://doi:10.3168/jds.2011-4821. Pempek, J.A., G.M. Schuenemann, E. Holder, and G.G. Habing. 2017. Dairy calf managementâA comparison of practices and producer attitudes among conventional and organic herds. J. Dairy Sci. 100:8310â8321. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-12565. Percy, W.H., K. Kostere, and S. Kostere. 2015. Generic qualitative research in psychology. Qual. Rep. 20:76â85. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2097. Pereira, P.C. 2014. Milk nutritional composition and its role in human health. Nutrition 30:619â627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2013.10.011. Pérez-Torres, L., A. Orihuela, M. Corro, I. Rubio, M.A. Alonso, and C.S. Galina. 2016. Effects of separation time on behavioral and physiological characteristics of Brahman cows and their calves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 179:17â22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.03.010. Perttu, R.K., B.A. Ventura, and M.I. Endres. 2020. Youth and adult public views of dairy calf housing options. J. Dairy Sci. 103:8507â8517. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-17727. Placzek, M., I. Christoph-Schulz, and K. Barth. 2020. Public attitude towards cow-calf separation and other common practices of calf rearing in dairy farmingâa review. Org. Agric. 11:41-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-020-00321-3. Provenza, F.D., and D.F. Balph. 1987. Diet learning by domestic ruminants: Theory, evidence and practical implications. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 18:211â232. https://doi:10.1016/0168-1591(87)90218-8. Rosenberger, K., J.H.C. Costa, H.W. Neave, M.A.G. von Keyserlingk, and D.M. Weary. 2017. The effect of milk allowance on behavior and weight gains in dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 100:504â512. https://doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11195. Roth, B.A., K. Barth, L. Gygax, and E. Hillmann. 2009. Influence of artificial vs. mother-bonded rearing on sucking behaviour, health and weight gain in calves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 119:143â150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.03.004. 71 Ruby, M.B. 2012. Vegetarianism. A blossoming field of study. Appetite 58:141â150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.019. Rushen, J., A. Butterworth, and J.C. Swanson. 2011. Animal behavior and well-being symposium: Farm animal welfare assurance: Science and application. J. Anim. Sci. 89:1219â1228. https://doi:10.2527/jas.2010-3589. Ryan, E.B., D. Fraser, and D.M. Weary. 2015. Public attitudes to housing systems for pregnant pigs. PLoS One 10: e0141878. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141878. Saleh, A., and K. Bista. 2017. Examining factors impacting online survey response rates in educational research: Perceptions of graduate students. J. Multidiscip. Res. 13:63-74. Sandoval-Castro, C.A., S. Anderson, and J.D. Leaver. 1999. Influence of milking and restricted suckling regimes on milk production and calf growth in temperate and tropical environments. Anim. Sci. 69:287â296. https://doi:10.1017/S1357729800050852. Sato, P., M. Hötzel, and M.A.G. von Keyserlingk. 2017. American citizensâ views of an ideal pig farm. Animals 7:64. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7080064. Savory, C.J. 2004. Laying hen welfare standards: A classic case of âpower to the peopleâ. Anim. Welf. 13:153â158. Schuck-Paim, C., E. Negro-Calduch, and W.J. Alonso. 2021. Laying hen mortality in different indoor housing systems: a meta-analysis of data from commercial farms in 16 countries. Sci. Rep. 11:3052. https://doi:10.1038/s41598-021-81868-3. Slocum-Gori, S.L., and B.D. Zumbo. 2011. Assessing the unidimensionality of psychological scales: Using multiple criteria from factor analysis. Soc. Indic. Res. 102:443â461. https://doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9682-8. Spooner, J.M., C.A. Schuppli, and D. Fraser. 2014a. Attitudes of Canadian citizens toward farm animal welfare: A qualitative study. Livest. Sci. 163:150â158. https://doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2014.02.011. Spooner, J.M., C.A. Schuppli, and D. Fraser. 2014b. Attitudes of Canadian pig producers toward animal welfare. J. Agric. Environ. Ethic. 27:569â589. https://doi:10.1007/s10806-013-9477-4. Statistics Canada. 2011. Canada's rural population since 1851, Census in Brief, Catalogue no. 98-310-X2011003. Accessed Jan. 12, 2021. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-310-x/98-310-x2011003_2-eng.cfm. 72 Statistics Canada. 2017. Census Profile, 2016 Census, Catalogue no. 98-316-X2016001. Accessed Jan. 12, 2021. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E. StÄhulová, I., L. Lidfors, and M. Å pinka. 2008. Response of dairy cows and calves to early separation: Effect of calf age and visual and auditory contact after separation. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 110:144â165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.03.028. StÄhulová, I., B. ValníÄková, R. Å árová, and M. Å pinka. 2017. Weaning reactions in beef cattle are adaptively adjusted to the state of the cow and the calf. J. Anim. Sci. 95:1023â1029. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2016.1207. Stein, M., A.H. Miller, and R.L. Trestman. 1991. Depression, the immune system, and health and illness: Findings in search of meaning. Arch. Gen. Psychiat. 48:171â177. https://doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1991.01810260079012. Sundrum, A. 2015. Metabolic disorders in the transition period indicate that the dairy cowsâ ability to adapt is overstressed. Animals 5:978â1020. https://doi:10.3390/ani5040395. Swanson, J.C., Y. Lee, P.B. Thompson, R. Bawden, and J.A. Mench. 2011. Integration: Valuing stakeholder input in setting priorities for socially sustainable egg production 1. Poult. Sci. 90:2110â2121. doi:10.3382/ps.2011-01340. Tarazona, A.M., M.C. Ceballos, and D.M. Broom. 2019. Human relationships with domestic and other animals: One health, one welfare, one biology. Animals 10:43. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10010043. USDA. 2016. Dairy 2014âDairy cattle management practices in the United States, 2014. Accessed Sept. 16, 2019. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/dairy/downloads/dairy14/Dairy14_dr_PartI_1.pdf. Vaarst, M., M.B. Jensen, and A.M. Sandager. 2001. Behaviour of calves at introduction to nurse cows after the colostrum period. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 73:27â33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00120-4. Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, E. Van Poucke, and F.A.M. Tuyttens. 2008. Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livest. Sci. 116:126â136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.017. Vaske, J.J. 2008. Linking theory and concepts to survey research. Pages 17-34 in Survey Research and Analysis: Applications in Parks, Recreation and Human Dimensions. Venture Publishing, Inc., State College, PA. 73 Vasseur, E., F. Borderas, R.I. Cue, D. Lefebvre, D. Pellerin, J. Rushen, K.M. Wade, and A.M. de Passillé. 2010. A survey of dairy calf management practices in Canada that affect animal welfare. J. Dairy Sci. 93:1307â1316. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2429. Te Velde, H., N. Aarts, and C. Van Woerkum. 2002. Dealing with ambivalence: Farmers and consumersâ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 15:203â219. https://doi:10.1023/A:1015012403331. Ventura, B.A., M.A.G. von Keyserlingk, C.A. Schuppli, and D.M. Weary. 2013. Views on contentious practices in dairy farming: The case of early cow-calf separation. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6105â6116. https://doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6040. Ventura, B.A., M.A.G. von Keyserlingk, H. Wittman, and D.M. Weary. 2016. What difference does a visit make? Changes in animal welfare perceptions after interested citizens tour a dairy farm. PLoS One 11: e0154733. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154733. Verbeke, W. 2009. Stakeholder, citizen and consumer interests in farm animal welfare. Anim. Welf. 18:325â333. Vermeir, I., and W. Verbeke. 2006. Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer âattitude - behavioral intentionâ gap. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 19:169â194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3. Wagner, K., K. Barth, R. Palme, A. Futschik, and S. Waiblinger. 2012. Integration into the dairy cow herd: Long-term effects of mother contact during the first twelve weeks of life. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 141:117â129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.08.011. Walker, S., S. Read, and H. Priest. 2013. Use of reflexivity in a mixed-methods study. Nurse Res. 20:38â43. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2013.01.20.3.38.c9496. Weary, D.M., and J. Robbins. 2019. Understanding the multiple conceptions of animal welfare. Anim. Welf. 28:33â40. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.28.1.033. Weary, D.M., and B. Chua. 2000. Effects of early separation on the dairy cow and calf: 1. Separation at 6 h, 1 day and 4 days after birth. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 69:177â188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00128-3. Weary, D.M., J. Jasper, and M.J. Hötzel. 2008. Understanding weaning distress. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 110:24â41. https://doi:10.1016/J.APPLANIM.2007.03.025. Weary, D.M., and M.A.G. von Keyserlingk. 2017. Public concerns about dairy-cow welfare: how should the industry respond? Anim. Prod. Sci. 57:1201. https://doi:10.1071/AN16680. 74 Weary, D.M., B.A. Ventura, and M.A.G. von Keyserlingk. 2016. Societal views and animal welfare science: Understanding why the modified cage may fail and other stories. Animal 10:309â317. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731115001160. Wenker, M.L., E.A.M. Bokkers, B. Lecorps, M.A.G. von Keyserlingk, C.G. van Reenen, C.M. Verwer, and D.M. Weary. 2020. Effect of cow-calf contact on cow motivation to reunite with their calf. Sci. Rep. 10:14233. https://doi:10.1038/s41598-020-70927-w. Widmar, N.O., C.J. Morgan, C.A. Wolf, E.A. Yeager, S.R. Dominick, and C.C. Croney. 2017. US resident perceptions of dairy cattle management practices. Agric. Sci. 8:645â656. http://doi.org/10.4236/as.2017.87049. Winder, C.B., C.A. Bauman, T.F. Duffield, H.W. Barkema, G.P. Keefe, J. Dubuc, F. Uehlinger, and D.F. Kelton. 2018. Canadian National Dairy Study: Heifer calf management. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10565â10579. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-14680. Wolf, C.A., G.T. Tonsor, M.G.S. McKendree, D.U. Thomson, and J.C. Swanson. 2016. Public and farmer perceptions of dairy cattle welfare in the United States. J. Dairy Sci. 99:5892â5903. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10619. Woods, A.T., C. Velasco, C.A. Levitan, X. Wan, and C. Spence. 2015. Conducting perception research over the internet: A tutorial review. PeerJ 3:e1058. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1058. Yeates, J.W., and D.C.J. Main. 2008. Assessment of positive welfare: A review. Vet. J. 175:293â300. https://doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.05.009. Yunes, M.C., M.A.G.V. Keyserlingk, and M.J. Hötzel. 2018. Restricting the ability of sows to move: A source of concern for some Brazilians. Anim. Welf. 27:379â392. https://doi:10.7120/09627286.27.4.379. 75 Appendices Appendix A Online survey given to participants Survey âPerceptions of cow-calf managementâ1 Start of Consent form Section2 Study Title: Public perceptions of dairy cattle welfare in different cow-calf management systems Names and contact information of researchers Funding This research is funded by the Hans Sigrist Foundation. Recruitment Participation in this project is open to anyone 18 years of age or older. You were recruited to participate in this study using Amazonâs Mechanical Turk services (MTurk or Prime Panels). Study Procedures You will be asked to read a short description of a system for managing dairy cows and calves and then answer various questions about this system and the animals in it. This survey should take about 10 minutes or less to complete. This survey is being conducted as part of a graduate degree. This survey collects only answers to questions, not any personally identifying information. Data from this survey will be publicly available at the time of publishing, and as a result may be used in future research on the topic of perceptions of animal use and management. Risks There are no known risks in taking this survey. You may leave at any point during the survey. Data from your survey will not be collected. If you finish the study, data from your survey will be collected and made publicly available at the time of publishing, after which point you will not be able to withdraw your data. However, only answers to questions will be collected as data and made available. No data on your personal information or identity will be collected (i.e. all data collected will be de-identified). 1 Only text in black color font was visible to participants. Text in grey font explains survey organization and flow. 2 Solid lines indicate the beginning and end of a survey section. Each section was displayed on a new page. Dashed grey lines also indicate a new page display (within section groupings) in the online survey. 76 Confidentiality We will not collect any information that allows us to identify or contact you individually. The data you provide will be stored in a secure database for a minimum of 5 years and will be both password protected and encrypted. Data will only be accessible to the research team until it is made publicly available at the time of publication. This online survey is hosted by The Survey Tool, a cloud-based service provisioned by Qualtrics, a service provider contracted by UBC. If you choose to participate in the survey you understand that your responses will be stored in Toronto, Ontario and backed up in Montreal, Quebec. More information about the privacy and security of The Survey Tool can be found at: https://it.ubc.ca/services/teaching-learning-tools/survey-tool/qualtrics-faqs#privacy. The privacy and security policy of the survey service provider Qualtrics can be found at: http://www.qualtrics.com/privacy-statement/. If you have any concerns or complaints about your rights as a research participant and/or your experiences while participating in this study, contact the Research Participant Complaint Line in the UBC Office of Research Ethics at 604-822-8598 or if long distance e-mail RSIL@ors.ubc.ca or call toll free 1-877-822-8598. Consent I am at least 18 years of age and I understand my participation in this study is entirely voluntary and that I may choose to quit at any time. I understand that any information I provide will be anonymous and will only be stored and analyzed for the purposes of this research. Ethics ID#: H19-02016 o YES, I consent to participate in this study Start of Scenario Section 1 To produce milk, cows must give birth to a calf approximately once a year. We wish to hear your views regarding the methods used to manage (i.e. house and care for) cows and calves. Please read the following description of one specific dairy cow-calf management system3: 3 Participants were randomly assigned to one scenario each and only received the description for that scenario. 77 Separated and individually housed system scenario: Dairy cows must give birth to a calf in order to produce milk. Within a few hours after birth the calf is separated from the cow. The cow is then housed with other cows and milked by the farmer. The calf is individually housed by itself and is fed milk by the farmer. Separated and group housed system scenario: Dairy cows must give birth to a calf in order to produce milk. Within a few hours after birth the calf is separated from the cow. The cow is then housed with other cows and milked by the farmer. The calf is housed with other calves and is fed milk by the farmer. Separated and kept with foster cow system scenario: Dairy cows must give birth to a calf in order to produce milk. Within a few hours after birth the calf is separated from the cow. The cow is then housed with other cows and milked by the farmer. The calf is housed with other calves and with unrelated âfosterâ cows from which the calves are able to nurse. Not separated and group housed system scenario: Dairy cows must give birth to a calf in order to produce milk. Within a few hours after birth the calf is not separated from the cow. The cow and calf are housed together as a pair with other cow-calf pairs. The cow is milked by the farmer, but the calf is also able to nurse from its mother cow. Please answer the following questions4: 4 Question order in this section was randomized for all participants. 78 How much do you disagree/agree with the use of this system for managing cows and calves? o Strongly disagree (1) o Disagree (2) o Somewhat disagree (3) o Neither agree nor disagree (4) o Somewhat agree (5) o Agree (6) o Strongly agree (7) How inappropriate/appropriate do you consider this system for managing cows and calves? o Completely inappropriate (1) o Inappropriate (2) o Slightly inappropriate (3) o Neither inappropriate nor appropriate (4) o Slightly appropriate (5) o Appropriate (6) o Completely appropriate (7) 79 How unacceptable/acceptable do you consider this system for managing cows and calves? o Totally unacceptable (1) o Unacceptable (2) o Somewhat unacceptable (3) o Neither unacceptable nor acceptable (4) o Somewhat acceptable (5) o Acceptable (6) o Totally acceptable (7) Start of Scenario Section 2 Please explain your views about this cow-calf management system: ________________________________________________________________ 80 How relevant was the quality of life of the following animals in determining your views regarding this cow-calf management system? Not at all relevant (1) Not very relevant (2) Slightly relevant (3) Somewhat relevant (4) Very relevant (5) Extremely relevant (6) Cow's quality of life o o o o o o Calf's quality of life o o o o o o 5Foster cow's quality of life o o o o o o How would you describe the quality of life of the following animals in this cow-calf management system? Very bad (1) Moderately bad (2) Slightly bad (3) Neither bad nor good (4) Slightly good (5) Moderately good (6) Very good (7) Cow's quality of life o o o o o o o Calf's quality of life o o o o o o o Foster cow's quality of life o o o o o o o Start of Scenario Section 3 5 For all survey questions, this question option asking about foster cows was only given to participants in the Separated and kept with foster cow system scenario. 81 Please answer the following questions in relation to the dairy cow-calf management system previously described6: Assigned system scenario repeated How would you describe the standard of care provided to the following animals in this cow-calf management system? Very bad (1) Moderately bad (2) Slightly bad (3) Neither bad nor good (4) Slightly good (5) Moderately good (6) Very good (7) Standard of care provided to Cow o o o o o o o Standard of care provided to Calf o o o o o o o Standard of care provided to Foster cow o o o o o o o How would you describe the health of the following animals in this cow-calf management system? Very unhealthy (1) Moderately unhealthy (2) Slightly unhealthy (3) Neither unhealthy nor healthy (4) Slightly healthy (5) Moderately healthy (6) Very healthy (7) Cow's health o o o o o o o Calf's health o o o o o o o Foster cow's health o o o o o o o 6 Question order in this section was randomized for all participants. 82 How would you describe the feelings of the following animals in this cow-calf management system? Very bad (1) Moderately bad (2) Slightly bad (3) Neither bad nor good (4) Slightly good (5) Moderately good (6) Very good (7) Cow's feelings o o o o o o o Calf's feelings o o o o o o o Foster cow's feelings o o o o o o o How would you describe the ability of the following animals to live a natural life in this cow-calf management system? Very poor (1) Moderately poor (2) Slightly poor (3) Neither poor nor good (4) Slightly good (5) Moderately good (6) Very good (7) Cow's ability to live a natural life o o o o o o o Calf's ability to live a natural life o o o o o o o Foster cow's ability to live a natural life o o o o o o o 83 Start of Willingness to pay Section How different/similar do you believe this cow-calf management system is from the way you think cows and calves are currently managed to produce the milk you buy? o Completely different (1) o Somewhat different (2) o Somewhat similar (3) o Completely similar (4) o I have no idea (5) o I do not buy milk (6) Unless participants answered âCompletely similarâ or âI do not buy milkâ to the previous question, they were then asked: Compared to what you currently pay for milk, would you be willing to pay more or less for milk sourced from this cow-calf management system? o I would not be willing to pay as much for milk from this system (1) o I would be willing to pay about the same for milk from this system (2) o I would be willing to pay more for milk from this system (3) o I do not buy milk (0) Start of Attention check Section Animals Most modern theories of psychology recognize the fact that perceptions do not take place in a vacuum. Individual preferences and knowledge, along with situational variables can greatly impact the perception process. In order to facilitate our research on perceptions we are interested in knowing certain factors about you, the perceiver. Specifically, we are interested in whether you actually take the time to read the directions; if not, then some of our questions that rely on changes in the instructions will be ineffective. So, in order to demonstrate that you have read the instructions, please ignore the animals 84 below. Instead, simply check the "Other" option and in the corresponding box, enter the text: I read the instructions Which of these animals have you seen on a farm? (check all that apply) â¢ Pig â¢ Cow â¢ Horse â¢ Cat â¢ Sheep â¢ Dog â¢ Other: ________________________________________________ Start of Socio-demographic Section In this last section of the survey, please answer the following demographic questions: Age: ________________________________________________________________ 85 Sex: o Female o Male o Prefer not to say Do you have any children? o Yes o No Do you have any pets? o Yes o No What is the highest level of education you have completed? o Less than high school degree (1) o High school graduate (high school diploma or equivalent including GED) (2) o Some college, but no degree (3) o Associate degree in college (2-year) (4) o Bachelor's degree in college (4-year) (5) o Some Post-graduate or Professional, but no degree (6) o Post-graduate or Professional degree (e.g. Master's, PhD, JD, MD, DVM) (7) 86 Please indicate the answer that includes your entire household income (previous year) before taxes: o Less than $25,000 (1) o $25,000-$34,999 (2) o $35,000-$49,999 (3) o $50,000-$74,999 (4) o $75,000-$99,999 (5) o $100,000-$149,999 (6) o $150,000 or more (7) Which of the following best describes the area where you have lived most of your life? o Urban o Suburban o Rural Do you consume dairy products? o Not at all (1) o Rarely (less than once a month) (2) o Occasionally (less than once a week) (3) o Often (multiple times a week) (4) 87 How familiar are you with the dairy industry? o Not at all familiar (1) o Not very familiar (2) o Slightly familiar (3) o Somewhat familiar (4) o Very familiar (5) o Extremely familiar (6) Are you involved with the dairy industry (outside of consuming dairy products, if applicable)? o Yes o No If participants answered âYesâ to the previous question, they were then asked: 88 What is the nature of your involvement with the dairy industry? o Dairy farmer or farm worker o Industry worker (e.g. in dairy product processing, sales, etc.) o Veterinarian o Student o Teacher o Member of animal protection organization o Farm consultant o Other: ________________________________________________ Please feel free to leave any feedback below on the topics of this survey or on the survey itself: ________________________________________________________________ 89 Appendix B Willingness to pay for milk from different cow-calf management systems In addition to providing their perceptions of a described cow-calf management system, participants (in the survey in Chapter 2) were asked two questions intended to assess their willingness to pay (WTP) for milk from the described system. Results from these WTP questions and a brief discussion are provided here as supplementary information to the main findings of the study performed in Chapter 2. B.1 Materials and methods Participants were asked to describe how willing they were to pay (i.e., ânot be willing to pay as muchâ = WTP less, âwilling to pay about the sameâ = WTP same, or âwilling to pay moreâ = WTP more) for milk from their given cow-calf management system in comparison to how much they currently paid for milk. As the WTP question asked participants about potential changes in their buying behaviour in response to a specific system, only participants (n = 201 out of 307 total participants) who answered that they (1) bought milk and (2) believed that the cow-calf management system described was not âcompletely similarâ to how they thought cows and calves are currently managed to produce the milk they normally buy were included in the analysis of WTP data. The effect of cow-calf management system on participantsâ WTP for milk from their given cow-calf management system in comparison to what they currently paid for milk was assessed using logistic regression in the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) (version 9.4, SAS Institute Inc.). We used a binary logit model with Fisherâs scoring method and maximum likelihood estimation to model the effects of the cow-calf management system and socio-demographic factors (i.e. age (continuous), gender (binary â identifies as female or does not 90 identify as female (male or prefers not to say)), level of education (continuous), residence (binary â rural or not rural (urban or suburban)), income (continuous), presence of children (binary â yes or no), presence of pets (binary â yes or no), and familiarity with the dairy industry (continuous)) on participantsâ WTP. WTP same and WTP more were combined into a single event (âWTP same or moreâ) to be modeled signifying willing to pay either the same or more for milk from the given cow-calf management system. This event was compared with WTP less. The estimated parameters (log-odds regression coefficients), standard errors (± SE), Wald Chi-square values, and P-values for all variables in this model are presented. Planned contrasts between each of the 4 different cow-calf management systems were performed to estimate odds ratios of WTP same or more for milk between different systems. These odds ratio estimates along with 99% Wald Confidence Limits are presented. 99% Wald Confidence Limits (α = 0.01) were used here to adjust for multiple (n = 6) planned comparisons. B.2 Results and discussion Cow-calf management system effected participantsâ WTP for milk (Wald chi-square = 16.17; P = 0.001). The Not separated and group housed system had a positive log-odds regression coefficient (Table B.1), suggesting that participants from this system were more likely to be WTP same or more for milk compared to participants from the reference Separated and individually housed system. Further analysis with odds ratio estimates found that participants from the Not separated and group housed system were 9.51 times more likely to be WTP the same or more for milk compared to what they currently pay than participants from the Separated and individually housed system were, 10.30 times more likely to be WTP same or more for milk than participants from the Separated and group housed system were, and 8.82 times more likely 91 to be WTP same or more for milk than participants from the Separated and kept with foster cow system were (Table B.2). There were no significant differences between the 3 cow-calf management systems involving early separation in how much more likely participants were WTP same or more for milk compared to what they currently pay. WTP questions are an imperfect indicator of actual purchasing behaviour (Liebe et al., 2011; Norwood and Lusk, 2011). Responses to these questions can be affected by other factors such as access to and knowledge of products and perception of product quality or nutritional value (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006; Liebe et al., 2011; de Graaf et al., 2016; Clark et al., 2017; Miranda-de la Lama et al., 2017). However, with an established link between perceptions and consumption behaviours, WTP can and has been used as another indicator of public perceptions of farm animal welfare (Clark et al., 2017). Thus, these results of participants being were more likely to be WTP the same or more for milk from a system involving no early cow-calf separation is in line with and supportive of the main study findings that participants had both a less negative attitude towards the Not separated and group housed system and a less negative perception of the welfare of cows and calves in this system. This finding is in line with a growing number of studies reporting higher WTP for products from âwelfare-friendlyâ production systems compared to standard systems or those perceived as less âwelfare-friendlyâ (e.g. Napolitano et al., 2008; de Graaf et al., 2016; Miranda-de la Lama et al., 2017; and reviewed by Clark et al., 2017). 92 Variable Class for categorical variables Parameter estimate Standard error (± SE) Wald chi-square P-value Intercept -0.35 1.06 0.11 0.74 System Separated and individually housed 0 Separated and group housed -0.08 0.47 0.03 0.87 Separated and kept with foster cow 0.07 0.45 0.03 0.87 Not separated and group housed 2.25 0.62 13.31 0.0003* Age (unit = decade) 0.24 0.21 1.39 0.24 Gender Does not identify as Female 0 Identifies as Female -0.76 0.39 3.75 0.05* Level of education -0.21 0.12 2.91 0.09 Residence Suburban or Urban 0 Rural 0.26 0.55 0.22 0.64 Income 0.09 0.11 0.63 0.43 Children No 0 Yes -0.63 0.41 2.35 0.13 Pets No 0 Yes 0.40 0.36 1.26 0.26 Industry familiarity 0.33 0.18 3.48 0.06 Table B.1 The parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald chi-square values, and P-values for all variables included in the binary logit model testing the effects of socio-demographics and cow-calf management system on participantsâ (n = 201) WTP same or more for milk from their given system compared to what they currently pay for milk. Parameter estimates are the log-odds regression coefficient values for the logistic regression equation for the model. Reference levels of categorical variables have parameter estimates of 0 and no reported standard errors, Wald chi-square values, or P-values. * indicates P-values â¤ 0.05 93 Planned contrast Odds ratio estimate 99% Wald Confidence Limit Lower bound Upper bound Separated and group housed vs. Separated and individually housed 0.92 0.27 3.14 Separated and group housed vs. Separated and kept with foster cow 0.86 0.25 2.96 Separated and kept with foster cow Vs. Separated and individually housed 1.08 0.34 3.40 Not separated and group housed Vs. Separated and individually housed 9.51 1.94 46.63* Not separated and group housed Vs. Separated and group housed 10.30 2.02 52.44* Not separated and group housed Vs. Separated and kept with foster cow 8.82 1.78 43.65* Table B.2 The estimated odds ratios and their 99% Wald Confidence Limits of WTP same or more for milk between different systems from planned contrasts performed between each of the 4 different cow-calf management systems following a binary logit model testing the effects of socio-demographics and cow-calf management system on participantsâ (n = 201) WTP same or more for milk from their given system compared to what they currently pay for milk. * indicates Confidence Interval does not include 1, meaning that we reject the null hypothesis that the odds ratio equals 1. B.3 References Clark, B., G.B. Stewart, L.A. Panzone, I. Kyriazakis, and L.J. Frewer. 2017. Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies. Food Policy 68:112â127. https://doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.01.006. de Graaf, S., E.J. Van Loo, J. Bijttebier, F. Vanhonacker, L. Lauwers, F.A.M. Tuyttens, and W. Verbeke. 2016. Determinants of consumer intention to purchase animal-friendly milk. J. Dairy Sci. 99:8304â8313. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-10886. Liebe, U., P. Preisendörfer, and J. Meyerhoff. 2011. To pay or not to pay: Competing theories to explain individualsâ willingness to pay for public environmental goods. Environ. Behav. 43:106â130. https://doi:10.1177/0013916509346229. Miranda-de la Lama, G.C., L.X. Estévez-Moreno, W.S. Sepúlveda, M.C. Estrada-Chavero, A.A. Rayas-Amor, M. Villarroel, and G.A. María. 2017. Mexican consumersâ perceptions and 94 attitudes towards farm animal welfare and willingness to pay for welfare friendly meat products. Meat Sci. 125:106â113. https://doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.12.001. Napolitano, F., C. Pacelli, A. Girolami, and A. Braghieri. 2008. Effect of information about animal welfare on consumer willingness to pay for yogurt. J. Dairy Sci. 91:910â917. https://doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0709. Norwood, F.B., and J.L. Lusk. 2011. A calibrated auction-conjoint valuation method: Valuing pork and eggs produced under differing animal welfare conditions. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 62:80â94. https://doi:10.1016/J.JEEM.2011.04.001. Vermeir, I., and W. Verbeke. 2006. Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer âattitude - behavioral intentionâ gap. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 19:169â194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3. 95 Appendix C Parameter estimates for models of Attitude and Perception of animal welfare As described in section 2.2.3.2, general linear models with Tukey-Kramer pairwise comparison adjustments were created for each construct (attitude and perception of animal welfare) as a dependent measure testing the effects of: cow-calf management system; self-reported socio-demographic factors â age (continuous), gender (binary â identifies as female or does not identify as female (male or prefers not to say)), level of education (continuous), residence (binary â rural or not rural (urban or suburban)), income (continuous), presence of children (binary â yes or no), presence of pets (binary â yes or no), familiarity with the dairy industry (continuous), and dairy consumption (binary â yes or no). The parameter estimates, standard errors, t-values, and P-values for all of these variables included in the final general linear models for attitude and for perception of animal welfare are provided here as supplementary information to the main findings of the study performed in Chapter 2. 96 C.1 General linear model for attitude towards system Variable Class for categorical variables Parameter estimate Standard error (± SE) t-value P-value Intercept 1.96 0.49 4.04 < 0.0001* System Separated and individually housed 0 Separated and group housed 0.33 0.25 1.33 0.18 Separated and kept with foster cow 0.17 0.23 0.75 0.45 Not separated and group housed 2.29 0.24 9.73 < 0.0001* Age (unit = decade) 0.22 0.10 2.32 0.021* Gender Does not identify as Female 0 Identifies as Female -0.44 0.18 -2.43 0.016* Level of education -0.05 0.06 -0.87 0.38 Residence Suburban or Urban 0 Rural 0.14 0.24 0.60 0.55 Income 0.03 0.05 0.67 0.51 Children No 0 Yes -0.22 0.19 -1.16 0.25 Pets No 0 Yes 0.21 0.18 1.21 0.23 Industry familiarity 0.36 0.07 4.99 < 0.0001* Dairy consumption Yes 0 No -3.03 0.50 -6.03 < 0.0001* Table C.1 The parameter estimates, standard errors, t-values, and P-values for all variables included in the general linear model testing the effects of socio-demographics and cow-calf management system on participantsâ (n = 307) attitude towards system. The R2 for this model is 0.41 and the root mean square error is 1.44. Parameter estimates are the coefficient values (or slopes) for the regression equation for predicting attitude from the independent variables. Reference levels of categorical variables have parameter estimates of 0 and no reported standard errors, t-values, or P-values. * indicates P-values â¤ 0.05. 97 C.2 General linear model for perception of animal welfare within system Variable Class for categorical variables Parameter estimate Standard error (± SE) t-value P-value Intercept 1.03 0.45 2.27 0.024* System Separated and individually housed 0 Separated and group housed 0.08 0.23 0.37 0.71 Separated and kept with foster cow 0.07 0.22 0.31 0.76 Not separated and group housed 2.21 0.22 10.12 < 0.0001* Age (unit = decade) 0.26 0.09 2.94 0.0035* Gender Does not identify as Female 0 Identifies as Female -0.15 0.17 -0.90 0.37 Level of education 0.02 0.06 0.41 0.68 Residence Suburban or Urban 0 Rural 0.21 0.22 0.95 0.35 Income -0.01 0.05 -0.11 0.92 Children No 0 Yes -0.02 0.18 -0.13 0.90 Pets No 0 Yes 0.21 0.16 1.31 0.19 Industry familiarity 0.40 0.07 5.99 < 0.0001* Dairy consumption Yes 0 No -2.65 0.47 -5.68 < 0.0001* Table C.2 The parameter estimates, standard errors, t-values, and P-values for all variables included in the general linear model testing the effects of socio-demographics and cow-calf management system on participantsâ (n = 307) perception of animal welfare within system. The R2 for this model is 0.45 and the root mean square error is 1.33. Parameter estimates are the coefficient values for the regression equation for predicting perception of animal welfare from the independent variables. Reference levels of categorical variables have parameter estimates of 0 and no reported standard errors, t-values, or P-values. * indicates P-values â¤ 0.05.
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Applied Animal Biology
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
von Keyserlingk, Marina A. G.
Public perceptions of dairy cow-calf management systems differing in type of social and maternal contact
Text