@prefix vivo: . @prefix edm: . @prefix ns0: . @prefix dcterms: . @prefix skos: . vivo:departmentOrSchool "Land and Food Systems, Faculty of"@en ; edm:dataProvider "DSpace"@en ; ns0:degreeCampus "UBCV"@en ; dcterms:creator "Ventura, Beth Ann"@en ; dcterms:issued "2015-10-24T05:37:44"@en, "2015"@en ; vivo:relatedDegree "Doctor of Philosophy - PhD"@en ; ns0:degreeGrantor "University of British Columbia"@en ; dcterms:description "The welfare of dairy cattle is of rising concern in North America. This thesis explores how stakeholders relevant to dairy production—including those working within but also those external to the industry—interpret issues around dairy cattle welfare, with the aim to unearth the root of disagreements and identify common values between diverse groups. Chapter 1 begins by exploring the relevant literature and identifies important gaps. Chapters 2 and 3 describe multi-cohort focus groups of farmers, veterinarians, and other industry stakeholders. Chapter 2 investigates their interpretations of the priority welfare issues facing the dairy industry and demonstrates that these stakeholders hold a broad conception of animal welfare with the potential to link to values in broader society. Chapter 3 explores how these stakeholders perceive challenges to welfare and their desired solutions for change; it shows consensus for education, particularly in the form of peer-led extension strategies, to address low welfare knowledge among farmers and veterinarians. Chapter 4 describes a survey of non-farming citizens before and after touring a dairy farm and demonstrates that, as with industry stakeholders, citizens’ animal welfare values are diverse. Chapter 4 also shows that citizens respond differently to learning more about dairy farming, with some becoming more concerned and others less so. Chapter 5 then describes the use of an online engagement tool to explore in greater depth what appears to be one of the most contentious practices in dairy production—that of early separation of the dairy calf from the cow. It illustrates that support of this practice varies markedly among stakeholder groups, but that people are often concerned with the same issues regardless of their stance, providing paths for compromise on practice and policy. Chapter 6 concludes with a summary of findings and recommendations, including: 1) farmers should engage with veterinarians and researchers to help them adopt practices in better alignment with societal values (such as pain mitigation), 2) industry decision makers should commit to transparency but also be prepared to listen and adapt to informed critiques, and 3) researchers should explore engagement strategies to aid in conflict resolution between industry and lay citizens."@en ; edm:aggregatedCHO "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/54881?expand=metadata"@en ; skos:note """UNDERSTANDING  INDUSTRY  AND  LAY  PERSPECTIVES  ON  DAIRY  CATTLE  WELFARE    by    Beth  Ann  Ventura      B.Sc.,  Michigan  State  University,  2007  M.Sc.,  University  of  Maryland,  College  Park,  2009      A  THESIS  SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILLMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF      DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY    in    THE  FACULTY  OF  GRADUATE  AND  POSTDOCTORAL  STUDIES    (Animal  Science)      THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  BRITISH  COLUMBIA    (Vancouver)        September  2015      ©  Beth  Ann  Ventura,  2015                           ii  Abstract      The  welfare  of  dairy  cattle  is  of  rising  concern  in  North  America.  This  thesis  explores  how  stakeholders  relevant  to  dairy  production—including  those  working  within  but  also  those  external  to  the  industry—interpret  issues  around  dairy  cattle  welfare,  with  the  aim  to  unearth  the  root  of  disagreements  and  identify  common  values  between  diverse  groups.  Chapter  1  begins  by  exploring  the  relevant  literature  and  identifies  important  gaps.  Chapters  2  and  3  describe  multi-­‐cohort  focus  groups  of  farmers,  veterinarians,  and  other  industry  stakeholders.  Chapter  2  investigates  their  interpretations  of  the  priority  welfare  issues  facing  the  dairy  industry  and  demonstrates  that  these  stakeholders  hold  a  broad  conception  of  animal  welfare  with  the  potential  to  link  to  values  in  broader  society.  Chapter  3  explores  how  these  stakeholders  perceive  challenges  to  welfare  and  their  desired  solutions  for  change;  it  shows  consensus  for  education,  particularly  in  the  form  of  peer-­‐led  extension  strategies,  to  address  low  welfare  knowledge  among  farmers  and  veterinarians.  Chapter  4  describes  a  survey  of  non-­‐farming  citizens  before  and  after  touring  a  dairy  farm  and  demonstrates  that,  as  with  industry  stakeholders,  citizens’  animal  welfare  values  are  diverse.  Chapter  4  also  shows  that  citizens  respond  differently  to  learning  more  about  dairy  farming,  with  some  becoming  more  concerned  and  others  less  so.  Chapter  5  then  describes  the  use  of  an  online  engagement  tool  to  explore  in  greater  depth  what  appears  to  be  one  of  the  most  contentious  practices  in  dairy  production—that  of  early  separation  of  the  dairy  calf  from  the  cow.  It  illustrates  that  support  of  this  practice  varies  markedly  among  stakeholder  groups,  but  that  people  are  often  concerned  with  the  same  issues  regardless  of  their  stance,  providing  paths  for     iii  compromise  on  practice  and  policy.  Chapter  6  concludes  with  a  summary  of  findings  and  recommendations,  including:  1)  farmers  should  engage  with  veterinarians  and  researchers  to  help  them  adopt  practices  in  better  alignment  with  societal  values  (such  as  pain  mitigation),  2)  industry  decision  makers  should  commit  to  transparency  but  also  be  prepared  to  listen  and  adapt  to  informed  critiques,  and  3)  researchers  should  explore  engagement  strategies  to  aid  in  conflict  resolution  between  industry  and  lay  citizens.           iv  Preface       A  version  of  Chapter  1  is  in  preparation  for  publication:  Ventura,  B.  A.,  and  D.  M.  Weary.  A  review  of  industry  and  lay  stakeholder  views  on  farm  animal  welfare.  B.  A.  Ventura  developed  and  researched  the  main  ideas  for  this  manuscript.  D.  M.  Weary  contributed  as  a  typical  primary  supervisor,  providing  input  on  material  and  editing  drafts.     A  version  of  Chapter  2  has  been  published:  Ventura,  B.  A.,  M.  A.  G.  von  Keyserlingk,  and  D.  M.  Weary.  2015.  Animal  welfare  concerns  and  values  of  stakeholders  within  the  dairy  industry.  J.  Agric.  Environ.  Ethics.  28:109-­‐126.  B.  A.  Ventura  developed  and  researched  the  main  ideas  for  this  paper.  D.  M.  Weary  and                M.  A.  G.  von  Keyserlingk  co-­‐authored  this  paper  in  the  typical  roles  of  supervisors,  helping  to  interpret  material  and  edit  drafts.  The  project  received  research  ethics  board  approval  from  UBC  under  certificate  number:  H12-­‐02429.     A  version  of  Chapter  3  has  been  submitted  for  publication:  Ventura,  B.  A.,  D.  M.  Weary,  A.  S.  Giovanetti,  and  M.  A.  G.  von  Keyserlingk.  Stakeholder  perspectives  on  cattle  welfare  challenges  and  solutions.  B.  A.  Ventura  developed  and  researched  the  main  ideas  for  this  manuscript.  M.  A.  G.  von  Keyserlingk  and  D.M.  Weary  acted  in  the  typical  roles  of  supervisors,  providing  input  on  interpretation  and  editing  drafts.  A.  S.  Giovanetti  acted  as  a  research  assistant,  assisting  with  data  analysis  and  editing  drafts.  The  project  received  research  ethics  board  approval  from  UBC  under  certificate  number:  H12-­‐02429.     A  version  of  Chapter  4  is  in  preparation  for  publication:  Ventura,  B.  A.,  M.  A.  G.  von  Keyserlingk,  H.  Wittman  and  D.  M.  Weary.  Changes  in  animal  welfare  knowledge,     v  perceptions,  concerns  and  values  among  citizens  visiting  a  dairy  farm.  B.A.  Ventura  developed  and  researched  the  main  ideas  for  this  manuscript.  D.  M.  Weary  and  M.  A.  G.  von  Keyserlingk  acted  in  the  typical  roles  of  supervisors,  providing  input  on  analysis  and  editing  drafts.  H.  Wittman  provided  input  on  project  design  and  edited  drafts.  This  project  received  research  ethics  board  approval  from  UBC  under  certificate  number:  H14-­‐01689.       A  version  of  Chapter  5  has  been  published:  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.  96:6105-­‐6116.  C.  A.  Schuppli  and  D.  M.  Weary  developed  the  main  ideas  for  this  research.  The  research  was  developed  in  collaboration  with  Dr.  Peter  Danielson  and  the  Norms  Evolving  in  Response  to  Dilemmas  (NERD)  team  at  the  UBC  Centre  for  Applied  Ethics.  B.  A.  Ventura  analyzed  the  data  and  developed  the  paper.  D.  M.  Weary  and  M.  A.  G.  von  Keyserlingk  acted  in  the  typical  roles  of  supervisors  and  edited  drafts.  C.  A.  Schuppli  acted  as  a  co-­‐author  and  helped  interpret  the  material.  This  project  received  research  ethics  board  approval  from  UBC  under  certificate  number:  H12-­‐00126.       vi  Table  of  Contents    Abstract  .................................................................................................................................................................  ii  Preface  ..................................................................................................................................................................  iv  Table  of  Contents  .............................................................................................................................................  vi  List  of  Tables  ...................................................................................................................................................  viii  List  of  Figures  ....................................................................................................................................................  ix  Acknowledgements  ..........................................................................................................................................  x  Dedication  ...........................................................................................................................................................  xi  Prologue  ................................................................................................................................................................  1  Chapter  1:   Introduction  ..............................................................................................................................  3  1.1   Research  context  ...............................................................................................................................  3  1.2   Stakeholder  conflict  .........................................................................................................................  5  1.3   Defining  the  need  ..............................................................................................................................  7  1.4   Definitions  and  terminology  ........................................................................................................  8  1.5   Industry  stakeholder  values  .....................................................................................................  12  1.6   Engagement  between  industry  and  lay  stakeholders  ....................................................  27  1.7   Lay  stakeholder  values  ................................................................................................................  36  1.8   Gaps  in  the  existing  literature  ..................................................................................................  46  1.9   Thesis  aims  .......................................................................................................................................  50  Chapter  2:   Dairy  industry  animal  welfare  values  and  concerns  ............................................  51  2.1   Introduction  .....................................................................................................................................  51  2.2   Methods  ..............................................................................................................................................  53  2.3   Results:  Concerns  ...........................................................................................................................  56  2.4   Results:  Reasons  .............................................................................................................................  61  2.5   Discussion  .........................................................................................................................................  67  2.6   Study  conclusions  ..........................................................................................................................  73  Chapter  3:   Dairy  industry  perspectives  on  animal  welfare  challenges  and  solutions  .  74  3.1   Introduction  .....................................................................................................................................  74  3.2   Methods  ..............................................................................................................................................  76  3.3   Results  and  discussion  .................................................................................................................  80  3.4   Concluding  remarks  ....................................................................................................................  106  Chapter  4:   Changes  in  animal  welfare  knowledge,  perceptions,  concerns  and  values  among  citizens  visiting  a  dairy  farm  ....................................................................................................  108  4.1   Introduction  ...................................................................................................................................  108  4.2   Methods  ............................................................................................................................................  111  4.3   Results  ..............................................................................................................................................  119  4.4   Discussion  .......................................................................................................................................  131  4.5   Conclusion  .......................................................................................................................................  141  Chapter  5:   Mixed  stakeholder  attitudes  toward  cow-­‐calf  separation:  a  case  study  ...  143  5.1   Introduction  ...................................................................................................................................  143  5.2   Methods  ............................................................................................................................................  146  5.3   Quantitative  results  ....................................................................................................................  151  5.4   Qualitative  results  and  discussion  ........................................................................................  154  5.5   General  discussion  and  conclusions  ....................................................................................  163     vii  Chapter  6:   General  discussion  and  recommendations  ............................................................  168  6.1   Overview  ..........................................................................................................................................  168  6.2   Success  and  limitations  of  research  .....................................................................................  170  6.3   Forward  paths:  recommendations  and  next  steps  ........................................................  177  6.4   Conclusion  .......................................................................................................................................  181  References  .......................................................................................................................................................  182  Appendices  ......................................................................................................................................................  202  Appendix  A:  Focus  group  interview  guide—Guelph  ...............................................................  202  Appendix  B:  Focus  group  interview  guide—Madrid  ...............................................................  204  Appendix  C:  Citizen  farm  tour  survey  ............................................................................................  205         viii  List  of  Tables  Table  2.1  Demographics  of  the  participant  sample  (n=47)  in  the  mixed  dairy  cattle  industry  stakeholder  focus  groups  in  Guelph,  Ontario  ..............................................  55  Table  2.2  Guelph  focus  group  participants’  reasoning  discussed  in  the  context  of  their  priority  animal  welfare  issues  ..............................................................................................  57  Table  3.1  Demographics  of  the  participant  sample  (n=50)  in  the  veterinary  stakeholder  focus  groups  in  Madrid,  Spain  ..............................................................................................  78  Table  3.2  Themes  discussed  by  participants  in  the  context  of  challenges  to  animal  welfare  (AW)  and  the  proportion  of  focus  groups  from  Guelph  (n=5  focus  groups)  and  Madrid  (n=6)  in  which  each  theme  emerged  ......................................  81  Table  3.3  Themes  discussed  by  participants  in  the  context  of  desired  solutions  for  animal  welfare  (AW)  challenges,  and  the  proportion  of  focus  groups  from  Guelph  (n=5  focus  groups)  and  Madrid  (n=6)  in  which  each  theme  emerged  95  Table  4.1  Overview  of  dairy  farm  tour  survey  to  measure  citizens'  perceptions,  values,  concerns  and  knowledge  relative  to  dairy  cattle  welfare  ......................................  113  Table  4.2  Description  of  participants  who  completed  both  'before'  and  'after'  surveys  for  the  dairy  farm  visit  (n=50)  ...........................................................................................  115  Table  4.3  Description,  type  and  levels  of  demographic  and  response  variables  included  in  analysis  of  citizen  responses  before  and  after  visiting  the  dairy  farm  ........  118  Table  4.4  Description  of  industry  perception  (IP)  and  FAW  value  themes  and  the  percentage  of  participants  referencing  each  theme  before  visiting  the  dairy  farm  ................................................................................................................................................  121  Table  4.5  Citizens'  perceptions  in  response  to  the  question,  "Do  dairy  cattle  have  a  good  quality  of  life?"  before  and  after  visiting  the  dairy  farm  .........................................  128  Table  5.1  Number  and  proportion  of  participants  (Groups  1-­‐4,  n=163)  who  supported  (“yes”),  opposed  (“no”)  or  were  “neutral”  to  early  cow-­‐calf  separation  ..........  152  Table  5.2  Number  and  proportion  of  industry-­‐targeted  participants  (Group  5,  n=28)  who  supported  (“yes”),  opposed  (“no”)  or  were  “neutral”  to  early  cow-­‐calf  separation  ...................................................................................................................................  153  Table  5.3  Reason  themes  and  sub-­‐themes  used  by  opponents  and  supporters  of  early  cow-­‐calf  separation  .................................................................................................................  155           ix  List  of  Figures  Figure  4.1.  Percentage  (%)  of  Canadian  citizens  with  correct  responses  on  dairy  husbandry  quiz  questions,  before  and  after  the  dairy  farm  visit  ....................  126         x  Acknowledgements    The  following  people  have  made  this  thesis  possible:    Dan  Weary,  I  cannot  express  what  it  has  meant  for  me  to  learn  from  you.  Your  energy  is  inspiring  and  your  joy  for  this  field  contagious.  You  are  an  outstanding  scientist  and  a  gifted  thinker.  You  have  driven  me  to  be  better  than  I  thought  I  could  be.    Nina  von  Keyserlingk,  your  ceaseless  support  and  encouragement  have  sustained  me  through  this  experience.  Your  dedication  to  animal  welfare  science  is  something  I  strive  for.  Thank  you  for  your  powerful  example.      David  Fraser,  by  your  example  you  have  helped  me  become  a  deeper,  more  reflective  thinker,  not  just  in  this  field  but  also  in  life.  It  was  my  privilege  to  learn  from  you.      Hannah  Wittman,  I  am  so  grateful  to  you  for  lending  your  expertise,  methodological  rigor,  and  positive  energy  to  me  throughout  my  program.  Our  conversations  have  helped  me  look  at  my  research  through  a  wider  lens.      Chris  McGill,  you  are  the  glue  that  keeps  this  wonderful  program  together.  I  cannot  count  how  many  times  you’ve  helped  me  throughout  the  years.  Thank  you  for  what  you  do  for  us.    Special  thanks  to  Cathy  Schuppli,  whose  mentorship  early  in  my  program  launched  my  scholarship  in  the  social  sciences;  to  Elisabeth  Ormandy,  my  partner  in  crime  throughout  my  years  at  UBC;  to  the  rest  of  my  fellow  social  scientists-­‐in-­‐training  in  the  AWP,  and  to  every  student  in  the  AWP,  I  have  so  enjoyed  learning  from  and  alongside  you.    My  deepest  thanks  also  to  our  wonderful  research  collaborators,  without  whom  much  of  my  research  would  not  have  happened:  Ken  and  Barbara  Leslie  and  Amy  Stanton,  for  your  assistance  with  the  Guelph  focus  groups;  Ana  Giovanetti  for  your  enthusiasm  and  help  with  coding;  Katherine  Knowlton  and  Gesa  Busch  for  your  help  with  the  citizen  project;  and  to  my  participants,  for  sharing  your  time  and  thoughts  so  openly  with  me.      To  my  parents,  your  ceaseless  support  of  me  throughout  my  life  has  been  priceless.  Who  and  where  I  am  is  because  of  you.      To  Brian,  my  partner  in  every  respect.  Thank  you  for  every  sacrifice  you  made  to  help  me  follow  my  dreams.  This  thesis  is  also  yours.    And  to  the  good  people  at  every  coffee  dispensary  in  greater  Vancouver,  for  keeping  me  awake  long  enough  to  do  this  crazy  thing.      Beth  –  Vancouver,  2015     xi  Dedication    This  is  for  the  ~2.5  billion  farm  animals  in  North  America,  whose  bodies  we  use  to  sustain  our  own.  May  we  learn  to  honor  your  world  and  enable  you  to  live  the  lives  you  deserve.       1  Prologue     Until  my  doctorate,  my  academic  training  had  focused  on  better  understanding  the  needs  of  animals  so  we  could  better  manage  and  house  them.  This  is,  of  course,  a  vital  activity  and  one  in  which  I  am  proud  to  participate.  As  I  neared  the  end  of  my  Master’s  degree,  however,  I  realized  that  I  wanted  to  be  part  of  the  brigade  to  help  ensure  that  what  we  discover  about  animal  welfare  is  actually  put  into  practice.  And  the  main  barriers  within  the  nexus  between  the  creation  of  knowledge  and  its  implementation  are  of  course,  human—those  working  along  the  livestock  production  chains,  but  also  those  external  to  it  but  who  nonetheless  benefit  from  its  existence.      Qualitative  research  demands  recognition  of  a  researcher’s  underlying  biases  so  they  can  be  accounted  for  to  the  greatest  extent  possible,  and  so  I  recount  mine  here.  I  absolutely  came  into  my  PhD  with  an  agenda:  I  wanted  nothing  less  than  to  figure  out  how  to  change  society’s  behaviour  toward  animals,  to  begin  to  rectify  the  ways  in  which  we  have  affected  them.  I  wanted  to  charge  in  and  tell  consumers  to  buy  more  humanely  produced  animal  products.  I  wanted  to  get  on  farms  and  start  telling  farmers  that  they  should  quit  docking  tails  or  start  paying  more  attention  to  their  calves,  etc.      Remarkably,  those  are  really  bad  approaches  to  achieving  any  sort  of  meaningful  change.  And  although  I  sort  of  knew  that  going  in,  it  was  not  until  I  began  to  immerse  myself  in  new  research  methodologies  that  I  began  to  figure  out  why.      In  part,  this  was  because  I  quickly  learned  that  in  order  to  even  begin  to  understand  how  to  change  human  behaviour,  I  needed  to  backtrack.  One  cannot  change  minds  without  first  understanding  those  minds.  And  so  I  channeled  my  efforts  to  filling     2  in  the  gaps  of  what  is  known  about  some  of  the  key  cognitive  constructs  that  may  later  help  inform  meaningful  and  effective  strategies  to  improve  animal  welfare.    The  other  part  was  that  qualitative  approaches  are  characterized  by  openness  to  the  social  and  psychological  phenomena  under  study,  and  that  openness  extends  to  the  researcher’s  own  self.  Becoming  a  qualitative  researcher  taught  me  to  own  my  agenda.  I  learned  to  acknowledge  my  own  biases  and  then  to  politely  dismiss  them.  To  let  them  sit  next  to  me  but  not  to  let  them  direct  me  as  I  immersed  myself  in  the  data.  This  was  not  an  entirely  easy  task,  as  it  was  often  discomforting  when  the  views  of  participants  differed  from  my  own.  It  was  a  lesson  in  humility  to  get  to  a  place  where  I  could  recognize  those  views  as  equally  valid,  both  in  the  context  of  my  own  research,  but  more  critically,  in  the  real  life,  real  time  debates  about  farm  animal  welfare.  In  other  words,  I  began  to  listen.    This  was  essentially  how  I  spent  the  past  four  years:  listening  to  my  participants  and  trying  to  understand  what  they  were  really  saying.  With  listening  came  respect.  And  with  respect  came  a  commitment  to  ensuring  that  my  participants’  voices  were  heard,  without  filter  or  agenda.  I  have  always  been  a  better  talker  than  a  listener,  despite  my  parents’  best  efforts  and  much  to  my  dear  husband’s  dismay.  I  am  not  exactly  proud  that  it  took  going  through  a  doctoral  program  to  really  claim  that  skill,  but  I’ll  take  it.         3  Chapter  1:   Introduction    1.1 Research  context     Livestock  agriculture  in  North  America1  has  transformed  since  WWII,  with  tremendous  repercussions  for  the  ways  in  which  society  produces  and  consumes  animals.  This  change  is  characterized  most  notably  by  an  increase  in  the  efficiency  of  animal  production,  which  in  turn  has  lowered  the  cost  of  producing  food.  At  the  same  time,  however,  the  changing  nature  of  animal  production  has  generated  concern  about  its  effects  on  a  number  of  externalities,  including  the  environment,  public  health,  rural  communities,  workers’  rights,  and  the  welfare  of  animals  in  the  various  production  systems.        To  provide  context  for  present-­‐day  societal  concerns  about  the  welfare  of  farm  animals  and  dairy  cattle  in  particular,  I  briefly  examine  two  broad  agro-­‐societal  trends  that  have  marked  the  changing  landscape  of  agriculture  in  North  America  since  WWII:  first,  the  widespread  intensification  of  livestock  (including  dairy)  production;  and  second,  the  societal  exodus  from  rural  to  urban  areas.  1.1.1  Intensification  and  industrialization        What  makes  the  growth  of  the  livestock  sectors  in  Canada  and  the  US  over  the  past  half  century  so  interesting  is  that  it  generally  cannot  be  attributed  to  a  parallel  growth  in  the  number  of  animals  produced,  at  least  not  for  ruminant  animals.2  Rather,  it                                                                                                                  1  For  the  purposes  of  this  thesis,  ‘North  America’  is  used  to  refer  to  Canada  and  the  US  only.    2  For  the  most  part,  the  number  of  ruminant  animals  (raised  primarily  on  forages,  e.g.  goats,  sheep,  and  cattle),  have  generally  decreased  in  Canada  and  the  US  in  the  last  half-­‐century  (FAO,  2014).  In  contrast,  the  poultry  and  pork  sectors  –in  which  grain  feeding  is  predominant—have  seen  major  growth  in  the  number  of  animals  raised,  e.g.  two-­‐fold  and  six-­‐fold  increases  in  turkey  and  chicken,  respectively,  in  the  US  (Ollinger  et  al.,  2000).     4  is  productive  output  per  animal  that  has  increased,  through  an  almost  universal  intensification  of  livestock  husbandry.  This  intensification  is  characterized  to  a  large  extent  by  a  move  of  animals  indoors  as  well  as  automation  of  routine  management  practices,  and  further  achieved  through  advances  in  genetics,  nutrition,  and  housing  (Fraser,  2001;  Mench,  2008).    For  example,  the  American  dairy  industry  has  seen  a  4-­‐fold  increase  in  milk  yield  between  1944  and  2007  (Capper  et  al.,  2009),  though  both  the  number  of  farms  and  the  total  number  of  cows  decreased  within  that  same  period.  There  were  approximately  21  million  cows  on  4.6  million  farms  in  1940  (Blayney,  2002).  By  2012  dairy  cows  numbered  just  over  9  million  on  approximately  51,000  licensed  farms  (Hoard’s  Dairyman,  2012;  NASS,  2013).  Summarizing  the  above  in  their  paper  on  the  state  of  the  US  dairy  industry,  von  Keyserlingk  et  al.  (2013)  noted  that  “today’s  dairy  industry  produces  59%  more  milk  with  64%  fewer  cows,  consuming  77%  less  feed  and  65%  less  water  per  liter  of  milk  produced  compared  with  dairy  production  in  1944,”  (p.  5406).    1.1.2  The  rural  exodus    Concurrent  with  the  post-­‐WWII  intensification  of  dairy  production  in  Canada  and  the  US  has  been  the  departure  of  the  citizenry  from  rural  to  urban  and  semi-­‐urban  areas.  As  livestock  production  consolidated  and  farming  jobs  and  services  became  more  scarce,  people  moved  away  from  rural  areas,  with  the  result  that  today  less  than  1%  of  the  American  workforce  is  actively  engaged  in  farming  as  a  career  (Holecheck  et  al.,  2003;  as  discussed  in  Guehlstorf,  2008).    This  demographic  shift  has  separated  –  both  in  place  and  in  activity  –  the  majority  of  the  populace  from  food  production,  including  regular  contact  with  livestock     5  (Kendall  et  al.,  2006).  This  in  turn  has  meant  that  the  actors  (including  the  animals)  that  contribute  to  the  production  and  associated  supply  of  animal  products  have  become  largely  invisible  in  the  day-­‐to-­‐day  life  of  most  contemporary  North  Americans  (see  Kneen,  1995).  1.2 Stakeholder  conflict       It  is  within  this  context  that  society  has  become  increasingly  critical  of  the  various  livestock  industries  (including  the  dairy  cattle  industry3)  with  respect  to  the  adequacy  of  care  toward  the  animals  in  their  systems  (Mench,  2008).  As  with  the  other  livestock  sectors,  concerns  about  animal  care  have  created  tension  between  various  stakeholder  groups  within  as  well  as  external  to  the  dairy  industry,  including  the  public.  In  one  sense  these  stakeholders  can  be  seen  as  falling  along  a  spectrum,  with  the  most  vehement  on  opposing  ends  in  terms  of  their  views  as  to  whether  dairy  production  is  or  is  not  humane.  Fraser  (2001)  described  this  spectrum  thus:    “Opponents  of  animal  production  often  use  animal  welfare  as  one  of  several  elements  in  an  effort  to…create  an  alternative  image  of  greedy,  impersonal  corporations”  that,  among  other  sins,  exploit  animals,  while  “some  agricultural  organizations  have  promoted  a  competing  image,  depicting  animal  agriculture  as  fully  reflecting  traditional  pastoral  and  agrarian  values,  while  benefiting  from  modern  knowledge  and  technology.  According  to  these  neo-­‐traditional  portrayals,  modern  farming  is  thoroughly  beneficial  for  animal  welfare,”  (p.  184).      This  dichotomization  of  the  dairy  and  other  livestock  industries  as  either  entirely  benevolent  or  exploitative  clearly  oversimplifies  the  situation,  and  yet  to  date  it  has  framed  much  of  the  interaction  between  industry  and  lay  groups  (Croney,  2010).  For  example,  in  2013  the  practice  of  dehorning  of  dairy  cattle  made  media  headlines                                                                                                                  3  Henceforth  referred  to  as  ‘the  dairy  industry.’     6  when  a  prominent  Canadian  actor  critiqued  the  dairy  industry  in  a  letter  to  the  National  Milk  Producers  Federation  for  performing  what  he  described  as  a  “painful”  and  “barbaric  practice,”  (Huffington  Post,  2013).  In  response,  some  individuals  circumvented  the  content  of  his  critiques  and  chose  instead  to  dismiss  them  based  on  his  lack  of  affiliation  with  –and  by  default,  assumed  ignorance  of—the  dairy  industry  (Mess,  2013).    This  type  of  exchange  is  problematic  for  a  number  of  reasons.  First,  hyperbolic  and  inflammatory  discourse  distracts  stakeholders  from  solving  the  issues  at  hand.  Moreover,  such  polarization  fuels  frustration  and  distrust  for  sincere  critics  both  within  and  outside  the  dairy  industry.  Erosion  of  stakeholder  relationships  in  turn  prevents  groups  from  working  together  productively  to  form  mutually  satisfactory  welfare  standards  and  policies  (or  at  least  standards  that  different  groups  can  live  with).  This  in  turn  impedes  resolution  of  the  very  real  welfare  challenges  that  exist  on  dairy  farms  today  (for  a  review  of  key  welfare  issues  in  the  dairy  industry,  see  von  Keyserlingk  et  al.,  2009).    Productive  and  effective  stakeholder  interaction  about  animal  welfare  issues  is  of  further  importance  as  farm  animal  welfare  has  become  increasingly  embedded  into  notions  of  sustainable  agriculture  (Boogaard  et  al.,  2008).  This  means  that  in  addition  to  environmental  and  economic  considerations,  livestock  production  should  engage  with  the  broad  values  held  by  society  (Boogaard  et  al.,  2008;  von  Keyserlingk  et  al.,  2013),  which  shift  over  time  as  society  evolves.  As  described  by  Boogaard  et  al.  (2008),  these  shifting  values  may  varyingly  be  expressed  through  the  public’s  goals  for  agriculture  as  well  as  its  concerns  about  it.  Hodges  (2006)  described  the  changing  landscape  of     7  societal  goals  for  sustainable  agriculture  as  looking  “beyond  cheap  food.”  Consumer  surveys  (Rauch  and  Sharp,  2005;  Prickett  et  al.,  2010)  support  that  the  humane  treatment  of  livestock  has  emerged  as  an  integral  part  of  that  societal  imperative.  In  this  regard,  negative  interactions  between  stakeholders  within  and  external  to  the  dairy  industry  may  erode  public  trust  in  dairy  production  (Brom,  2000),  particularly  if  the  dairy  industry  does  not  engage  with  society  about  animal  welfare  concerns.  1.3 Defining  the  need     What  is  needed,  then,  is  for  stakeholders  to  effectively  communicate  and  collaborate  if  they  are  to  develop  solutions  to  the  welfare  challenges  present  in  the  dairy  industry  today.  The  need  to  integrate  multi-­‐stakeholder  values  has  been  a  defining  theme  in  the  various  calls-­‐to-­‐arms  to  address  welfare  challenges  and  improve  societal  sustainability  among  academics  and  slowly,  the  industry  itself  (de  Greef  et  al.,  2006;  Lusk  and  Norwood,  2008;  Croney,  2010;  Leeb,  2011;  Croney  et  al.,  2012;  Maday,  2013).  And  yet,  effective  communication  and  collaboration  first  require  a  solid  understanding  of  the  complexity  of  values  and  attitudes  that  people  bring  with  them  into  debates  about  farm  animal  welfare  (Kendall  et  al.,  2006).  Or  as  Kauppinen  et  al.  (2010)  commented,    “understanding  how  different  actors  perceive  [the  concept  of  animal  welfare]  is  a  precondition  for  the  successful  improvement  of  [it],”    (p.  523).    This  chapter,  then,  will  critically  examine  the  existing  research  on  stakeholder  attitudes  and  values  related  to  farm  animal  welfare.  I  will  demonstrate  that  an  in-­‐depth  understanding  of  stakeholder  attitudes  and  values  on  this  topic  has  only  recently  started  to  emerge.  Moreover,  much  of  the  emerging  knowledge  results  from  research  in  Europe;  there  are  comparatively  few  studies  specific  to  the  US  and  Canada  as  well  as  to     8  the  dairy  industry  in  particular.  Ultimately,  it  is  hoped  that  improving  upon  this  knowledge  will  help  identify  areas  of  shared  concern  among  diverse  stakeholders.  This  in  turn  should  aid  in  the  creation  of  socially  sustainable  policy,  as  well  as  provide  legitimate  grounding  for  targeted  solutions  tailored  to  specific  identified  deficits  in  practice  on  farms.  1.4 Definitions  and  terminology  1.4.1  Attitudes,  beliefs  and  values     Kristensen  and  Jakobsen  (2011)  recently  lamented  that  a  “lack  of  consensus  regarding  what  to  call  certain  constructs”  (p.  5)  exists  in  the  emerging  application  of  social  science  approaches  in  the  animal  welfare  science  literature.    In  light  of  this,  it  is  important  to  first  establish  some  consistency  in  what  is  meant  by  certain  terms.    The  following  discussion  of  attitudes,  beliefs  and  values  is  thus  presented  within  the  context  of  two  prominent,  well-­‐regarded  models  from  the  social  psychology  and  communication  literatures:  the  Theory  of  Planned  Behaviour  (TPB)4  and  the  Integrated  Model  of  Behavioural  Prediction  (IMBP).  These  prevailing  frameworks  posit  a  causal  chain  of  influence  in  which  attitudes,  influenced  partially  by  one’s  beliefs  and  values,  affect  behaviour.      The  TPB  asserts  that  one’s  intention  to  perform  a  particular  behaviour  is  the  most  powerful  predictor  of  that  behaviour.  Intention  is  in  turn  influenced  by  both  attitudes  and  subjective  norms,  where  subjective  norms  involve  how  a  person  perceives  social  pressure  from  peers  to  perform  or  eschew  the  behaviour  in  question  (Ajzen  and                                                                                                                  4  The  TPB  was  originally  developed  by  Fishbein  and  Ajzen  (1975)  as  the  Theory  of  Reasoned  Action  and  later  extended  into  its  current  form  (Ajzen  and  Madden,  1986).       9  Fishbein,  1980).  An  attitude  is  a  disposition  to  respond  favorably  or  unfavorably  to  an  attitude  object,  which  can  be  anything  concrete  or  abstract  that  a  person  is  able  to  hold  in  mind  (definition  adapted  from  Cross,  2005).  For  example,  the  general  idea  of  a  ‘factory  farm,’  a  particular  production  practice,  or  even  the  dairy  cow  herself  can  all  be  considered  attitude  objects  toward  which  people  may  hold  positive  or  negative  attitudes.5    An  attitude  in  turn  is  a  partial  function  of  the  evaluation  of  the  beliefs  held  about  the  behaviour  as  well  as  the  strength  of  those  beliefs.  The  study  of  attitudes  then  becomes  useful  because  it  can  help  reveal  the  values  and  beliefs  that  underlie  them.  According  to  Fishbein  and  Ajzen  (1975),  “beliefs  represent  the  information  [a  person]  has  about  the  object,”  such  that  beliefs  link  an  object  to  some  attribute.  To  use  a  welfare-­‐relevant  example,  a  belief  that  “dehorning  is  painful”  would  link  the  psychological  object  “dehorning”  to  the  attribute  “is  painful.”  From  this  example  it  should  be  evident  that  beliefs  are  often  evaluative  in  nature,  meaning  that  they  apply  a  value  judgment  (Bem,  1970)  and  thus  serve  a  value-­‐expressive  function  (Ajzen,  2001).    Values  in  turn  are  widely  recognized  as  integral  to  both  belief  and  attitude  formation  (Bem,  1970;  Seligman  et  al.,  1996;  Ajzen,  2001).  Values  can  be  thought  of  as  “desirable,  trans-­‐situational  goals…that  serve  as  guiding  principles  in  people’s  lives…values  [may  be]  used  as  anchors  or  cognitive  sources  from  which  attitudes  may  emerge,”  (Seligman  et  al.,  1996).  Schwartz  (1999)  offered  an  alternative  definition  in  which  values  are  “criteria  people  use  to  select  and  justify  actions  and  to  evaluate  people                                                                                                                  5  Terms   like   view   and   opinion   are   often   used   interchangeably   with   attitude,   as   they   also   designate  valenced  evaluations  of  the  issue  or  object  in  question.  Indeed  the  term  opinion,  for  example,  as  a  verbal  expression  of  attitude,  has  been  used  as  a  proxy  for  attitude  for  decades  (Thurstone,  1931).         10  and  events.”  Boogaard  et  al.  (2008)  noted  that  this  definition  leaves  something  to  be  desired  in  the  context  of  evaluating  whether  agricultural  systems  can  be  considered  socially  sustainable.  Drawing  from  Thompson’s  (1992)  description  of  sustainability  in  relation  to  a  series  of  ethically  significant  goals  for  agriculture,  where  sustainable  agriculture  is  one  “that  meets  our  goals  as  a  society”  (Thompson,  1992),  Boogaard  et  al.  (2008)  described  a  value  as  “an  aspect  that  people,  i.e.  citizens,  use  to  evaluate  that  system,”  (p.  25).  Finally,  farm  animal  welfare  in  this  sense  has  been  described  as  one  of  many  dimensions  that  may  be  “integrated  into  the  values  of  humans,”  (p.  47;  Hansson  and  Lagerkvist,  2014).    Farm  animal  welfare  attitudes  and  behaviour     The  relationship  between  attitudes  and  behaviour  has  been  explored  in  relation  to  the  welfare  of  farm  animals.  A  number  of  studies  (see  Waiblinger  et  al.,  2006  for  a  review)  link  the  beliefs  and  attitudes  of  farmers  and  stockpersons  with  their  behaviour  toward  animals  in  terms  of  handling  (Hemsworth  et  al.,  2000,  2002;  Waiblinger  et  al.,  2002),  management  decisions  (Waiblinger  et  al.,  2001;  Hemsworth,  2003)  and  a  number  of  production  (Seabrook  and  Wilkinson,  2000)  and  animal  welfare  indicators  (Hemsworth  et  al.,  2002;  Waiblinger  et  al.,  2002;  Vaarst  and  Sørensen,  2009;  Kielland  et  al.,  2010;  Kaupinnen  et  al.,  2012).  Attempts  to  modify  behaviour  by  targeting  underlying  beliefs  and  attitudes  have  also  met  with  some  success:  for  example,  Hemsworth  et  al.  (2002)  showed  that  stockpersons  on  Australian  dairy  farms  who  underwent  cognitive  behavioural  therapy  showed  more  positive  beliefs  about  cow  handling  and  used  fewer  negative  tactics  than  did  those  at  control  farms.     11  Limitations  of  values,  attitudes,  and  beliefs     The  Integrated  Model  of  Behavioural  Prediction  (IMBP)  is  similar  to  the  TPB  except  that  it  recognizes  that  variables  external  to  an  individual  also  play  a  significant  role  in  influencing  behaviour  (Fishbein  and  Yzer,  2003).  This  makes  the  IMBP  relevant  in  addressing  solutions  to  on-­‐farm  welfare  challenges,  which  are  so  often  contingent  on  multiple  actors  working  together  within  complex  production  systems.    The  IMBP  dictates  that  a  behaviour  will  likely  occur  if  someone  has  the  intention  and  skill  to  perform  it  and  if  there  are  no  environmental  constraints  to  performance  (Fishbein  and  Yzer,  2003).  This  addition  of  external  variables  implies  that  successful  animal  welfare  interventions  are  dependent  not  only  upon  an  individual’s  internal  intentions,  but  also  upon  the  relevant  environment.  Thus,    “if  people  have  formed  the  desired  intention  but  are  not  acting  on  it,  a  successful  intervention  will  be  directed  at  either  skills  building  or  at  removing  (or  helping  people  overcome)  environmental  constraints….If  strong  intentions  to  perform  the  behaviour  in  question  have  not  been  formed,  the  model  suggests  that  there  are  three  primary  determinants  of  intention:  the  attitude  toward  performing  the  behaviour,  perceived  norms…and  one’s  self-­‐efficacy...”  (p.  166-­‐167;  Fishbein  and  Yzer,  2003).  1.4.2 Animal  welfare     That  a  range  of  values  exists  for  what  constitutes  good  quality  of  life  for  an  animal  is  underscored  by  the  diverse  interpretations  of  animal  welfare  in  the  literature  (Broom,  1991;  Duncan,  1993;  Rollin,  1993).  In  light  of  this,  it  is  especially  important  to  establish  a  conceptual  framework  from  which  to  organize  and  understand  the  literature  on  how  stakeholders  think  about  animal  welfare.  To  this  end,  Fraser  et  al.’s  (1997)  multi-­‐dimensional  conceptualization  of  animal  welfare  into  three  distinct  but  interrelated  aspects–  biological  functioning  (how  an  animal  physically  functions),     12  affective  states  (how  an  animal  feels),  and  natural  living  (the  degree  to  which  an  animal  can  live  a  natural  life)  —is  appropriate.    This  framework  is  relevant  because  it  incorporates  the  explicit  and  diverse  values  that  people  hold  regarding  what  is  necessary  to  ensure  proper  welfare.  In  doing  so,  it  collates  other  prominent  definitions  of  animal  welfare  into  one  holistic  concept,  including  Broom’s  (1991)  focus  on  physical  health  and  functioning,  Duncan’s  (1993)  prioritization  of  an  animal’s  mental  life,  and  Rollin’s  (1993)  emphasis  on  an  animal’s  ability  to  live  in  accordance  with  its  telos.6    1.5 Industry  stakeholder  values       It  is  important  to  clarify  what  actors  should  be  considered  as  stakeholders  in  the  societal  debate  on  farm  animal  welfare.  I  distinguish  two  broad  categorizations:  those  working  within  the  livestock  industries  in  some  capacity  (henceforth  referred  to  as  ‘industry  stakeholders’)  and  those  external  to  them  (referred  to  as  ‘lay’  or  ‘public’  stakeholders,  see  Section  1.7  of  this  chapter  for  further  definition).  I  acknowledge  that  this  distinction  could  be  argued  as  arbitrary,  not  least  because  actors  working  within  the  livestock  systems  are  also  members  of  public  society,  and  many  actors  hold  multiple  roles.  My  point  is  rather  to  draw  a  distinction  between  those  with  and  without  active  working  experience  with  livestock  farming.    I  use  the  term  ‘industry  stakeholder’  to  describe  any  actor  working  within  the  livestock  production  chain  as  well  as  those  whose  work  contributes  to  it.  This  includes                                                                                                                  6  Others  have  put  forth  alternative  frameworks  from  which  to  conceptualize  broadly  shared  animal  welfare  values.  De  Greef  et  al.  (2006)  for  example  suggested  that  avoidance  of  suffering  and  duty  to  care  are  two  defining  animal  welfare  values.  However,  I  argue  that  at  this  point  in  time  the  source  of  stakeholder  conflict  is  not  that  people  do  not  share  such  broad  values;  few,  for  example,  would  disagree  that  animal  suffering  should  be  minimized.  Values  this  broad  are  then  unlikely  to  be  sufficient  in  forming  effective,  i.e.  implementable  and  enforceable,  standards  precisely  because  interpretation  of  what  it  is  to  suffer  is  subjective,  and  indeed,  dependent  upon  whether  one  or  more  of  the  value-­‐laden  aspects  outlined  by  Fraser  et  al.  (1997)  are  considered  to  have  been  met.       13  farmers  (also  referred  to  in  this  thesis  as  producers),  industry  representatives,  livestock  veterinarians,  animal  science  faculty,  and  industry  service  providers.  These  actors  may  be  considered  as  experts  inasmuch  as  they  have  accumulated  a  unique  body  of  knowledge  and  experience  with  livestock  as  a  result  of  their  respective  roles.  Their  proximity  to  (and  engagement  with)  the  conditions  in  which  farm  animals  are  raised  gives  producers,  for  example,  a  unique  perspective  on  the  ethical  debates  on  agricultural  practices  (Driessen,  2012).  As  such,  producers  in  particular  are  increasingly  recognized,  both  in  the  literature  and  in  the  public  eye,  as  critical  stakeholders  to  improve  animal  welfare  (Eurobarometer,  2007;  Feola  and  Binder,  2010;  Kauppinen  et  al.,  2010;  Driessen,  2012;  Hansson  and  Lagerkvist,  2014).    In  Canada  and  the  US,  producers  and  others  working  within  the  livestock  industries  are  also  relevant  because  on-­‐farm  management  practices  are  largely  unlegislated,  at  least  federally.7  Rather,  animal  care  standards  and  policies  are  typically  spearheaded  by  industry-­‐affiliated  stakeholders  and  are  self-­‐regulated  (or  not  regulated).  Despite  their  potential  to  improve  farm  animal  welfare,  the  voices  of  farmers  and  others  working  for  the  livestock  industries  have  historically  been  largely  absent  from  debates  on  the  numerous  ethical  issues  presented  by  modern  agricultural  production  practices  (Kauppinen  et  al.,  2010;  Driessen,  2012).  The  literature  has  begun  to  address  questions  about  the  attitudes  and  values  of  these  stakeholders  in  the  last  two  decades  (e.g.  Te  Velde  et  al.,  2002;  Lund  et  al.,  2004;  Bock  and  Van  Huik,  2007).  However,  the  vast  majority  of  research  has  focused  on  Europeans,  with  far  less                                                                                                                  7  Though  to  some  degree  this  is  changing  in  the  United  States  with  the  introduction  of  statewide,  public    referenda  to  ban  certain  livestock  systems  (see  Mench,  2008  for  a  review).       14  attention  to  American  or  Canadian  producers  (Spooner  et  al.’s  2012,  2014b  interviews  of  Canadian  beef  and  pork  producers  being  one  of  the  few  exceptions)  and  other  relevant  industry  stakeholders  (e.g.  animal  science  and  veterinary  faculty  [Heleski  et  al.,  2004,  2005]  and  livestock  veterinarians  [Hewson  et  al.,  2007]).  1.5.1 Producers    Biological  functioning     Those  involved  with  animal  production  have  traditionally  been  shown  to  take  a  pragmatic  approach  toward  animal  welfare,  in  which  aspects  related  to  animals’  biological  functioning  (e.g.  nutrition,  health,  fertility,  production)  are  often  the  most  strongly  emphasized  (Te  Velde  et  al.,  2002;  Lassen  et  al.,  2006;  Verbeke,  2009;  Kaupinnen  et  al.,  2010;  Silva  et  al.,  2013).  The  notion  that  producers  tend  to  primarily  value  the  health-­‐related  aspects  of  animal  welfare  seems  to  be  first  evident  in  Te  Velde  et  al.’s  (2002)  landmark  study  of  Dutch  consumer  and  producer  perceptions  of  the  treatment  of  livestock.  The  farmers  (in  this  case  a  mix  of  pig,  broiler  chicken,  and  beef  cattle  farmers)  interviewed  in  that  study  talked  about  animal  welfare  mainly  in  terms  of  health  and  considered  continued  growth  to  indicate  adequate  welfare  (Te  Velde  et  al.,  2002).    Te  Velde  et  al.’s  (2002)  findings  have  been  borne  out  by  a  number  of  studies  of  European  producer  views  of  animal  welfare  (much  of  which  have  resulted  from  the  European  Union-­‐sponsored  Welfare  Quality®  projects).  From  these  studies  it  is  clear  that  many  farmers  appear  to  use  a  number  of  biological  parameters  as  proxies  for  animal  welfare,  most  notably  high  productivity    (Norwegian  pig  producers:  Borgen  and  Skarstad,  2007;  a  mix  of  Norwegian  cattle,  pig  and  poultry  producers:  Skarstad  et  al.,     15  2007;  UK  pig  producers:  Hubbard  et  al.,  2007)  and  maintenance  of  health  and  general  physical  functioning  (pig,  chicken,  and  calf  farmers:  Te  Velde  et  al.,  2002;  European  pig  producers:  Bock  and  van  Huik,  2007;  UK  pig  producers:  Hubbard  and  Scott,  2011).    By  extension,  many  livestock  producers  consider  their  provisions  to  meet  animals’  biological  needs  –including  thermal  regulation,  dry  bedding,  disease  monitoring,  and  adequate  feed  and  water  –  as  indicative  that  they  are  doing  a  good  job  for  animal  welfare  (Te  Velde  et  al.,  2002;  Spooner  et  al.,  2014b).  Take,  for  example,  the  collective  view  reached  by  focus  groups  of  Dutch  pig  farmers  that  the  “provision  of  adequate  supply,  such  as  food  and  water  together  with  a  good  health  care,  makes  good  welfare,”  (p.  63;  de  Greef  et  al.  2006).    To  the  extent  that  information  on  the  values  of  American  or  Canadian  producers  exists  (and  at  this  point,  it  is  scant  indeed),  there  is  some  evidence  that  these  farmers  are  similarly  health-­‐focused.  For  example,  Spooner  et  al.  (2014b)’s  semi-­‐structured  interviews  with  20  Canadian  pig  producers,  the  majority  of  which  operated  confinement  systems,  revealed  an  overwhelming  preoccupation  with  the  health  and  productivity  of  their  pigs.  A  similar  focus  on  physical  indicators  of  welfare  (in  this  case,  body  condition)  also  emerged  in  Spooner  et  al.’s  (2012)  interviews  with  Canadian  beef  producers.    The  distinction  between  farmers’  emphasis  on  biological  performance  and  related  implications  for  economic  performance  is  hard  to  tease  apart.  A  dominant  trend  throughout  the  studies  reviewed  above  is  that  animal  welfare  and  economics  are  inextricably  linked  for  these  farmers,  such  that  the  economic  considerations  embedded  within  caring  for  animals  inevitably  arise  during  conversations  about  animal  welfare     16  (Hubbard  et  al.,  2007;  Skarstad  et  al.,  2007;  Kauppinen  et  al.,  2010;  Spooner  et  al.,  2012,  2014b).  Spooner  et  al.  (2012)  captured  the  complex,  uneasy  relationship  between  welfare  and  economics  for  Canadian  beef  producers;  though  these  producers  stressed  the  existence  of  economic  restraints  in  their  businesses,  they  also  emphasized  that  economic  considerations  did  not  undermine  the  welfare  status  of  their  animals.  This  is  a  challenging  concept  to  reconcile,  particularly  in  light  of  critiques  of  animal  agriculture  that  situate  profit  as  superseding  welfare  considerations  in  every  case  (as  discussed  in  Fraser,  2008a  and  by  participants  from  the  study  in  Chapter  5).    Others  have  argued  for  a  more  nuanced  perspective  of  producers’  motivations,  one  that  recognizes  that  producer  decisions  are  “not  always  or  ever  necessarily  aimed  at  the  unique  goal  of  profit,”  (p.  6;  Willock  et  al.,  1999).  Driessen  (2012),  for  example,  proposed  a  view  of  producers  in  which  they  possess  ‘mixed  motives:’  The  activities  of  most  farmers  are  not  completely  guided  by  concerns  of  efficiency  and  profit…The  morality  of  their  motives  [may  indeed  be]  most  salient  at  moments  when  farmers  diverge  from  what  is  economically  required…but  situating  the  ethics  solely  in  these  exceptions  to  the  productionist  rationality  implies  a  portrayal  of  animal  farming  as  basically  unethical.  To  grant  farmers  a  serious  ethical  stance  requires  an  appreciation  of  their  central  aim:  the  efficient  production  of  food.  (p.170).    He  suggests  that  farmers  may  be  viewed  as  holding  a  hybrid  attitude  toward  welfare  and  economics  in  which  genuine  care  for  the  animal  exists  in  direct  conjunction  with  the  intent  to  harvest  it  (Driessen,  2012).  Other  authors  have  also  noted  the  complexity  with  which  farmers  approach  animal  welfare.  For  example,  Lund  et  al.  (2004),  Kristensen  and  Enevoldsen  (2008),  and  Kaupinnen  et  al.  (2010)  wrote  of  the  variation  in  how  farmers  in  their  studies  valued  animal  welfare,  some  for  its  instrumental  value  (in  granting  growth  and  ultimately  economic  health  for  their  businesses),  some  for  its     17  intrinsic  value  (in  simply  a  duty  to  do  the  right  thing),  and  some  for  both  purposes.  This  juxtaposition  of  use  and  respect  values  toward  animals  borrows  heavily  from  pastoralism,  a  prominent  influence  on  modern  Western  moral  approaches  to  animal  use  (Preece  and  Fraser,  2000;  Fraser,  2008b).  Observable  in  the  second  creation  story  of  the  Judeo-­‐Christian  Bible  (Genesis  2),  the  pastoralist  ethic  condoned  animal  use  but  strongly  emphasized  ‘diligent  care’  be  taken  to  ensure  that  animal  needs  were  met  (Fraser,  2008b).    Affective  states  The  studies  cited  above  demonstrate  a  widespread  emphasis  on  health  and  performance  among  livestock  producers,  but  recent  work  suggests  that  producers’  conceptions  of  animal  welfare  are  often  multi-­‐dimensional  and  include  a  focus  on  affective  states  such  as  pain  (Kaupinnen  et  al.,  2010;  Vetouli  et  al.,  2012;  Silva  et  al.,  2013).      Many  livestock  producers  appear  to  have  a  complex  and  context-­‐dependent  view  of  pain  experienced  by  their  animals.  On  the  one  hand,  chronic  painful  conditions  are  often  among  producers’  priority  welfare  concerns,  such  as  lameness  in  dairy  cows.  For  example,  as  part  of  a  larger  lameness  intervention  project,  Leach  et  al.  (2010a)  asked  farmers  to  rank  their  top  three  herd  health  concerns.  Mastitis  and  lameness,  both  known  painful  conditions  (Milne  et  al.,  2003;  O’Callaghan  et  al.,  2003)  were  the  conditions  most  often  cited.  While  almost  certainly  these  issues  ranked  highly  in  part  because  of  performance  effects,  the  companion  paper’s  finding  that  94%  of  respondent  dairy  farmers  agreed  that  pain  and  suffering  were  either  very  or  extremely  important     18  outcomes  of  lameness  suggests  that  concern  for  the  cow  certainly  played  a  role  in  attitudes  toward  these  conditions  (Leach  et  al.,  2010b).    In  contrast,  others  have  indicated  that  producers  tend  to  ascribe  lower  concern  to  pain  arising  from  short-­‐term  management  procedures  like  dehorning  and  castration,  at  least  when  compared  to  other  stakeholders  (Belgian  producers,  species  unspecified:  Vanhonacker  et  al.,  2008;  Australian  cattle,  sheep,  and  goat  producers:  Phillips  et  al.,  2009;  Canadian  beef  producers:  Spooner  et  al.,  2012;  Flemish  pig  producers:  Tuyttens  et  al.,  2012).  For  example,  a  randomly  selected  sample  of  160  Flemish  pig  producers  (almost  uniformly)  preferred  surgical  castration  without  anesthesia  to  castration  with  it  (Tuyttens  et  al.,  2012).  This  preference  paralleled  the  finding  that  the  majority  of  these  farmers  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that,  “castration  of  pigs  is  a  very  old  practice  which  is  well  endured  by  the  animals”  and  disagreed  that,  “castration  of  male  pigs  is  so  painful  that  I  think  it  should  be  avoided.”  In  another  study,  Australian  beef,  sheep  and  goat  producers  ranked  dehorning  and  castration  to  have  lower  welfare  consequences  than  did  animal  welfare  advocates  and  scientists  (Phillips  et  al.,  2009).  The  authors  of  the  last  study  speculated  that  repeated  performance  of  these  procedures  might  have  led  to  desensitization,  thus  explaining  this  disparity.    Producer  attitudes  toward  painful  procedures  also  appear  to  be  modulated  by  the  perceived  need  to  trade-­‐off  between  worse  welfare  consequences.  For  example,  Norwegian  pig  producers  showed  reluctance  to  use  anesthetics  during  castration,  not  because  they  did  not  wish  to  control  pain,  but  because  they  viewed  its  administration  as  increasing  handling  stress  (Kjaernes  et  al.,  2007).  The  majority  of  anesthetic-­‐averse  pig  producers  in  Tuyttens  et  al.  (2012)’s  study  likewise  expressed  the  belief  that  using     19  anesthesia  actually  diminished  piglet  welfare  due  to  increased  stress  before  the  procedure.  Spooner  et  al.  (2012)  also  noted  that  some  beef  producers  acknowledged  the  painfulness  of  dehorning  but  maintained  that  it  was  superseded  by  the  necessity  to  avoid  the  greater  harm  of  injury  posed  by  intact  horns.  For  some  of  these  producers,  this  view  resulted  in  direct  dismissal  of  the  pain  associated  with  these  procedures,  e.g.  “It  doesn’t  hurt  too  long”  and  “Do  it  young  and  they  don’t  even  remember,”  (p.  277;  Spooner  et  al.,  2012).  The  authors  speculated  that  it  may  simply  be  that,  “some  producers  do  not  equate  good  welfare  with  making  all  possible  or  even  feasible  efforts  to  reduce  pain  or  suffering,”  (p.  282;  Spooner  et  al.,  2012).  However,  Spooner  et  al.  (2012)  also  noted  that  perceived  responsibility  to  minimize  pain  varied  among  their  respondents,  with  others  strongly  emphasizing  the  need  to  minimize  the  pain  associated  with  these  procedures.  Farmer  sensitivity  to  pain  has  also  been  found  in  other  studies  (Wikman  et  al.,  2013).  The  available  information  on  producer  attitudes  to  animal  stress  is  somewhat  conflicting.  There  is  some  evidence  to  suggest  that  stress  is  less  important  to  producers  than  to  other  stakeholders.  For  example,  producers  in  Belgium  rated  the  importance  of  stress  (and  also,  interestingly,  skilled  animal  handlers,  which  would  affect  handling  stress)  as  lower  than  did  citizens  (Vanhonacker  et  al.,  2008).  In  other  studies  that  sought  to  establish  a  broad  understanding  of  animal  welfare  values  in  producers,  the  issue  of  stress  did  not  arise  at  all,  lending  further  weight  to  the  idea  that  stress  may  not  figure  greatly  in  producers’  conceptions  of  welfare  (Te  Velde  et  al.,  2002;  Bock  and  van  Huik,  2007;  Kaupinnen  et  al.,  2010).       20     And  yet,  the  above-­‐cited  studies  in  which  concerns  for  handling  stress  superseded  concerns  around  short-­‐term  pain  tell  a  different  story,  as  do  a  few  studies  with  cattle  producers.  Among  beef  cattle  producers,  minimizing  stress  was  often  seen  as  a  central  priority  (Kjaernes  et  al.,  2008;  Phillips  et  al.,  2009;  Spooner  et  al.,  2012).  For  example,  Australian  stakeholders  (including  beef  producers)  ranked  stockmanship  as  their  highest  welfare  concern  (Phillips  et  al.,  2009).  The  beef  ranchers  interviewed  by  Spooner  et  al.  (2012)  were  similarly  concerned  about  stress,  though  they  varied  in  their  use  of  the  term,  with  some  using  it  to  refer  to  anything  that  threatened  the  animal’s  growth  or  functioning  and  others  describing  an  animal’s  emotional  state.  Reduction  of  stress  was  nonetheless  viewed  as  universally  desirable,  and  something  that  could  be  achieved  through  good  stockmanship  and  low-­‐stress  handling  (Spooner  et  al.,  2012).    It  is  unlikely  that  only  beef  producers  place  strong  value  on  minimizing  stress  in  their  animals  (for  example,  Spooner  et  al.  [2014b]  also  found  an  emphasis  on  low-­‐stress  handling  techniques  among  Canadian  pig  producers).  Possibly,  some  of  the  survey  and  interview  structures  of  the  previous  studies  may  not  have  been  designed  to  capture  or  elicit  producer  concerns  around  stress.  Alternatively,  it  may  be  that  concerns  around  stress  may  indeed  be  more  prominent  among  beef  cattle  producers,  perhaps  due  to  producer  sensitivity  to  the  effects  of  infrequent  interactions  with  animals  raised  in  extensive  conditions.    Natural  living     Many  studies  of  conventional  producers  have  noted  that  they  tend  to  de-­‐emphasize  the  importance  of  natural  living  to  livestock  welfare  in  relation  to  other  values  (Te  Velde  et  al.,  2002;  Vanhonacker  et  al.,  2008;  Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning,     21  2013;  Spooner  et  al.,  2014b).  In  some  studies  the  distinction  between  producers  and  other  stakeholders  is  especially  stark;  for  example,  Vanhonacker  et  al.  (2008)  asked  Belgian  citizens  and  producers  to  rate  the  importance  of  72  different  aspects  of  animal  welfare,  organized  under  seven  key  dimensions.  On  average,  compared  to  the  citizens,  producers  rated  every  aspect  (save  one)  in  the  “Ability  to  Engage  in  Natural  Behaviour”  dimension  as  less  important  to  animal  welfare.  These  aspects  incorporated  elements  related  to  the  environment  as  well  as  to  behaviour,  including  daylight,  natural  growth  rate,  natural  environment,  explorative  behaviour,  natural  birth,  maternal  behaviour,  sexual  behaviour,  having  fun,  foraging  behaviour,  and  play  behaviour.  The  exception  to  this  trend  seems  to  be  organic  livestock  producers  (mixed  species:  Lund  et  al.,  2002,  2004;  Lund,  2006;  pigs:  Bock  and  van  Huik,  2007;  pigs:  Hubbard  and  Scott,  2011;  dairy  cattle:  Vetouli  et  al.,  2012).  Vonne  Lund,  a  leading  expert  in  the  values  of  European  organic  livestock  farmers,  described  their  conception  of  animal  welfare  as  differing  markedly  from  that  of  most  conventional  farmers  in  that  they  specified  that  animals  should  be  able  to  live  a  natural  life8  (2006).  She  elaborated  that  allowing  animals  to  live  in  a  natural  way  requires  that  they  be  allowed  to  express  natural  behaviours,  be  fed  according  to  their  physiology,  and  live  in  environments  that  closely  mirror  how  they  would  live  in  the  wild.  Swedish  organic  producers  of  multiple  species,  for  example,  considered  natural  living  as  a  precondition  to  adequate  welfare                                                                                                                  8  Often  to  the  extent  that  those  in  the  organic  sectors  often  viewed  conventional  production  critically  for  failing  to  make  such  provisions.  Interestingly,  the  reverse  is  also  true  such  that  conventional  producers  are  often  highly  critical  of  organics,  often  for  perceived  welfare  deficits  in  organic  farming  (see  Spooner  et  al.,  2012).  This  critique  is  typically  two-­‐fold:  in  one  way,  organics  are  perceived  to  cast  a  (undeserved)  bad  light  on  conventional  production.  This  is  viewed  as  particularly  egregious  because  organic  is  perceived  as  not  delivering  adequate  welfare.  For  example,  Spooner  et  al.’s  (2012)  subjects  voiced  concern  about  disincentives  to  treat  sick  animals  in  organic  production.  These  critiques  offer  another  window  into  how  animal  welfare  values  may  be  prioritized  differently.       22  (Lund  et  al.,  2002,  2004).  Bock  and  van  Huik  (2007)  likewise  noted  that  a  majority  of  European  pig  producers  participating  in  organic  or  voluntary  welfare  assurance  schemes  incorporated  a  mandate  for  provision  of  freedom  and  natural  behaviour  opportunities  in  their  definitions  of  welfare.  More  recent  work  in  Britain  confirms  the  stronger  emphasis  on  natural  behaviour  by  organic  producers  (Hubbard  and  Scott,  2011).  Prioritization  of  natural  living  has  been  noted  to  be  stronger  among  ‘pioneer’  farmers,  regardless  of  species  (e.g.  those  who  converted  to  organic  farming  early  due  to  personal  beliefs  of  organic  husbandry  as  a  lifestyle  calling,  as  opposed  to  ‘entrepreneurs,’  whose  organic  farming  activity  is  primarily  economically  motivated  (Lund  et  al.,  2002,  2004).  There  is  limited  evidence  that  organic  dairy  producers  in  particular  place  special  emphasis  on  the  role  of  natural  living  for  animal  welfare.  The  Lund  studies  mentioned  the  inclusion  of  dairy  producers  in  their  samples,  but  the  interview  study  (Lund  et  al.,  2002)  failed  to  specify  the  numbers  involved,  focusing  instead  on  distinguishing  pioneers.  Some  participants  in  a  case  study  of  Nordic  dairy  farmers  (n=6)  affirmed  natural  living  as  integral  to  animal  welfare,  but  the  authors  noted  high  variation  between  the  farms  in  whether  these  values  translated  into  practice  (Vetouli  et  al.,  2012).  That  organic  farmers,  particularly  those  who  view  their  work  as  a  calling,  would  incorporate  natural  living  into  their  conception  of  animal  welfare  makes  sense  in  light  of  broader  organic  values  that  hold  the  natural  world  as  something  to  be  emulated  (as  described  in  Lund,  2006).  By  extension,  conventional  producers  operating  in  more  extensive  husbandry  contexts  may  also  see  similar  value  in  raising  animals  in  more     23  naturalistic  ways.  Indeed,  emphasis  on  allowing  animals  to  express  natural  behaviour  has  been  found  in  conventional  cattle  producers  in  both  Europe  and  North  America  (Kjaernes  et  al.,  2008;  Spooner  et  al.,  2012).  Spooner  et  al.  (2012)  noted  that  some  of  their  respondents  even  appeared  to  value  the  natural  element  so  strongly  that  they  accepted  a  certain  degree  of  hardship  (e.g.  inclement  weather)  for  their  animals  in  exchange  for  having  them  outdoors.  Interestingly,  this  preference  for  the  outdoors  was  stronger  than  that  expressed  by  European  producers  in  Kjaernes  et  al.  (2008),  though  Spooner  et  al.  (2012)  were  unsure  whether  these  differences  were  attributable  to  stronger  personal  values  or  to  practical  considerations  around  land  use.    Finally,  even  within  the  segments  of  producers  (organic,  extensive  sectors)  for  which  orientation  to  nature  may  be  more  expected,  exceptions  are  still  found.  For  example,  Borgen  and  Skarstad  (2007)  noted  the  existence  of  some  nature-­‐oriented  conventional  Norwegian  pig  producers.  The  difference  between  intensive  conventional  producers  and  extensive  or  organic  producers,  however,  seems  to  be  in  whether  natural  elements  are  perceived  as  a  welfare  prerequisite  or  a  luxury.  A  focus  group  study  by  de  Greef  et  al.  (2006)  suggested  that  for  conventional  producers  in  intensive  systems,  it  appears  to  be  the  latter;  when  asked  how  they  would  spend  an  extra  100,000€  on  their  animals,  most  of  the  pig  producers  in  the  study  indicated  that  they  would  provide  additional  space.  The  respondents  were  clear,  however,  that  they  considered  their  current  facilities  as  adequate  and  described  extra  space  as  a  nice  bonus.  Thus,  while  expansive  natural  provisions  may  be  desirable,  many  conventional  producers  do  not  appear  to  consider  their  lack  to  create  suffering.       24  1.5.2 Other  industry  actors     Although  farmers  are  stakeholders  of  key  importance  for  improving  the  welfare  of  farm  animals,  the  attitudes  of  other  actors  within  the  industry  chains  –including  veterinarians,  animal  science  researchers,  industry  service  providers,  processors,  and  retailers—  should  also  be  considered  relevant.  Livestock  veterinarians  may  be  especially  suitable  to  take  a  leadership  role  on  the  welfare  of  farm  animals  (Lam  et  al.,  2007).  Numerous  studies  have  shown  that  farmers  consider  the  opinions  of  their  veterinarians  to  be  most  relevant  and  important  in  this  regard  (Lam  et  al.,  2007;  Jansen  et  al.,  2010b;  Kaupinnen  et  al.,  2010).  Others  (Kaupinnen  et  al.,  2010)  have  commented  on  the  instrumental  importance  of  researchers,  as  they  could  have  the  potential  to  influence  producers  to  take  welfare-­‐proactive  steps  on  their  farms.    Finally,  those  operating  in  the  retail  sector  are  clearly  important  to  include  in  the  conversation  about  farm  animal  welfare  (Fulponi,  2006).  Aerts  (2013)  used  the  hourglass  model  of  the  food  industry  to  argue  for  increased  attention  to  the  relatively  few  corporate  and  supermarket  buyers,  given  that  their  decisions  may  have  the  greatest  potential  influence  over  animal  care  standards.  Nevertheless,  the  literature  has  only  recently  cued  into  the  potential  influence  of  these  industry  actors  and  to  my  knowledge  very  little  research  focuses  on  their  views  toward  animal  welfare  (a  study  of  Spanish  retailers  being  one  exception,  Miranda-­‐de  la  Lama  et  al.,  2013).  What  literature  exists  regarding  the  attitudes  of  other  industry  actors  to  animal  welfare  seems  to  focus  mainly  on  people  in  the  veterinary  and  academic  communities.  In  one  of  the  few  examples  of  intensive  study  of  any  stakeholder’s  attitudes  to  farm  animal  welfare  in  the  US,  Heleski  and  colleagues  performed  a  series  of  studies     25  among  academic  faculty  (primarily  animal  scientists  and  veterinarians,  Heleski  et  al.,  2004,  2005;  Heleski  and  Zanella,  2006).  As  with  trends  in  value  emphases  by  livestock  producers,  veterinarians  (Heleksi  et  al.,  2005)  and  animal  science  faculty  (Heleski  et  al.,  2004)  most  strongly  emphasized  health  (e.g.  thirst,  hunger,  injury  and  disease)  and  placed  the  least  emphasis  on  behavioural  repertoire  and  freedom  of  movement.  Moreover,  40%  of  veterinary  and  51%  of  animal  science  faculty  strongly  agreed  that  good  production  equaled  good  animal  welfare  (Heleski  et  al.,  2004,  2005).       Heleski  et  al.  (2006)  also  investigated  veterinary  and  animal  science  faculty  concerns  about  the  livestock  sectors  as  a  whole  in  addition  to  specific  issues  and  practices  within  them.  In  general,  academic  faculty  placed  dairy  cattle  on  the  middle  of  the  welfare  spectrum,  with  the  more  intensive  pig  and  poultry  sectors  ranking  below  and  the  beef  and  sheep  industries  as  superior.  In  regard  to  specific  issues,  the  authors  found  majority  agreement  that  lameness—across  species,  including  dairy  cattle—was  of  high  concern,  which  agrees  with  producer  perceptions  as  well  (Leach  et  al.  2010a,b).       Pain-­‐related  attitudes  (at  least  pertaining  to  short-­‐term  pain)  among  veterinarians  and  animal  science  faculty  likewise  appear  to  show  some  similarities  to  the  patterns  observed  in  producers.  Some  work  (Heleski  et  al.  2004,  2006)  has  shown  skepticism  among  veterinarians  and  academics  about  the  severity  of  pain  associated  with  routine  husbandry  procedures.  Heleski  et  al.  (2004)  for  example  found  that  acute  pain  states  associated  with  procedures  such  as  dehorning  without  anesthetics  did  not  appear  to  be  a  priority  issue  of  concern  among  US  animal  science  faculty.  The  authors  suggested  either  the  existence  of  a  critical  knowledge  gap  or  a  difference  in  the  severity  in  how  acute  vs.  chronic  welfare  states  were  perceived.  Nevertheless  this  finding  is     26  disturbing,  both  because  of  academics’  role  in  educating  future  industry  stakeholders  but  also  because  there  is  abundant  evidence  that  these  practices  are  linked  with  multiple  pain  indicators.    In  contrast,  the  veterinarians  in  these  studies  showed  higher  levels  of  concern  about  the  painfulness  of  the  practices  and  their  influence  on  animal  welfare,  which  the  authors  attributed  to  a  number  of  factors,  including  veterinary  training  sensitizing  them  to  pain  or  making  them  more  aware  of  available  pain  relief  options  (Heleski  et  al.,  2004).  However,  a  study  of  Norwegian  veterinary  student  attitudes  to  pain  in  cattle  showed  that  upper  classmen  tended  to  perceive  a  range  of  conditions  (e.g.  mastitis,  laminitis,  dehorning,  distal  limb  fracture)  as  less  painful  than  did  lower  classmen,  suggesting  some  degree  of  desensitization  within  that  veterinary  program  (Kielland  et  al.,  2009).  Nonetheless,  when  compared  to  producers,  veterinarians  seem  to  express  a  stronger  sensitivity  to  pain.  Two  years  after  the  use  of  local  anesthetics  for  piglet  castration  became  mandatory  in  Norway,  two-­‐thirds  of  surveyed  veterinarians  judged  anesthetics  to  have  a  beneficial  effect  on  piglet  welfare  (vs.  just  one-­‐third  of  producers,  Fredriksen  and  Nafstad,  2006).  It  is  clear  from  this  and  other  work  that  the  perception    that  pain  is  legitimate  (i.e.  actually  exists)  correlates  quite  strongly  with  the  intention  to  take  action  to  relieve  it:  Canadian  veterinarians’  use  of  analgesics  for  dehorning,  for  example,  is  associated  with  stronger  perceptions  that  dehorning  is  indeed  painful  for  the  calf  (Hewson  et  al.,  2007).      1.5.3 Summary       The  emerging  literature  is  beginning  to  suggest  some  general  trends  among  producer  and  industry  actor  attitudes  and  values  to  animal  welfare:  notably,  that     27  producers  often  prioritize  biological  functioning  and  health  indicators,  have  widely  varying  views  about  pain  and  stress,  and  are  likely  less  concerned  with  providing  animals  the  opportunity  to  live  in  a  natural  manner.  The  scant  literature  available  on  other  industry  actors  suggests  that  these  trends  may  also  apply  to  members  of  the  veterinary  and  animal  science  academic  communities  as  well,  though  there  is  some  evidence  that  veterinarians  may  be  more  sensitive  to  pain  in  animals  than  are  other  industry  actors.  However,  this  is  an  emerging  field  with  many  contradictions,  and  it  appears  that  the  simplistic  approach  of  describing  producers  as  having  only  one  set  of  values  around  animal  welfare  is  incorrect.  Rather,  it  appears  that  farmer  attitudes  and  values  regarding  animal  welfare  may  be  modulated  by  an  array  of  factors.  Continued  research  is  warranted  to  better  understand  the  landscape  of  values  that  may  characterize  these  stakeholders  by  sector  and  also  by  region,  particularly  in  the  US  and  Canada.      1.6 Engagement  between  industry  and  lay  stakeholders     To  the  extent  that  a  relationship  between  the  livestock  industries  and  the  public  exists,  it  has  often  been  fraught  with  tension.  One  reason  for  this  dynamic  is  that  those  connected  to  the  livestock  industries  often  tend  to  dismiss  the  relevance  of  lay  opinions  in  the  debate  about  farm  animal  welfare  (see  Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning,  2013).  For  example,  a  mixed  methods  study  by  Kauppinen  et  al.  (2010)  recently  documented  how  Finnish  dairy  and  pig  farmers  tended  to  either  dismiss  or  ignore  consumers  entirely  when  questioned  about  the  importance  of  different  opinions  in  the  debate  on  farm  animal  welfare.       28  Two  related  issues  may  explain  the  tension  between  industry  and  lay  stakeholders:  industry  distrust  of  external  commentary  as  representing  a  threat  to  farmer  livelihood,  and  perception  of  lay  stakeholders  as  ignorant  of  the  facts  relevant  to  the  debate.       Those  who  work  with  livestock  often  appear  defensive  around  the  topic  of  animal  welfare,  even  to  the  extent  that  they  shy  away  from  the  term  ‘animal  welfare’  because  of  its  association  with  outside  efforts  to  change  livestock  production  (Spooner  et  al.,  2012).  For  these  individuals,  perceived  outsiders  who  question  how  their  animals  are  raised  present  a  direct  threat  to  their  very  way  of  life  (Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning,  2013).  Cardoso  and  James  Jr.  (2012)  described  a  study  of  American  farmer  identities  by  Wilson  et  al.  (2003),  which  neatly  captures  the  way  many  farmers  view  those  on  the  outside:  Many  Midwestern  farmers  strongly  felt  they  must  defend  ‘farmer  lives’—by  which  they  meant  their  ‘values,  beliefs,  norms,  and  traditions’  from  adversaries,  including  environmentalists,  government  regulators,  and  ‘city  values’  [emphasis  added].  Sometimes,  the  perceived  need  to  stand  in  solidarity  against  outside  forces  was  so  strong  that  the  farmers  came  to  evaluate  agricultural  practices  not  entirely  on  the  practices’  own  merits  or  faults,  but  rather  through  a  lens  of  whether  the  practice  was  seen  as  ‘under  attack’….  (p.  398).    We  see  evidence  of  this  belief  in  European  pig  farmers  who  describe  feeling  under  attack  from  unrealistic  demands  from  consumers  and  other  outside  forces  (Bock  and  van  Huik,  2007).  Interestingly,  producers  do  not  appear  unique  in  the  belief  that  livestock  agriculture  is  threatened  by  societal  expectations;  in  a  study  of  American  veterinary  and  animal  science  faculty,  one  respondent  commented  that,  “One  must  be  careful  not  to  destroy  a  system  that  can  feed  those  who  are  hungry,”  (p.  300;  Heleski  et  al.,  2006).       29     Often  coupled  with  industry  stakeholders’  distrust  of  the  public  is  the  perception  that  the  public  is  largely  ignorant  of  livestock  production  and  by  extension,  animal  health  and  welfare.  This  assumption  has  been  well  described  under  the  informational  deficit  model  of  public  understanding  (also  referred  to  as  the  knowledge  gap,  knowledge  deficit,  or  cognitive  deficit;  Einsiedel,  2000;  Wynne  and  Irwin,  1996).  The  public  understanding  of  science  movement  draws  heavily  from  this  model  to  posit  four  fundamental  assumptions.  One  could  easily  adapt  these  assumptions  into  a  Public  Understanding  of  Welfare  Risks  to  Livestock  (adapted  from  Hansen  et  al.,  2003):  1) Optimizing  productivity  in  order  to  maximize  food  production  (to  feed  the  world!)  is  a  common  goal  in  the  modern  industrialized  world.    2) There  are  inevitable  compromises  (e.g.  livestock  will  not  have  a  “perfect”  life)  that  are  associated  with  this  optimal  productivity,  but  these  are  widely  agreed  upon.    3) Science  and  technology  is  the  most  effective  and  desirable  basis  from  which  to  improve  practices  and  therefore  science  should  be  the  (only)  basis  from  which  any  changes  are  made,  and  the  only  language  with  which  to  discuss  issues.  4) When  experts  therefore  make  recommendations  or  defend  current  practices  on  the  basis  of  science,  if  the  public  does  not  accept  what  they  are  told,  it  is  because  they  do  not  understand  the  science  (and  by  extension,  the  reality  of  the  situation).         The  corollary  of  this  model  assumes  that  lay  concerns  about  science  and  technology  (including  agriculture)  are  unfounded.  By  extension,  concerns  about  the  system  in  question  need  to  be  corrected,  usually  through  unidirectional  educational  efforts  designed  to  bring  public  opinion  in  line  with  expert9  views  (see  Hansen  et  al.,  2003  for  an  excellent  expansion  of  the  thinking  underlying  this  model).                                                                                                                    9  Drawing  largely  from  studies  of  lay  attitudes  to  food  risks,  Hansen  et  al.  (2003)  explain  that  these  ‘experts’  include  scientists,  food  producers,  and  public  health  advisors.  In  our  context,  ‘experts’  could  include  these  stakeholders  along  with  livestock  veterinarians  and  any  other  actor  working  with  the  livestock  supply  chain.       30  Denial  of  the  public’s  relevance  to  the  debate  on  farm  animal  care  on  the  basis  of  ignorance  has  also  been  argued  as  a  way  for  farmers  to  deal  with  the  potential  threat  that  criticism  presents  to  farmers’  way  of  life  (as  described  above).  Public  criticism  is  interpreted  as  a  ‘threat  message,’  and  as  such  provokes  defensive  reactions  that  include  the  projection  of  public  ignorance,  enabling  the  individual  to  either  deny  or  avoid  the  critique  (Witte,  1994).  Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning  (2013),  for  example,  suggested  that  the  pig  producers  in  their  focus  group  study  were  unable  to  “step  out  of  the  denial  phase”  and  engage  directly  with  citizens’  concerns  about  pig  welfare.  Rather,  they  “choose  to  disqualify  the  relevance  of  the  knowledge  of  the  urban-­‐citizens  by  labeling  them  as  ignorant,”  (p.  1033).    Hansen  et  al.  (2003)  wrote  that,  “this  way  of  looking  at  matters  is  still  endemic  in  some  quarters,”  (p.  111).  Over  a  decade  later  we  still  find  this  to  be  the  case.  Pig  producers  in  the  UK,  for  example,  found  consumers  to  be  typically  ill  informed  and  possessing  inappropriate  expectations  as  to  how  livestock  should  be  treated.  They  likewise  expressed  the  desire  that  farming  organizations  should  dedicate  more  effort  to  educate  the  public  (Hubbard  et  al.,  2007).    In  the  Netherlands,  all  of  the  pig  producers  (n=11)  in  the  above-­‐cited  study  (Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning,  2013)  were  unanimous  in  their  perception  of  public  ignorance  of  pig  husbandry  and  suggested  the  use  of  one-­‐way  information  strategies  to  rectify  negative  perceptions  and  ‘misinformation.’  Remarkably,  this  perception  was  so  entrenched  that  all  maintained  their  perspectives,  even  after  participating  in  a  series  of     31  frame  reflection10  exercises,  including  role  play  of  other  stakeholder  perceptions  (including  the  critical  citizen)  and  film  recordings  of  parallel  sessions,  in  which  citizens  discussed  their  concerns  about  pig  husbandry  and  reflected  on  their  own  biases  toward  pig  production  (Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning,  2013).    Perceptions  of  citizen  ignorance  also  appear  to  exist  among  some  Canadian  beef  producers,  who  agreed  that  citizens  lack  sufficient  knowledge  about  animal  husbandry  (Spooner  et  al.,  2012).  Moreover,  some  beef  producers  also  viewed  the  public  as  bringing  the  wrong  values  to  the  debate,  blaming  criticism  of  the  industry  on  “too  much  humanizing  and  using  human  values  when  addressing  issues  for  animals”  (p.  279;  Spooner  et  al.,  2012).       The  question  then  becomes  whether  belief  of  public  ignorance  of  farming  practices  is  fully  justified.  At  present  there  appears  to  be  insufficient  evidence  to  support  this  claim  widely,  let  alone  apply  it  to  specific  production  sectors  or  regions.  Almost  certainly  people  will  vary  in  their  knowledge  among  and  within  production  systems.  For  example,  Frewer  et  al.  (2005)  showed  that  self-­‐reported  levels  of  knowledge  differed  depending  on  the  produced  species—fish  or  pig—in  question.  Miele  (n.d.)  noted  that  British  citizens  knew  about  some  specific  practices  related  to  poultry  and  veal  calves,  though  knowledge  of  other  practices  was  low.  Thus  it  is  difficult  to  justify  statements  that  generalize  these  stakeholders  as  wholly  ignorant  of  livestock  production  practices.                                                                                                                  10  Designed  with  the  recognition  that  different  parties  have  “different  perspectives  and  underlying  norms,  values,  and  truths,”  (p.  1015;  Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning,  2013),  frame  reflection  has  been  suggested  as  a  conflict  resolution  strategy  that  enables  differing  parties  “to  put  themselves  in  the  shoes  of  other  actors  in  the  environment  (…)  and  to  overcome  the  blindness  induced  by  their  own  ways  of  framing  the  policy  situation,”  (Schön  and  Rein,  1994).     32  There  are  some  indications  in  the  peer-­‐reviewed  literature  (reviewed  below)  that  public  knowledge  of  livestock  production  may  be  fairly  low.  However,  it  appears  that  much  of  this  is  based  on  self-­‐reports  of  low  knowledge,  rather  than  on  responses  to  factual  questions  about  animal  agriculture.  As  with  other  areas  of  the  literature  on  stakeholder  attitudes  to  farm  animal  welfare,  much  of  what  is  known  about  citizen  knowledge  is  from  studies  in  Europe,  with  less  information  about  North  American  citizens.    The  2007  Eurobarometer  special  report,  entitled  Attitudes  of  EU  Citizens  toward  Animal  Welfare,  surveyed  over  29,000  European  citizens  in  25  members  states.  Arguably  one  of  the  largest  scale  efforts  to  date  to  understand  broadly  held  public  attitudes  on  this  topic,  it  found  that  most  citizens  claimed  little  to  no  knowledge11  of  farm  animal  conditions,  though  self-­‐reported  levels  of  knowledge  varied  by  country  (Eurobarometer,  2007).  Citizens  in  the  Nordic  countries,  for  example,  claimed  the  highest  levels  of  knowledge,  while  citizens  in  Spain  claimed  the  lowest  (Eurobarometer,  2007).  The  Eurobarometer’s  finding  is  supported  by  a  number  of  more  specific  studies.  For  example,  most  of  the  respondents  in  a  questionnaire  study  of  Dutch  perceptions  of  farm  animal  welfare  reported  that  they  did  not  know  much  about  farm  animals’  quality  of  life  (Boogaard  et  al.,  2006).  Another  study,  again  with  Dutch  respondents,  likewise  indicated  low  knowledge  of  the  welfare  of  animals  in  the  aquaculture  and  pork  industries  (Frewer  et  al.,  2005).                                                                                                                    11  Interestingly,  it  is  not  only  lay  stakeholders  who  report  feeling  uninformed  about  livestock  production  practices.  Heleski  et  al.  (2005)  made  a  surprising  finding  that  a  substantial  proportion  (20-­‐45%)  of  production  animal  veterinary  faculty  in  the  US  reported  that  they  were  not  familiar  enough  with  6  of  the  15  different  husbandry  practices  included  in  the  survey  to  comment  on  them,  leading  the  authors  to  conclude,  “In  our  opinion…even  veterinary  college  faculty  are  not  fully  aware  of  the  modern  production  practices  that  may  be  associated  with  welfare  concerns,”  (p.  1545).             33  There  is  some  evidence  that  this  trend  holds  for  the  dairy  industry  as  well:  50%  of  British  respondents  reported  that  they  felt  uninformed  about  production  methods  (Ellis  et  al.,  2009).  The  authors  of  that  study  also  noted  that  during  pre-­‐tests  it  became  apparent  that,  “many  participants  were  unaware  of  many  aspects  of  dairy  production  that  may  have  welfare  implications  and  were  unfamiliar  with  some  technical  or  animal  health  terms,  for  example  they  did  not  understand  what  the  terms  ‘mastitis’  or  ‘stockmanship’  indicated,”  (p.  273).  Though  it  is  important  to  note  that  the  authors  did  not  appear  to  specifically  assess  participant  performance  on  knowledge-­‐based  questions  about  dairy  production,  their  experience  with  participants  in  the  pre-­‐test  phase  led  the  authors  to  conclude  that  “consumers’  general  dairy  farming  knowledge  is  limited,”  (p.  273;  Ellis  et  al.,  2009).       It  has  been  suggested  that  the  public  should  be  distinguished  according  to  their  differing  interest  in  farm  animal  welfare  (Boogaard  et  al.,  2006;  Vanhonacker  et  al.,  2007).  For  example,  Miele  (n.d.),  in  summarizing  a  number  of  studies  across  seven  EU  countries,  found  that  both  the  level  and  types  of  knowledge  varied  according  to  participants’  social  backgrounds  (e.g.  politically  active  and  vegetarian  participants  were  more  knowledgeable  on  these  issues).  In  another  study,  Vanhonacker  et  al.  (2007)  probed  animal  welfare  beliefs  in  Belgian  respondents  and  established  six  distinct  segments  according  to  their  attention  to  animal  welfare  issues  during  purchasing  and  their  perceptions  of  the  state  of  animal  welfare.  The  authors  argued  that  segmentation  “yielded  a  valuable  basis  to  improve  the  societal…debate  about  the  issue,”  along  with  providing  insight  into  how  products  should  be  marketed  to  different  consumer  profiles.  It  stands  to  reason  that,  in  a  similar  way  that  citizens  ascribe  differing  levels  of     34  importance  to  farm  animal  welfare,  different  profiles  of  citizen  knowledge  likely  exist.  Industry  stakeholders  would  do  well  to  take  into  account  this  variability  in  their  interactions  with  the  public.    Taken  together,  it  is  clear  that  the  literature  on  public  understanding  of  livestock  production  and  welfare  is  only  just  starting  to  emerge.  At  present,  what  evidence  exists  on  low  knowledge  among  lay  stakeholders  is  patchy  at  best.  It  seems  evident  that  a  more  comprehensive  understanding  of  lay  knowledge  of  farming  practices,  differentiated  by  sector  and  region,  is  needed.  This  should  enable  more  productive  interactions  between  the  public  and  those  working  in  the  respective  industries.    However,  obtaining  a  better  understanding  of  public  knowledge  will  only  take  us  part  of  the  way  in  improving  the  dialogue  and  relationship  between  society  and  the  livestock  industries.  We  also  need  to  keep  in  mind  that  the  deficit  model  of  public  understanding  –together  with  its  posit  that  knowledge  is  a  pivotal  factor  in  acceptance  of  industry  practices—has  increasingly  been  called  into  question.  Upon  reviewing  a  body  of  literature  on  lay  assessments  of  food  risks,  Hansen  et  al.  (2003)  noted  that  there  is  substantial  evidence  that  providing  lay  stakeholders  with  more  information  does  not  necessarily  translate  to  higher  acceptance.  They  concluded  that  lay  perceptions  and  conceptualizations  of  food  risks  “do  not  seem  to  be  well  explained  as  products  of  a  simple  lack  of  information,”  (p.  118).    In  the  context  of  farm  animal  welfare,  there  is  some  evidence  that  information  provision  may  increase  support  of  industry  practices,  but  it  is  far  from  conclusive.  The  2007  Eurobarometer  study  noted  that  those  who  claimed  to  have  a  lot  of  knowledge  of  farm  practices  were  more  likely  to  perceive  farming  conditions  as  having  improved     35  over  the  last  years.  And  yet,  the  report’s  attribution  of  this  positive  view  to  “a  real  understanding  of  farming  conditions”  should  be  viewed  critically.  While  this  is  one  explanation,  the  correlational  nature  of  this  finding  begs  consideration  of  whether  positive  industry  perception  may  instead  be  attributed  to  other  factors  (for  example,  to  enculturation  of  traditional  farming  values).  A  few  last  examples  also  throw  the  deficit  model’s  relevance  to  public  perceptions  of  farm  animal  welfare  into  question.  In  the  study  where  British  participants  were  deemed  to  possess  low  knowledge  about  dairy  production,  half  of  them  rated  dairy  welfare  as  positive  (Ellis  et  al.,  2009).  A  study  of  Dutch  citizens  likewise  noted  slightly  positive  perceptions  of  farm  animal  welfare  juxtaposed  with  relatively  low  knowledge  of  production  (Boogaard  et  al.,  2006).  Finally,  Boogaard  et  al.  (2011b)  noted  that  many  of  their  respondents  showed  shock  and  dismay  when  they  visited  a  conventional  pig  farm  and  noted  that  the  visits  caused  opinions  about  pig  production  to  become  more  negative.  Such  results  are  difficult  to  interpret  under  the  deficit  model,  which  would  predict  high  (not  low)  knowledge  to  correlate  with  higher  opinions  of  the  industries.    These  examples  highlight  an  important  aspect  of  the  deficit  model  that  has  made  it  the  target  of  criticism:  acceptance  of  a  given  practice,  or  indeed  an  entire  industry,  is  almost  certainly  modulated  by  factors  beyond  someone’s  understanding  of  it.  Most  notably,  many  have  suggested  that  the  deficit  model  fails  to  recognize  the  role  that  values  play  in  attitude  formation.  In  other  words,  people  may  object  to  something  that  experts  advocate,  not  because  they  lack  knowledge  of  all  relevant  facts,  but  because  it  does  not  align  with  their  basic  values  (Peters,  2000;  Hansen  et  al.,  2003;  Kristensen  and     36  Jakobsen,  2011).  What  follows  then,  is  that  “people  may  have  concerns  other  than  those  addressed  by  science-­‐indeed  other  than  those  science  is  capable  of  addressing,”  (p.  113;  Hansen  et  al.,  2003).  The  deficit  model’s  promotion  that  “risk  communication  is  a  matter  of  information  provision,  i.e.  something  not  involving  dialogue,”  (p.  115;  Hansen  et  al.,  2003)  is  then  at  best  an  overly  simplistic  and  at  worst  wholly  inadequate  basis  for  risk  communication.  Applied  to  the  context  of  farm  animal  welfare,  assuming  widespread  public  ignorance  is  unlikely  to  be  an  appropriate  foundation  from  which  the  dairy  industry  should  approach  relations  with  lay  stakeholders.  1.7 Lay  stakeholder  values     Lay  stakeholders  include  members  of  the  public  who  hold  no  affiliation  to  livestock  production  and  who  in  their  daily  lives  have  little  to  do  with  any  aspect  of  the  production  process.  The  literature  on  public  attitudes  to  farm  animal  welfare  often  bundles  ‘consumer’  and  ‘citizen’  together,  but  these  terms  imply  distinctly  different  roles.  In  contrast  to  the  consumer,  whose  role  as  a  purchaser  of  animal  products  is  acted  out  in  a  market  context  (and  whose  attitudes  are  primarily  inferred  through  purchasing  decisions),  this  thesis  focuses  on  the  citizen,  who  as  a  part  of  civil  society  contributes  to  a  social  consensus  (and  whose  attitudes  are  assessed  via  surveys,  interviews,  etc.;  as  discussed  in  Aerts,  2013).12    Understanding  citizen  views  about  animal  agriculture  has  important  implications  for  the  long-­‐term  sustainability  of  the  livestock  industries  (Boogaard  et  al.,                                                                                                                  12  Relevant  to  this  discussion  is  the  oft-­‐mentioned  ‘citizen-­‐consumer’  gap,  or  the  difference  in  how  people  express  their  concerns  about  food  (or  other  product)  issues  in  surveys  vs.  in  their  purchasing  decisions.  Explanations  for  this  phenomenon  are  hotly  debated.  The  interested  reader  is  referred  to  Aerts  (2013)  and  De  Bakker  and  Davegos  (2012).     37  2008).  Civil  society  is  increasingly  influential  over  corporate  and  governmental  agendas  for  issues  in  the  food  system  (Fulponi,  2006).  In  a  philosophic  sense,  food  production  is  also  a  public  good  that  cannot  reasonably  be  expected  to  operate  in  isolation  of  societal  expectations  (Brom,  2000)  and  indeed,  requires  a  ‘license  to  produce’  (Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning,  2013).  As  noted  by  Thompson  et  al.  (2011),    …any  system  of  commercial  food  production  operates  not  only  within  a  context  of  formal  laws  and  policies  that  are  imposed  by  government  but  also  with  respect  to  informal  expectations  that  reflect  the  attitudes  of  key  interested  parties  as  well  as  society  as  a  whole.  (p.  2097).    Democratizing  livestock  production  through  inclusion  of  public  views  into  policy  has  been  argued  as  a  way  to  help  production  practices  align  with  social  values  (Guehlstorf,  2008).  This  incorporation  would  serve  to  legitimize  the  standards  that  are  then  developed  and  improve  public  trust  in  livestock  production  (Guehlstorf,  2008).  However,  this  approach  has  generally  not  been  adopted  by  the  dairy  industries  in  Canada  and  the  US.  When  the  livestock  industries  fail  to  respond  to  social  concerns  about  farm  animal  welfare,  they  run  the  risk  that  society  may  turn  to  other  avenues  and  circumvent  the  industries  entirely  in  order  to  enact  stronger  welfare  standards.  It  could  be  suggested  that  this  scenario  has  played  out  repeatedly  in  the  last  few  years  in  the  United  States,  as  citizens  in  a  number  of  states  have  voted  to  ban  specific  housing  and  management  practices  deemed  harmful  to  farm  animals  (NALC,  2014).      Although  it  is  clear  from  the  literature  that  Western  society  considers  farm  animal  welfare  to  be  important  in  a  general  sense  (below),  to  date  we  have  an  incomplete  understanding  of  not  only  what  production  practices  are  most  objectionable  to  the  public,  but  why.  Moreover,  much  of  the  available  data  on  public  attitudes,     38  particularly  in  North  America,  is  in  the  form  of  market  research  reports  (e.g.  Pirog,  2004;  see  AWI,  2011).     There  has  been  more  effort  in  the  last  decade  to  understand  public  attitudes  to  farm  animal  welfare  in  Europe,  including  the  Eurobarometer  surveys  as  well  as  the  Welfare  Quality®  studies  on  stakeholder  attitudes.  The  2007  Eurobarometer  report  indicated  that  a  considerable  majority  of  respondents  ascribed  great  importance  to  the  welfare  of  farm  animals,  giving  it  an  average  rating  of  7.8  out  of  10.  Fully  one  third  of  respondents  gave  it  a  10  out  of  10.  Furthermore,  the  present  state  of  welfare  in  current  production  systems  also  prompted  concern,  as  72%  of  respondents  indicated  that  further  improvements  were  either  ‘certainly’  or  ‘probably’  necessary  (Eurobarometer,  2007).    Most  American  and  Canadian  surveys  indicate  a  similar  picture,  but  as  with  the  Eurobarometer  the  language  of  these  surveys  is  typically  quite  broad  and  designed  to  gauge  general  importance  rather  than  delve  into  greater  depth.  Many  surveys  (see  AWI,  2011  for  a  compilation;  Grimshaw  et  al.,  2014)  found  majority  agreement  with  statements  along  the  lines  of,  “It  is  important  to  me  that  animals  on  farms  are  well  cared  for,”  (Prickett  et  al.,  2010)  or  “Even  though  some  farm  animals  are  used  for  meat,  the  quality  of  their  lives  is  important,”  (Rauch  and  Sharp,  2005).  Governmental  market  analysis  reports  in  Canada  likewise  indicate  rising  levels  of  public  concern  for  farm  animals  (AAFC,  2011).  Though  some  only  reported  limited  numbers  of  respondents  (e.g.  by  state:  Rutgers,  2003;  Rauch  and  Sharp,  2005),  others  were  aimed  at  producing  data  more  representative  of  the  general  populace.  Prickett  et  al.  (2010)  for  example  conducted  a  telephone  survey  with  a  stratified  sample  of  1000  American  citizens  and     39  found  that  the  majority  of  participants  either  somewhat  (26%)  or  strongly  (51%)  thought  that  the  well-­‐being  of  farm  animals  was  more  important  than  low  meat  prices.     However,  other  surveys  have  indicated  that  farm  animal  welfare,  while  important,  is  less  so  compared  to  other  product  attributes  like  cost  and  food  safety  (Verbeke  and  Viaene,  1999;  CFI,  2008).  Just  14%  of  respondents  in  an  Iowa-­‐based  marketing  study  of  consumer  perceptions  of  pasture-­‐raised  beef  and  dairy  cattle  indicated  that  “how  and  where  beef  and  dairy  cows  were  raised’  was  “very  important”  to  their  purchasing  decisions  (Pirog,  2004).  It  is  possible  that  the  discrepancy  between  these  studies  relates  to  how  these  questions  were  worded,  with  those  in  the  Prickett  et  al.  (2010)  study  perhaps  framed  to  draw  out  general  feelings  of  how  society  should  run  (the  citizen),  and  the  Verbeke  and  Viaene  (1999),  CFI  (2008)  and  Pirog  (2004)  studies  forcing  respondents  into  a  consumer  role.  Lusk  and  Norwood  (2010)  offer  an  alternative  explanation  after  they  found  that  agreement  fell  substantially  when  participants  were  asked  whether  they  vs.  the  average  American  thought  farm  animal  welfare  was  important,  suggesting  that  social  desirability  biases  may  lead  people  to  overstate  the  degree  of  importance  they  ascribe  to  this  issue.  Still  another  explanation  may  be  in  the  recognition  of  individual  variation  in  how  people  value  farm  animals,  with  some  people  greatly  concerned  about  the  quality  of  animal  lives  and  others  relatively  indifferent  (Uzea  et  al.,  2011).       Taken  together,  most  of  the  available  literature  –both  in  Europe  and  in  North  America—indicates  that  the  majority  of  the  public  believes  that  farm  animal  welfare  is  important.  However,  concerns  about  farm  animal  welfare  seem  to  vary  depending  on  the  species  in  question.  For  example,  Belgian  citizens  associated  poultry  products  with     40  lower  welfare  practices  compared  to  pork  and  beef  products  (Verbeke  and  Viaene,  1999).  As  for  dairy  cattle,  Europeans  appear  to  be  less  concerned  about  the  welfare  of  dairy  cows  compared  to  other  farmed  species  (most  notably  pigs  and  poultry,  Eurobarometer,  2005,  2007;  Maria,  2006).  In  this  respect  they  are  similar  to  veterinary  and  animal  science  faculty  in  the  US,  who  also  perceived  dairy  farming  to  have  fewer  welfare  problems  than  pigs  or  poultry  (Heleski  et  al.,  2006).  Kjaernes  et  al.  (2005)  likewise  surveyed  citizens  in  seven  European  countries  (Hungary,  Italy,  France,  Great  Britain,  Netherlands,  Norway  and  Sweden)  and  found  that  a  maximum  of  15%  of  respondents  from  any  one  country  expressed  concern  over  dairy  cattle  welfare,  despite  a  majority  of  respondents  from  each  country  rating  farm  animal  welfare  in  general  as  important  or  very  important.  As  outlined  below,  the  strongest  explanation  for  this  discrepancy  appears  to  be  in  how  restrictive  (in  terms  of  opportunities  for  behavioural  freedom)  the  different  production  methods  are  perceived  to  be.    Understanding  that  farm  animal  welfare  is  important  to  the  public  only  takes  us  so  far.  To  understand  and  resolve  the  conflict  between  industry  stakeholders  and  the  public,  we  must  understand  what  lay  stakeholders  consider  to  be  a  good  life  for  farm  animals.  Progress  in  animal  welfare  will  likely  be  made  on  the  basis  of  incremental  modifications  to  certain  housing  systems  and  to  particularly  objectionable  management  practices.  Although  some  information  on  public  attitudes  to  the  former  (more  below)  has  become  available,  much  still  needs  to  be  done  to  better  understand  people’s  views  (and  indeed,  awareness)  of  common  management  practices.13                                                                                                                    13  There  are  some  notable  efforts  in  other  countries  to  understand  key  concerns,  e.g.  a  study  conducted  for  the  Australian  Animal  Welfare  Strategy  in  2006  identified  battery  cages  for  laying  hens,  use  of  growth  hormones,  mulesing  of  sheep,  and  feeding  animal  byproducts  as  key  consumer  concerns.       41  1.7.1 Lay  value  emphases      Biological  functioning     Despite  the  impression  from  early  studies  indicating  rather  stark  value  differences  between  industry  and  lay  stakeholders  –in  which  industry  stakeholders  emphasize  biological  functioning  to  the  exclusion  of  natural  elements,  and  lay  stakeholders  the  reverse  (Te  Velde  et  al.,  2002)—more  recent  studies  suggest  some  agreement  between  industry  and  lay  stakeholders  on  the  importance  of  certain  basic  necessities  for  animal  welfare.  Often  these  studies  have  presented  a  number  of  welfare  attributes  and  asked  respondents  to  rate  their  importance  against  each  other.  They  indicate  that  receiving  food  and  water,  along  with  treatment  for  injury  and  disease,  are  the  most  important  livestock  welfare  requirements  according  to  American  citizens  (Prickett  et  al.,  2010).  Similarly,  Belgian  citizens  rated  availability  of  water  as  the  most  important  issue  out  of  a  list  of  72  different  welfare  attributes;  other  aspects  related  to  appropriate  feed  and  animal  health  also  received  very  high  marks  (Vanhonacker  et  al.,  2008).  In  line  with  these  findings,  Dutch  citizens  associated  a  lack  of  important  resources  (i.e.  feed  and  water),  as  well  as  presence  of  disease  or  injury,  with  poor  welfare  (Boogaard  et  al.,  2011b).    These  results  should  warrant  little  surprise,  as  even  the  most  naïve  of  citizens  can  be  assumed  to  understand  that  food,  water,  and  freedom  from  grievous  injury  or  disease  are  fundamental  requirements  to  survival.  They  are  thus  likely  to  align  with  industry  stakeholders  about  the  importance  of  these  attributes.  The  key  difference  may  be  that  citizens  appear  to  be  more  likely  to  consider  certain  aspects  related  to  animals’     42  basic  functioning  as  fundamental  prerequisites  to  welfare,  but  not  sufficient  in  and  of  themselves  to  result  in  good  welfare.    Affective  states         There  is  relatively  little  peer-­‐reviewed  research  on  citizen  attitudes  about  affective  states  of  animals.  However,  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  suffering  and  pain  –  and  particularly  the  intentional  infliction  of  these  states—collectively  represent  a  major  taboo  among  citizens.  Thus  far  the  majority  of  this  research  has  focused  on  attitudes  to  routine  management  procedures  that,  when  performed  without  pain  control,  are  known  to  result  in  both  immediate  and  long-­‐term  pain.  Surveys  in  the  US  indicate  strong  citizen  aversion  to  causing  pain  to  livestock.  For  example,  the  majority  of  Ohio  residents  agreed  that  “farm  animals  should  be  protected  from  feeling  pain”  (Rauch  and  Sharp,  2005)  and  a  high  majority  of  New  Jersey  residents  objected  to  the  performance  of  tail  docking  cows  and  pigs  without  pain  relief  (Rutgers,  2003).    In  Europe,  bodily  mutilations  and  pain  arose  as  spontaneous  welfare  concerns  in  focus  groups  with  Swedish  and  Dutch  citizens  (Miele,  n.d.),  as  did  tail  docking  and  teeth  clipping  among  Dutch  citizens  (Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning,  2013).  Moreover,  lay  stakeholders’  aversion  to  subjecting  animals  to  painful  procedures  seems  to  strengthen  when  confronted  with  these  procedures  face-­‐to-­‐face:  visitors  to  pig  farms  in  the  Netherlands  and  Denmark  expressed  negative  reactions  ranging  from  disappointment  to  shock  upon  watching  tail  docking,  castration,  ear  tagging,  and  nose  ringing  (Boogaard  et  al.,  2011b).  One  participant  commented,  “I  thought  it  was  very  miserable  to  see...The  screaming,  cutting,  blood  and  shaking  piglets  gave  me  a  bad  feeling.  But  it  was  good  to  see  that  the  piglets  received  anaesthetics,”  (p.  195).  The  authors  noted  that  their  Dutch     43  respondents  appreciated  the  use  of  anaesthetics  for  these  procedures.  If  reactions  were  this  strong  against  anaesthetized  procedures,  one  may  imagine  the  strength  of  aversion  to  the  lack  of  pain  control  that  more  typically  characterizes  these  types  of  procedures  in  the  US  and  Canada.  In  support  of  this,  a  recent  interview  study  found  that  Canadian  citizens  were  concerned  about  inflicting  pain  on  animals  without  taking  steps  to  manage  it  (Spooner  et  al.,  2014a).  Likewise,  in  an  online  study,  the  majority  (95%)  of  Canadian  and  American  respondents  objected  to  the  practice  of  tail  docking  of  dairy  cattle  (Weary  et  al.,  2011)  partly  because  it  was  believed  to  be  painful.  Results  from  the  increasingly  frequent  US  state  referenda  can  likewise  be  considered  as  indicators  of  public  sentiment  on  certain  specific  farming  practices,  including  painful  procedures.  California  voters  made  their  objection  to  tail  docking  of  dairy  cattle  known  by  pushing  through  a  ban  of  the  practice  in  2009.  Other  states,  including  Ohio  and  Rhode  Island,  have  since  followed  suit  (AVMA,  2013).  It  is  of  course  difficult  to  say  whether  pain  was  the  primary  motivator  in  public  objections  to  tail  docking.  It  is  possible  that  other  issues  –such  as  objections  to  violating  animals’  bodily  integrity  and  the  lack  of  research  supporting  the  intended  efficacy  of  the  practice  in  promoting  hygiene—  also  motivated  people  to  seek  the  bans.  Nonetheless,  media  reports  on  the  bans  suggest  that  concerns  about  the  painfulness  of  the  practice  were  also  involved  (Cone,  2009;  Gliona,  2013;  Morrissey,  2014).  Natural  living     The  most  apparent  contrast  between  industry  and  lay  stakeholders  appears  to  be  that  citizens  tend  to  include  the  ability  to  live  a  ‘natural’  life  in  their  conceptions  of  a  good  life  for  animals  (Harper  and  Makatouni,  2002;  Spooner  et  al.,  2014a).  This     44  preference  has  surfaced  in  most  studies  of  citizen  attitudes  to  farm  animals,  both  in  Europe  and  in  North  America.  The  values  attached  to  ‘natural  living’  are  expressed  through  preferences  for  particular  attributes,  which  are  often  believed  necessary  to  protect  health  and  functioning  of  the  animal  (Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning,  2013;  Spooner  et  al.,  2014a).  These  include:  the  freedom  to  move  and  fulfill  natural  desires  (Te  Velde  et  al.,  2002;  Lassen  et  al.,  2006;  Maria,  2006;  Morgan-­‐Davies  et  al.,  2006;  Spooner  et  al.,  2014a)  as  well  as  to  perform  ‘normal’  or  natural  behaviours  (Vanhonacker  et  al.,  2008;  Prickett  et  al.,  2010;  Boogaard  et  al.,  2011b;  Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning,  2013;  Spooner  et  al.,  2014a);  and  environmental  aspects  like  increased  space  (which  is  intimately  connected  to  notions  of  freedom,  Vanhonacker  et  al.,  2008;  Boogaard  et  al.,  2011b;  Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning,  2013),  outdoor  access  (Vanhonacker  et  al.,  2008;  Prickett  et  al.,  2010;  Miele,  n.d.;  Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning,  2013;  Spooner  et  al.,  2014a),  and  even  daylight  (Boogaard  et  al.,  2011b;  Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning,  2013;  Spooner  et  al.,  2014a).  Preferences  for  these  last  aspects  (sunshine  and  the  outdoors)  are  fairly  intuitive;  Fraser  (2001)  argued  that  these  preferences  harken  to  nostalgic  imaginings  of  an  agrarian  past  in  which  farming  families  lived  in  close  connection  with  animals,  who  in  turn  were  embedded  into  the  natural  landscape.  Nonetheless,  some  authors  have  noted  that  citizen  preferences  for  animals  kept  outdoors  are  “most  susceptible  to  conflict”  with  industry  stakeholders  (Vanhonacker  et  al.,  2008).  Indeed,  of  the  aspects  under  debate,  lay  preferences  for  outdoor  access  may  be  the  most  difficult  to  reconcile.  As  with  industry  stakeholders,  however,  it  is  apparent  that  individual  variation  plays  a  strong  role  in  citizens’  valuations  of  animal  welfare.  Notably,  not  every  lay     45  citizen  prioritizes  natural  living  in  relation  to  animal  welfare.  Prickett  et  al.  (2010)  distinguished  three  separate  classes  of  Americans:  ‘naturalists,’  who  emphasized  the  importance  of  natural  behaviour  and  outdoor  access;  ‘price  seekers,’  whose  welfare  concerns  were  superseded  by  concerns  about  the  price  of  animal  products;  and  ‘basic  welfarists,’  who  –like  certain  segments  of  producers  –  considered  animal  welfare  needs  met  with  basic  provisioning  of  food,  water,  and  treatment  of  disease  and  injury.    It  seems,  however,  that  ‘naturalists’  form  a  substantial  portion  of  the  lay  public.  Preferences  for  natural  living  often  appear  to  coalesce  in  citizens’  rejections  of  particularly  restrictive  housing  systems.  Indeed,  it  is  increasingly  apparent  that  restricting  farm  animals  from  basic  movement  is  almost  uniformly  repugnant  to  the  public.  Norwood  (2010),  for  example,  noted  that  battery  cages  for  laying  hens  and  gestation  crates  for  sows  are  viewed  as  unethical  by  most  American  citizens.  Likewise,  a  majority  of  surveyed  New  Jersey  citizens  disagreed  with  confinement  systems  that  prevent  animals  from  turning  around  (Rutgers,  2003).  Under  this  view,  not  only  would  gestation  and  veal  crates  be  viewed  as  unacceptable,  but  applied  to  the  dairy  industry,  the  tie-­‐stall  system  is  also  problematic.  Finally,  citizen  objections  to  restrictive  housing  systems  can  also  be  seen  in  the  many  voter  referenda  that  have  caused  US  states  to  institute  bans  on  restrictive  housing,  including  gestation  crates  (Florida,  Arizona,  California,  Colorado,  Main,  Michigan,  Oregon,  Ohio,  and  Rhode  Island),  veal  crates  (Arizona,  California,  Colorado,  Ohio,  Michigan,  Main,  and  Rhode  Island),  and  battery  cages  (California  and  Michigan)  (NALC,  2014).       46  1.7.2 Summary     While  some  authors  have  described  citizen  values  toward  farm  animal  welfare  as  rather  broad  (Frewer  et  al.,  2005)  or  unilaterally  focused  on  certain  aspects  to  the  exclusion  of  others  (Te  Velde  et  al.,  2002),  evidence  is  mounting  that,  like  producers,  citizens’  conceptions  of  farm  animal  welfare  are  often  multi-­‐dimensional  (Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning,  2013;  Spooner  et  al.,  2014a).  There  is  some  evidence  that  this  trend  may  characterize  citizen  attitudes  to  the  dairy  industry  specifically.  For  example,  a  British  study  showed  that  citizens  incorporated  aspects  related  to  feeding  and  environmental  cleanliness  (biological  functioning),  good  stockmanship  (elements  of  which  could  be  argued  as  linked  to  affective  states,  such  as  low-­‐stress  handling)  and  space  and  freedom  to  range  (natural  living)  in  their  definitions  of  a  good  life  for  dairy  cattle  (Ellis  et  al.,  2009).  The  key  issue  seems  to  be  that  providing  for  health  and  functioning  alone  is  unlikely  to  satisfy  members  of  the  public;  minimizing  pain  and  providing  animals  with  opportunities  to  express  natural  behaviours  and  live  in  naturalistic  environments  will  likely  also  be  required.    1.8 Gaps  in  the  existing  literature     As  each  of  the  livestock  industries  have  their  own  unique  challenges,  and  in  light  of  evidence  that  national  differences  exist  regarding  attitudes  to  animal  welfare  (Phillips  et  al.,  2012),  it  is  clear  that  at  present  the  picture  of  how  people  view  the  welfare  of  farm  animals—and  dairy  cattle  in  particular—is  far  from  complete.  In  this  chapter  I  have  shown  that  some  relevant  stakeholders  are  highly  underrepresented  in  the  literature.  Further,  the  Canadian  and  American  literature  can  still  be  considered  in     47  its  infancy;  when  focused  on  the  dairy  industry  in  particular,  these  gaps  are  more  pronounced.    1.8.1 Methodological  challenges       It  is  also  clear  that  limitations  exist  in  some  of  the  extant  research.  For  instance,  Maria  (2006)  failed  to  clarify  a  number  of  methodological  considerations,  including  recruitment  strategy  and  response  options,  when  investigating  public  attitudes  to  farm  animal  welfare  in  Spain.  Other  attempts  to  chart  stakeholder  values  appeared  to  misappropriate  a  number  of  psychological  constructs,  leaving  the  reader  little  understanding  of  what  their  results  actually  represent.  For  example,  Bigras-­‐Poulin  (1984/5)  –which  others  (Kristensen  and  Enevoldsen,  2008)  described  as  a  classic  paper—included  various  ‘value  orientations’  (e.g.  scientific,  economic,  and  ‘cow  as  machine’)  as  variables  in  their  multiple  linear  regression  analysis  to  predict  herd  performance  in  Ontario  dairy  herds,  but  failed  to  provide  any  explanation  of  how  these  variables  were  obtained,  or  even  defined.    Other  shortcomings  exist  in  other  studies.  For  example,  Kielland  et  al.  (2010)  attempted  to  use  a  novel  tool  to  gauge  empathy  to  animals  in  pain,  but  used  only  a  single  question  on  attitudes,  which  the  authors  acknowledged  was  likely  insufficient  to  fully  characterize  farmer  attitudes.  Likewise,  the  methodology  in  Hewson  et  al.  (2007)’s  study,  which  attempted  to  link  Canadian  veterinarian’s  use  of  analgesia  to  their  beliefs  about  the  painfulness  of  the  procedure,  applied  an  apparent  arbitrary  dichotomization  to  their  variables  (e.g.  terming  ‘analgesic  use’  at  100%  usage,  with  ‘non-­‐analgesic’  use  at  any  percentage  <100%,  and  rating  the  painfulness  of  dehorning  as  either  ‘very  painful’  at  8-­‐10  or  ‘less  than  very  painful’  at  1-­‐7),  rendering  their  results  questionable.  Finally,     48  even  in  cases  where  the  methodology  is  clearly  well  designed,  questions  remain.  For  example,  Prickett  et  al.’s  (2010)  telephone  survey  employed  a  ‘pairwise  questioning’  setup,  whereby  they  asked  people  whether  it  is  more  important  for  farm  animals  to  be  allowed  to  exercise  outdoors  or  to  be  provided  comfortable  bedding.  The  authors  defended  the  use  of  the  tool  in  that  it  eased  cognitive  burden  of  their  respondents,  enabling  them  to  provide  a  more  honest  answer.  This  tool  then  is  acknowledged  as  advantageous  in  giving  a  sense  of  respondents’  priorities,  but  I  argue  that  it  also  inherently  generates  a  false  and  perhaps  meaningless  dichotomy,  as  it  is  unlikely  that  a  number  of  the  presented  trade-­‐offs  mimic  real-­‐life  situations;  further,  it  may  actually  misrepresent  participant  beliefs  if  both  attributes  are  considered  important.    1.8.2 The  need  for  a  multi-­‐faceted  approach     More  critical  is  the  narrow  range  of  methodologies  historically  applied  to  inquiries  into  stakeholder  attitudes  to  farm  animal  welfare.  The  overwhelming  majority  of  North  American  research—even  the  peer-­‐reviewed  studies—is  survey-­‐based  (e.g.  Heleski  et  al.,  2004,  2005,  2006;  Levine  et  al.,  2005;  Heleski  and  Zanella,  2006;  Prickett  et  al.,  2010).  There  are  of  course,  distinct  advantages  to  the  use  of  quantitative  survey  approaches:  they  can  be  deployed  on  a  broad  scale,  are  often  quicker  in  terms  of  data  collection  and  analysis,  and  perhaps  most  attractively,  can  be  designed  to  capture  representative  samples  that  offer  the  opportunity  to  generalize  to  broader  populations.  The  Eurobarometer  2007  survey  on  EU  citizen  attitudes,  for  example,  was  notable  in  its  ability  to  map  widespread,  general  trends  in  public  beliefs  about  farm  animal  welfare.    However,  in  the  quest  for  breadth,  such  approaches  typically  must  sacrifice  the  ability  to  capture  depth.  The  issue  of  how  farm  animals  should  be  treated  is  complex,     49  and  ferreting  out  what  underlies  disagreements  will  require  a  multi-­‐faceted  approach.  Hansen  et  al.  (2003)  describe  the  issue  thus:      Social  scientists  tend  to  be  skeptical  about  the  notion  that  lay  attitudes  to  distinct  issues…can  be  studied  in  abstraction  within  a  quantitative  or  statistical  framework.  In  daily  life,  these  issues  rarely  arise  other  than  in  an  interconnected  or  merged  way…The  integrated  totality  of  consumer  [or  any  stakeholder]  experience  is  less  likely  to  be  distorted  if  it  is  studied  discursively  within  a  less  rigid,  more  qualitative  framework.(p.  117).    In  recognition  of  this,  European  researchers  have  begun  to  apply  qualitative  and  mixed-­‐method  approaches  to  questions  about  stakeholder  values  and  attitudes  to  animal  welfare,  but  there  are  far  fewer  examples  of  the  application  of  these  methodologies  in  North  America,  the  studies  by  Spooner  et  al.  (2012,  2014a,b)  being  a  marked  exception.    I  argue  for  increased  application  and  integration  of  both  approaches  to  the  study  of  relevant  stakeholders  in  North  America  in  order  to  capture  the  breadth  and  depth  of  the  various  psychological  constructs  that  inform  how  people  relate  to  the  welfare  of  farm  animals.  Surveys,  for  example,  could  contextualize  qualitative  study,  with  the  qualitative  aspects  providing  samples,  or  examples,  that  elaborate  upon  or  clarify  trends  observed.  Likewise,  qualitative  study  could  be  used  to  surface  and  identify  the  range  of  relevant  issues  or  views  in  a  group  of  interest  and  used  to  design  a  targeted  survey  that  could  be  deployed  more  broadly  (Brannen,  2005).       Furthermore,  more  creativity  could  be  applied  in  the  pursuit  of  these  questions.  In  light  of  criticism  of  lay  citizens  as  uniformed  or  uninitiated  into  the  rigors  of  farm  life,  there  have  recently  been  calls  for  citizen  perception  studies  of  farm  animal  production  to  be  conducted  based  on  real-­‐life  experience  (i.e.  once  they  have  been  introduced  to  farm  life  in  person,  Krystallis  et  al.,  2009).  And  yet,  aside  from  two  citizen  farm  visit     50  studies  in  the  Netherlands  (to  dairy  and  pigs,  Boogaard  et  al.,  2008  and  2011b,  respectively),  I  am  not  aware  of  other  studies  that  have  exposed  citizens  to  operating  farms  and  gauged  their  responses.    1.9 Thesis  aims       This  thesis  thus  aims  to  elucidate  the  perceptions,  concerns,  and  values  of  industry  and  lay  stakeholders  on  matters  pertaining  to  animal  welfare,  with  an  emphasis  on  the  dairy  industry  and  on  the  views  of  North  Americans,  as  these  segments  are  particularly  understudied.  Chapters  2  and  3  describe  the  results  of  two  focus  group  studies  with  cattle  industry  stakeholders:  Chapter  2  focuses  on  their  primary  animal  welfare  concerns  and  underlying  values  while  Chapter  3  describes  their  perceptions  of  barriers  to  resolution  and  desired  solutions.  Chapter  4  turns  to  public  views  and  describes  a  survey  study  to  understand  Canadian  citizen  perceptions  and  concerns  related  to  dairy  cattle  welfare,  in  addition  to  how  exposure  to  a  working  farm  shifts  these  constructs.  Together,  Chapters  2-­‐4  seek  to  provide  a  broad  picture  of  the  range  of  animal  welfare  concerns  and  values  that  characterize  stakeholders  within  and  external  to  the  dairy  industry.  Chapter  5  functions  as  a  case  study  and  focuses  the  lens  on  a  specific  issue  in  dairy  production—that  of  early  cow-­‐calf  separation—  and  describes  the  use  of  an  online  engagement  forum  to  engage  and  understand  the  range  of  views  on  this  practice  from  a  diverse  audience.       51  Chapter  2:   Dairy  industry  animal  welfare  values  and  concernsΦ  2.1 Introduction     The  dairy  industry  faces  increased  societal  pressure  to  address  concerns  related  to  the  care  and  handling  of  its  animals.  The  types  of  animal  welfare  concerns  identified  may  vary  between  stakeholder  groups  within  and  external  to  the  dairy  industry.  In  some  cases  non-­‐industry  groups  decry  standard  industry  practices  as  abusive  and  call  for  more  humane  treatment  of  animals,  while  stakeholders  within  the  dairy  industry  maintain  that  practices  conform  to  high  standards  of  care.  This  type  of  disagreement  is  likely  to  be  frustrating  for  both  sides  and  unhelpful  in  the  development  and  implementation  of  welfare  improvements.  In  the  long  term,  constructive  engagement  between  industry  and  external  stakeholders  (including  the  public)  should  foster  transparency  and  improve  public  trust  (Brom,  2000),  and  ultimately  improve  the  social  sustainability  of  the  dairy  industry  (Boogaard  et  al.,  2008).  At  issue  here  is  that  animal  welfare  may  mean  different  things  to  different  stakeholders.  Vanhonacker  et  al.  (2007)  suggest  that  the  livestock  industries  and  the  general  public  “tend  to  speak  different  languages  when  talking  about  animal  welfare,”  (p.  85).  Fraser  et  al.  (1997)  provide  a  framework  to  better  understand  the  different  ways  in  which  individuals  may  perceive  and  define  animal  welfare,  with  some  focusing  on  biological  functioning,  others  on  the  affective  state  of  the  animal,  and  still  others  on  an  animal’s  ability  to  live  naturally.                                                                                                                    Φ  A  version  of  this  chapter  has  been  published:  Ventura,  B.  A.,  M.  A.  G.  von  Keyserlingk,  and  D.  M.  Weary.  2015.  Animal  welfare  concerns  and  values  of  stakeholders  within  the  dairy  industry.  J.  Agric.  Environ.  Ethics.  28:109-­‐126.       52  Recent  research  has  assessed  the  attitudes  and  values  of  stakeholders  working  within  the  livestock  industries,  but  much  of  this  work  has  been  based  in  Europe  (e.g.  Kjaernes  et  al.,  2007;  Bock  et  al.,  2010;  Silva  et  al.,  2013).  This  European  literature  indicates  that  those  involved  with  animal  production  often  emphasize  aspects  related  to  the  biological  functioning  of  the  animal,  including  health,  fertility,  and  production  parameters  (Te  Velde  et  al.,  2002;  Lassen  et  al.,  2006;  Verbeke,  2009;  Silva  et  al.,  2013).  Farmers  also  seem  to  ascribe  lower  levels  of  concern  to  subjective  states,  including  pain  and  stress,  than  do  non-­‐farming  citizens  (Vanhonacker  et  al.,  2008).    Fewer  studies  have  examined  industry  stakeholder  attitudes  in  North  America,  recent  exceptions  being  Spooner  et  al.’s  (2012,  2014b)  work  with  Canadian  beef  and  pig  producers  and  Heleksi  et  al.’s  (2004,  2005,  2006)  studies  of  American  animal  science  and  veterinary  faculty.  Moreover,  there  appears  to  be  little  work  on  groups  specifically  within  the  dairy  industry.  Achieving  a  more  complete  understanding  of  workers  in  this  segment  is  critical,  as  producers  and  other  stakeholders  (such  as  veterinarians)  are  the  primary  on-­‐farm  caregivers  whose  decisions  directly  affect  the  welfare  of  the  animals  under  their  care  (also,  see  Driessen,  2012)  and  policy  in  Canada  and  the  United  States  is  strongly  influenced  by  dairy  industry  groups.  This  chapter  aims  to  address  the  gap  in  knowledge  identified  above  through  the  use  of  focus  groups  composed  of  people  working  primarily  with  the  dairy  industries  in  Canada  and  the  United  States.  We  sought  to  explore  (1)  how  industry  stakeholders  prioritize  and  conceptualize  dairy  welfare  problems  and  (2)  how  these  stakeholders  interpret  their  own  and  others’  roles  in  achieving  socially  sustainable  solutions  to     53  identified  welfare  challenges.  This  chapter  presents  results  contributing  to  the  former  aim;  Chapter  3  addresses  the  latter.  2.2 Methods  2.2.1 Study  aims  and  approach       Five  focus  groups  were  held  immediately  before  the  Dairy  Cattle  Welfare  Symposium  in  Guelph,  Canada  in  October  2012.  Focus  groups  were  conducted  in  order  to  take  advantage  of  the  unique  perspectives  of  people  who,  through  their  respective  roles  within  the  dairy  industry,  can  be  considered  as  ‘prime  witnesses’  to  animal  welfare  issues  (as  described  by  Vanhonacker  et  al.,  2010).  As  group  interviews,  focus  groups  encourage  dynamic  communication  among  participants  in  a  way  that  reveals  their  “attitudes,  priorities,  language  and  framework  of  understanding,”  (p.  143;  Pivetti,  2007).       The  60-­‐  to  80-­‐  min  discussions  were  moderated  by  trained  facilitators  who  followed  a  script  of  questions  (Appendix  A)  structured  to  identify  participants’  perceptions  of  the  dairy  industry’s  priority  welfare  issues.  Graduate  students  and  dairy  farm  workers  at  the  University  of  British  Columbia’s  Dairy  Education  and  Research  Centre  piloted  the  focus  group  script  before  it  was  used.  Our  approach  may  be  considered  stakeholder  consultation  (Rowe  and  Frewer,  2005)  in  that  we  sought  to  create  a  working  list  of  the  specific  welfare  issues  of  most  concern  to  people  working  within  the  dairy  industry.  This  approach  was  chosen  because  Te  Velde  et  al.  (2002)  have  shown  that  people  working  within  the  livestock  industries  talk  about  animal  welfare  at  more  technical  levels  (e.g.  in  terms  of  specific  parameters  like  stocking  density  or  factors  affecting  environmental  quality).  We  also  wanted  to  probe  beyond     54  these  technical,  specific  issues  to  understand  the  broader,  value-­‐based  reasoning  that  rooted  participants’  perceptions,  as  these  are  likely  to  prove  more  important  in  longer-­‐term  conflict  resolution  with  groups  external  to  the  dairy  industry.  2.2.2 Participants     We  used  a  convenience  sample  drawn  from  registrants  of  the  conference.  These  registrants  (n=292)  included  24  farmers,  73  service  providers,  39  education  and  extension  workers,  45  veterinarians,  69  researchers,  and  42  people  in  other  roles.  Conference  attendees  were  recruited  after  they  registered  via  emails  sent  out  by  conference  organizers  inviting  them  to  participate.  Based  on  our  participants’  registration  at  this  animal-­‐welfare  focused  conference,  the  sample  potentially  over-­‐represents  industry  stakeholders  with  a  specific  interest  and  who  may  hold  informed  and/or  progressive  views  on  this  topic.  The  sample  was  composed  of  46  people  (approximately  16%  of  the  total  conference  registrants)  with  7-­‐10  participants  in  each  group.  To  encourage  engagement  among  stakeholders  holding  different  roles  within  the  industry,  we  structured  the  focus  groups  to  be  heterogeneous  with  respect  to  stakeholder  role  such  that  each  of  the  following  roles  was  represented  at  least  once  within  each  group  (Table  2.1):  Industry  leader   individuals  holding  board  positions  in  dairy  associations  Producer     dairy  farm  owners,  managers,  and  workers  Researcher     university  researchers,  professors,  and  extension  agents  Service  provider   e.g.  pharmaceutical  and  feed  company  representatives  Student     graduate  students  Veterinarian     practicing  dairy  veterinarians    This  categorization  resulted  from  participants’  self-­‐identification  in  specific  roles,  which  we  then  collapsed  into  these  broader  categories.  Some  participants  claimed  multiple     55  roles.  For  example,  some  participating  producers  were  also  members  of  dairy  association  boards,  and  some  veterinarians  also  held  university  faculty  appointments.  Table  2.1  Demographics  of  the  participant  sample  (n=47)  in  the  mixed  dairy  cattle  industry  stakeholder  focus  groups  in  Guelph,  Ontario  Variable   Group  label   N   Percent  (%)  Stakeholdera   Industry  leader   10   21.7     Producer   7   15.2     Researcher   10   21.7     Service  provider   8   17.4     Student     6   13.0     Veterinarian   9   19.6  Country  of  residence     European   8   17.4     North  American   35   76.1     Other   3   6.5  Sex   Female   20   43.5     Male   26   56.5  a  As  n  indicates  the  number  of  participants  who  self-­‐identified  in  each  role,  and  because  some  participants  self-­‐identified  in  multiple  roles,  the  sum  of  percentages  in  this  category  exceeds  100.      2.2.3  Analysis  Focus  groups  were  audio-­‐recorded  and  transcribed  verbatim,  yielding  112  pages  of  text.  Content  analysis  (Coffey  and  Atkinson,  1996)  was  used  to  identify  participants’  expressed  issues  of  concern  as  well  as  the  reasons  cited  for  why  participants  considered  the  identified  issues  to  be  problematic.  Welfare  concerns  and  underlying  reasons  were  coded  into  theme  and  sub-­‐themes,  respectively,  using  the  Nvivo  qualitative  data  management  program  (QSY  International  Pty.  Ltd.  Version  10,  2012).  Each  theme  and  sub-­‐theme  comprised  several  excerpts  of  text.  Not  all  text  was  coded,  but  often  text  was  coded  more  than  once,  for  example,  when  participants  embedded  several  reasons  into  their  explanation  of  why  a  particular  issue  was  important  to  them  (see  Krippendorff,  2004;  Pivetti,  2007).  Particularly  demonstrative  participant  quotations  for  welfare  concerns  and  underlying  themes  are  embedded  throughout  the  following  results,  each     56  designated  by  the  stakeholder  role  and  group  number  (e.g.  G1=Group  1)  of  the  participant  who  uttered  them.  2.3 Results:  Concerns       In  response  to  the  question,  “What  do  you  think  are  the  most  important  welfare  issues  that  affect  dairy  cattle?”  participants  raised  the  following  issues:  lameness,  disease,  routine  management  procedures,  handling,  end-­‐of-­‐life  (specifically,  on-­‐farm  mortality  and  the  transport  and  fate  of  cull  cows),  calf  care,  cow  comfort,  and  (lack  of)  opportunities  for  natural  behaviour  (Table  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  58  2.3.1 Lameness     Participants  in  every  focus  group  and  stakeholder  role  considered  lameness  to  be  the  biggest  problem  for  dairy  welfare.  Lameness  was  also  the  first  issue  identified  in  every  group,  with  one  exception  in  which  someone’s  initial  suggestion  of  cow-­‐calf  separation  was  quickly  overruled  by  other  participants  who  asserted  that  lameness  was  actually  the  biggest  problem.  Lameness  was  also  the  only  issue  that  was  expressly  ranked  as  “the  number  one”  welfare  issue  that  superseded  other  issues  also  perceived  to  be  critical.  Lameness  was  considered  to  be  a  problem  for  many  reasons,  including  that  it  is  painful,  leads  to  culling,  affects  production,  has  a  high  prevalence  and  long  duration,  and  negatively  affects  public  perception.  2.3.2 Disease     Concerns  about  disease  surfaced  in  three  of  five  groups,  with  most  stakeholders  (veterinarians,  producers,  researchers,  and  board  members)  discussing  concerns  about  this  topic.  Participants  tended  to  consider  freedom  from  disease  as  a  prerequisite  to  adequate  welfare,  e.g.  “To  get  animal  welfare  on  a  farm,  you  want  your  animals  as  disease-­‐free  as  possible,”  [Veterinarian,  G2].  Participants  mainly  focused  on  mastitis,  citing  the  painfulness  of  the  condition  and  its  importance  in  culling  decisions.  Metabolic  and  other  diseases  like  Johne’s  were  also  mentioned  briefly  in  discussions.  2.3.3 Routine  management  procedures     Concerns  about  dehorning  and  other  procedures  like  tail  docking  were  raised  mainly  by  academics  and  surfaced  in  most  (three  of  five)  of  the  groups.  Participants  did  not  spend  a  great  deal  of  time  discussing  these  procedures,  perhaps  because,  as  one     59  subject  put  it,  “[Dehorning]  affects  all  calves,  but  it’s  also  a  very  short  welfare  issue  that  we  can  probably  address,”  [Researcher,  G3].  Rather,  participants  tended  to  articulate  their  concerns  about  specific  procedures  in  the  larger  context  of  pain  management  before  moving  on  to  discuss  other  issues  in  greater  depth.    2.3.4 Handling     Concerns  about  poor  handling  and  stockmanship  arose  in  most  (four  of  five)  of  the  focus  groups,  with  every  stakeholder  category  except  producers  commenting  on  stockmanship,  defined  by  one  participant  as  “how  we  handle  cows,  how  we  work  around  them,  how  we  treat  them,”  [Industry  leader,  G2].    Individuals  varied  in  their  beliefs  about  the  severity  of  poor  handling  as  a  welfare  problem,  with  stress  and  other  indirect  effects  on  animal  health  and  production  discussed  as  repercussions.  Some  participants  noted  that  how  animals  were  handled  had  the  potential  to  have  widespread  effects:  for  example,  “100%  of  a  herd  is  affected  by  poor  stockmanship…and  that  exists  for  the  lifetime  of  the  cow”  [Board  member,  G2].  2.3.5 End-­‐of-­‐life     Concerns  around  end-­‐of-­‐life  –including  on-­‐farm  mortality  and,  more  predominantly,  management  and  transport  of  cull  cows—surfaced  in  all  but  one  of  the  focus  groups,  with  at  least  one  member  of  every  stakeholder  category  contributing  comments  on  this  topic.  Discussions  tended  to  focus  on  the  welfare  implications  of  decisions  to  cull  animals  (e.g.  when,  if,  and  why  an  animal  might  be  shipped  to  auction  or  slaughter).  Participants  generally  agreed  that  the  potential  for  animal  suffering  was     60  great,  particularly  in  the  context  of  cull  cow  transport,  but  that  instances  of  severe  welfare  problems  were  uncommon.    2.3.6 Calf  care     Calf  care  was  a  prominent  concern  in  three  of  the  groups,  with  individuals  from  every  stakeholder  category  contributing  to  this  line  of  discussion.  With  the  exception  of  one  producer,  participants  were  unanimous  that  management  (especially  feeding  practices)  and  housing  were  often  substandard  for  heifer  as  well  as  bull  calves.  Participants  often  attributed  inadequate  calf  care  to  attitudes  within  the  production  system,  including  that  “the  dairy  calves  are  the  leftovers  of  the  farms”  [Researcher,  G2]  and  although  “farmers  [do]  take  care  of  the  [calves],  it’s  not  necessarily  the  priority…so  there  is  a  lot  of  room  for  improvement,”  [Service  provider,  G2].  2.3.7 Cow  comfort     All  types  of  stakeholders  except  students  used  the  term  “cow  comfort,”  with  the  topic  discussed  in  three  of  five  focus  groups.  This  catchall  term  incorporated  various  aspects  including  environmental  quality  (temperature,  ventilation,  water  availability  and  quality),  proper  stall  design  (space,  lying  surface  quality),  and  cow  behaviour  (lying  down  vs.  standing).  Some  participants  also  used  cow  comfort  as  a  synonym  or  replacement  for  the  term  animal  welfare.  For  example,  “I  can  tell  you  that  I…use  ‘well-­‐  being’  and  ‘comfort’  instead  of  ‘welfare’…”  [Service  provider,  G1].  Participants  also  felt  that  cow  comfort  was  related  to  other  welfare  issues,  including  lameness,  stress  and  injuries:  for  example,  “Cow  comfort…the  space  they  have,  how  soft  is  it,  is  it  dry?  They  get  a  lot  of     61  injuries  from  that.  They  keep  standing  too  much  [of  the]  time,  they  get  foot  health  problems,”  [Veterinarian,  G2].  2.3.8 Natural  behaviour     Every  group  brought  up  issues  related  to  the  natural  behaviour  of  cattle,  with  all  groups  save  one  discussing  behavioural  issues  in  some  depth.  Participant  concerns  around  behaviour  focused  on  a  few  specific  topics:  confinement  in  tie  stalls,  social  conflicts  resulting  from  frequent  mixing,  cow-­‐calf  separation,  and  compromised  time  budgets  in  which  management  timelines  were  seen  to  trump  cows’  natural  rhythms  and  behavioural  needs.  With  each  of  these  concerns,  participants  traced  their  concerns  back  to  the  cow  being  restricted  in  some  way,  from  basic  restrictions  (e.g.  lack  of  postural  freedom  in  tie  stalls)  to  much  broader  infringement  on  the  cow’s  ability  to  be  a  cow.  2.4 Results:  Reasons       Participants  used  both  animal-­‐  and  industry-­‐centered  reasoning  in  discussing  their  prioritization  of  dairy  welfare  issues.  Animal  centered-­‐reasons  included  pain  and  suffering,  inflicted  stress,  and  restriction  of  behavioural  freedom.  Industry-­‐centered  justifications  focused  on  production  effects  and  subsequent  economic  repercussions  for  the  farmer,  along  with  public  perception  of  the  dairy  industry  as  a  whole.  In  addition,  participants’  comments  about  every  welfare  issue  were  often  modulated  by  concerns  about  herd-­‐level  factors  (e.g.  prevalence,  duration,  and/or  severity  of  the  named  welfare  issue)  and  indirect  effects  (i.e.  a  particular  issue  was  important  because  it  contributed  in  some  way  to  the  occurrence  of  another  issue).  The  one  exception  was  that  discussion  of  indirect  effects  did  not  arise  in  the  context  of  end-­‐of-­‐life  issues.     62  2.4.1 Animal-­‐centered  reasoning    Pain  and  suffering  Concerns  around  pain  and  suffering  surfaced  in  the  focus  groups  when  lameness,  disease,  routine  management  procedures,  and  cull  cows  were  discussed.  Some  participants  limited  their  comments  to  briefly  acknowledging  that  the  issue  in  question  was  associated  with  pain  or  suffering:     So  there’s  pain  [with  lameness],  there’s  a  welfare  issue  for  sure…  [Veterinarian,  G4]  The  other  one  is  the  downed  cow.  Animals  that  go  down  in  transit…again  it’s  a  small  number,  but  it  is  to  my  mind  a  legitimate  welfare  concern  in  that  the  suffering  is  very  great.  [Researcher,  G3]    Others  were  more  explicit  that  pain  was  the  primary  issue  governing  their  perception  of  the  importance  of  different  welfare  issues  and  that  more  effective  pain  management  strategies  were  necessary:  Some  kind  of  leg  disorders  can  be  very  painful,  especially  digital  dermatitis  or  sole  ulcers,  and  so  on.  So  it  means,  just  pain  for  the  animal,  and  that’s  why  I’m  thinking  it’s  a  main  welfare  issue.  [Researcher,  G5]    So  there’s  room  for  improvement  and  I  think  [lameness  is]  a  very  painful  condition  for  the  animal.  So  we  would  like  to  do  more  to  improve  that.  Especially  severely  lame  cases.  I  think  we  need  to  do  more.  [Researcher,  G1]      Painful  procedures.  So  dehorning,  tail  docking,  all  those  kinds  of  things.  And  pain  management  surrounding  them…I  think  just  finding  appropriate  analgesics  and  anesthetics  that  we  can  use  at  the  time  of  those  procedures  is  really  important.  [Student,  G1]    Stress   Discussed  briefly  in  the  context  of  poor  handling,  concerns  about  animals  experiencing  stress  figured  prominently  in  some  participants’  concerns:  I  don’t  think  we  know  much  about  restraint  and  handling  [verbal  agreement  from  group  members]  and  what  might  be  less  stressful  for  the  animal…I  don’t  see  a  lot  of  that  being  done  all  that  well  on  farms.  [Service  provider,  G1]     63    I  think  that  there’s  a…large  gap  in  folks’  understanding  of  how  we  should…work  with  cows  and  how  cows  move  around  the  farm  and  how  we  should  move  them.  So  things  like  sticks  and  canes  and  kicking  and  screaming.  Just  loud…loud  boisterous,  you  know,  movement  of  cattle  is  stressful  for  them.  [Industry  leader,  G2]    Restriction  of  behavioural  freedom  Participants  voiced  concerns  that  dairy  cattle  were  often  restricted  from  performing  natural,  motivated  behaviours.  Concerns  often  surfaced  in  the  context  of  specific  housing  systems,  most  notably  tie-­‐stalls:  I  would  throw  out  there  that  the  tie  stall,  as  opposed  to  the  free  stall,  is  an  issue  [verbal  agreement  from  group  members].  So  the  animal  being  confined  to  that  space  and  not  having  access  to  pasture…Especially  the  stanchion.  Where  the  ability  of  the  animal  to  move  within  that  space  is  really  hindered…I’m  talking  about  the  ability  to  move  away  from  other  cattle  at  times  that  she  doesn’t  want  to  be  with  them.  [Researcher,  G3]    Participants  also  expressed  their  concern  about  more  general  infringement  on  cattle  behaviour  that  seemed  to  stem  from  how  dairy  systems  are  operated:    I  think  that  there  is  one  issue  that  is  not  discussed  because  it’s  kind  of  hidden,  and  this  is  the  time  budget…of  the  cows  during  the  day…Most  of  [the  management  routine]  is  best  for  the  comfort  of  us…the  vet…the  farmer…not  necessarily  with  the  [cows’]  needs…I  think  that  the  issue  of  time  budget  during  the  day  and  what  is…the  routine  the  cow  would  prefer,  [this  is]  something  that  we  actually…are  not  dealing  with.  And  I  think  it’s  got  a  lot  of  importance…  [Researcher,  G1]    Though  the  academic  members  of  the  focus  groups  typically  initiated  discussion  of  behavioural  concerns,  other  stakeholders  also  shared  these  concerns:    I  think  that  housing  designs  and  research…focused  around  what  the  cow  needs  and  the  cow  wants,  like  [Researcher,  G1]  was  saying,  is  where  we  should  be  heading.  Not  what  is  necessarily  good  for  us  as  managers.  It  has  to  fit  us  too,  but  what  fits  the  cow  budget  [is  also  important]…  [Producer,  G1]    It’s  about  respect  of  the  nature  of  the  animal!  [Veterinarian,  G2]       64  However,  not  all  participants  shared  this  concern.  For  example,  one  participant  shared,      I  still  come  at  it  from  the  old  sort  of  Christian  ethic  of  the  animal  is  there  to  serve  us,  and  had  we  had  that  kind  of  approach  of  ‘what  does  the  cow  want?’  from  the  beginning,  we  wouldn’t  have  domesticated  animals,  would  we?  [Service  provider,  G1]    2.4.2 Modifiers    Prevalence  and  duration  Participants  often  referenced  certain  modifiers  such  as  the  number  of  animals  affected  or  the  length  of  time  animals  are  afflicted  when  sharing  animal-­‐centered  reasons  about  dairy  welfare  problems.  Prevalence  of  a  particular  issue  was  often  used  to  describe  perceived  welfare  problems,  for  example:  One  that  concerns  me  a  lot  is  mortality  on  farm…We  have  large  dairies…  averag[ing]  8%  of  cows  that  die  on  farm.  And  for  me  that  is  very  scary.  It’s  a  huge  number…  [Researcher,  G1]    The  other  thing  is  mortality  rates  are  huge  in  some  operations…  [Veterinarian,  G5]    Duration  was  another  important  modifier,  as  seen  in  the  following  exchange  [G2]:  Producer   Mastitis  is  very  painful.  Veterinarian   Yes  but  mastitis  lasts  only  3  days.  Producer     But  it’s  very  painful.  Veterinarian   It’s  very  painful,  but  it  lasts  only  3  days,  and  lameness  can  last  for       several  months  [verbal  agreement  from  producer]…  That’s  why  I     put  lameness  above  mastitis.  Plus  mastitis  we  can  cure  quite       easily,  and  lameness  we  still  have  no…  Producer   Tell  me  how  [elicits  laughter  from  group].    Participants  did  not  usually  express  such  either-­‐or  mentality  in  which  animal-­‐centered  concerns  were  pitted  against  more  utilitarian  considerations.  More  often,  participants  used  the  ubiquity  and/or  long  duration  of  conditions  to  bolster  their  main  points:  When  it  comes  to  animal  handling  and  stockmanship,  you  know  that’s  a  whole  herd,  so  100%  of  a  herd  is  affected  by  poor  stockmanship.  And  that  exists  for  the  lifetime  of  the  cow.  [Industry  leader,  G2]       65  Severity  In  general,  participant  agreement  about  the  importance  of  welfare  issues,  both  within  and  between  groups,  was  high.  The  high  frequency  of  verbal  and  non-­‐verbal  (i.e.  nods)  agreements,  along  with  the  high  repetition  of  voiced  welfare  concerns,  was  evidence  of  this.  Remarkably,  significant  differences  in  opinion  were  expressed  only  three  times.  These  were  largely  limited  to  the  severity  of  the  issue  in  question:  (1) A  service  provider  debated  whether  poor  stockmanship  was  a  problem  [G2]:  Veterinarian   …If  you  have  poor  stockmanship  you  have  lame  cows.  Service  provider   What’s  ‘stockmanship’?  Board  member   Stockmanship  is  how  we  handle  cows,  how  we  work         around  them,  how  we  treat  them…on  an  individual  basis         and  work  with  them  as  a  group.  Service  provider   Yeah,  I’m  not  sure  that’s  a  big  issue  for  animal  welfare,  I       don’t  agree  there.    (2) A  producer  defended  the  quality  of  calf  care  against  the  overwhelming  negative  opinion  of  the  rest  of  his  group  [G2]:  Veterinarian   There’s  very  very  few  farms  I’ve  seen  around  the  world       that  have  good  housing  for  the  young  stock.  Researcher   Well,  the  dairy  calves  are  the  leftovers…of  the  farms.  So  it’s     not  just  a  question  of  housing,  it’s  [a]  question  also  [of]     management.     [continued  negative  commentary  from  others]  Producer   This  is  not…the  picture  you  described…the  young  stock,     not  in  Canada!  I  mean…at  least  if  it  is  it’s  the  exception  you     know?  We  take  care  of  the  young  stock…the  young  stock  is     our  future!  (3) One  veterinarian  was  explicit  in  communicating  her  discomfort  with  what  she  saw  as  a  severe  welfare  problem  for  cull  cows  in  slaughter  plants  and  auction  yards:     66  It’s  shocking  what  I  see.  It’s  hard…and  you  know,  we’re  in  these  facilities,  and  we’re  euthanizing  cattle  that  have  shown  up  there  that  shouldn’t  be  there…And  from  my  perspective,  the  dairy  industry  is  one  YouTube  video  away  from  being  in  some  serious  trouble.  Because…the  things  that  I  see  are  absolutely  horrific…[G1]    In  contrast,  the  narrative  from  another  veterinarian  who  held  the  same  role  was  striking  in  its  different  perspective:    We  don’t  actually  see  it  [lameness  in  cull  cattle]  as  a  large  problem…we  get  a  number  of  animals  every  year…in  sales  barns  and  abattoirs  that  shouldn’t  have  been  trucked.  So  clearly  there  is  a  problem  but  we  don’t  see  it  as  a  big  problem…It’s  not  an  industry-­‐wide  problem.  [G5]      Thus,  while  both  individuals  acknowledged  the  high  prevalence  of  compromised  cattle  being  transported  to  auction  of  slaughter  (“It  happens  all  the  time”  [Veterinarian,  G1]  and  “We  know  that  80%  of  incident  reports  are  generated  by  dairy  cows”  [Veterinarian,  G5]),  their  perceptions  of  the  severity  of  the  issue  varied  markedly.      2.4.3 Industry-­‐centered  reasons    Indirect  and  economic  consequences  Participants  often  supplemented  their  animal-­‐centered  reasoning  with  comments  about  instrumental  consequences  of  the  welfare  issues  discussed.  That  is,  in  addition  to  having  important,  direct  repercussions  on  the  animals  (e.g.  lameness  is  painful,  bad  handling  is  stressful),  welfare  issues  were  also  discussed  as  causing,  or  contributing  to,  additional  problems:  If  you  have  poor  stockmanship  you  have  lame  cows.  [Veterinarian,  G2]  And  lameness  is  one  of  the  lead  reasons  for  culling  from  a  dairy  herd,  and  that  puts  to  your  point  about  seeing  them  at  the  sales  barns  and  at  the  abattoirs…  [Producer/  Industry  leader,  G5]       67  The  issue  of  longevity  often  arose  in  discussion,  especially  in  the  context  of  lameness.  Many  participants  believed  that  conditions  which  shortened  a  cow’s  longevity  inevitably  translated  into  economic  costs  for  the  farmer  as  well  as  the  dairy  industry  as  a  whole:  I  see  the  importance  [of  lameness]  and  this  relates  to  the  fact  that  it  really  shortens  a  cow’s  life.  And  the  durability  of  the  cow  is  very  important,  that’s  something  we  have  to  look  for.  So  there’s  pain,  there’s  a  welfare  issue  for  sure,  but  there’s  the  fact  that  economically  it  has  a  huge  impact  on  the  industry  I  would  say.  [Veterinarian,  G4]    …You  know,  one  of  the  major  economic  drivers  of  this  whole  thing,  going  back  to  the  first  question,  is  the  life  of  the  cow.  Lameness  is  one  of  the  big  reasons  why  you  have  a  high  cull  rate.  The  longer  you  keep  that  cow  productively  in  your  herd,  that’s  going  to  be  more  profitable.  [Researcher,  G4]    Public  perception  Finally,  some  participants  were  concerned  about  the  effect  of  welfare  problems  on  public  perception  of  the  dairy  industry:  Not  only  do  we  know  that  [lameness]  affects  production,  but  I  think  it’s  probably  more  of  a  concern  that’s  really  obvious  to  the  public.  As  they…drive  by,  they  see  a  cow  that’s  lame,  they  can  relate  to  that.  I  think  that’s  probably  the  most  important  one.  [Service  provider,  G4]    I  think  the  perception  of  how  calves  are  managed,  to  the  general  public.  I  think  that’s  an  issue…The  general  public  perception  is  the  key  issue  there.  [Industry  leader,  G1]    And  one  thing  about  the  consumer  again,  it’s  difficult  to  really  imagine…the  separation…of  the  mother  and  the  young…and  after  that  you  put  [the  calf]  in  these  horrible  conditions.  So  it  doesn’t  give  a  nice  picture  [of]  what’s  going  on.  [Researcher,  G2]    2.5 Discussion    2.5.1 Welfare  concerns  of  dairy  industry  stakeholders       This  chapter  contributes  to  the  growing  literature  (Spooner  et  al.,  2012;  Silva  et  al.,  2013)  of  multi-­‐dimensional  conceptions  of  animal  welfare  held  by  producers  and     68  others  in  the  livestock  industries.  As  in  past  studies,  our  participants  expressed  welfare  concerns  that  extended  well  beyond  health  considerations,  including  both  affective  states  (e.g.  pain  and  suffering)  and  natural  living  (e.g.  behavioural  freedom).  Spooner  et  al.  (2012)  pointed  out  that  such  inclusive  conceptions  of  animal  welfare  offer  an  alternative  perspective  to  that  used  in  some  of  the  critiques  of  the  livestock  industries.  These  results  suggest  that  criticisms  portraying  industry  stakeholders  as  one-­‐dimensional  in  their  understanding  of  animal  welfare  are  unfounded.     It  could  be  argued  that  the  broad  conception  of  animal  welfare  held  by  participants  in  the  current  study  could  be  attributed  to  the  inclusion  of  a  wide  array  of  stakeholders  from  within  the  dairy  industry.  However,  this  breadth  was  evident  even  when  results  were  broken  down  by  stakeholder  category,  with  representatives  from  most  stakeholder  roles  expressing  concerns  for  specific  welfare  issues  that  related  to  health,  affective  states,  and  even  natural  living.  One  exception  is  that  only  members  from  the  research  and  producer  communities  expressed  concerns  around  behavioural  freedom  in  any  depth,  though  all  stakeholders  except  students  and  veterinarians  at  least  mentioned  behavioural  issues.  That  is,  although  some  participants  expressed  a  strong  preference  for  allowing  dairy  cattle  to  live  more  natural  and  unrestricted  lives,  this  type  of  preference  was  less  widely  shared.  This  finding  conflicts  with  a  previous  study  of  Canadian  beef  producers  (Spooner  et  al.,  2012),  which  found  natural  living  as  a  core  concern  among  beef  cattle  ranchers,  though  it  is  worth  noting  that  the  ranchers  in  that  study  were  operating  range-­‐based  systems  where  animals  already  spent  most  of  their  lives  unconfined  and  out  of  doors.  With  respect  to  dairy  cattle,  our  findings  are     69  similar  to  another  study  that  summarized  the  views  of  Portuguese  dairy  farmers  (Silva  et  al.,  2013).     We  also  acknowledge  that  participants  in  this  study,  as  a  function  of  their  attendance  at  an  animal  welfare-­‐focused  meeting,  may  have  held  more  progressive  views  toward  animal  welfare  than  their  peers  in  the  dairy  industry.  While  this  theoretically  limits  the  generalizability  of  these  findings,  the  intent  was  not  to  make  inferences  regarding  a  broad  population  but  rather  to  describe  the  range  and  consistency  of  welfare  concerns  of  the  industry  stakeholders  that  participated  in  these  groups.  However,  there  is  reasonable  expectation  that  most  of  these  welfare  concerns  (and  reasons  for  them)  exist  among  other  members  of  the  dairy  industry,  i.e.  transferability  of  the  findings  to  other  contexts  outside  this  cluster  of  participants  is  likely.    2.5.2 Forward  paths  and  potential  for  broader  stakeholder  linkages     We  intended  these  focus  groups  to  engage  participants  on  specific  and  concrete  dairy  welfare  issues  in  order  to  provide  a  basic  foundation  from  which  to  understand  broadly  shared  concerns  and  animal  welfare  values  among  industry  stakeholders.  However,  concerns  about  welfare  and  production  were  inevitably  linked  together  by  many  participants  such  that  it  was  challenging  for  many  of  them  to  discuss  welfare  in  isolation  of  economic  pressures.  This  linkage  has  been  noted  elsewhere  (Hubbard  et  al.,  2007;  Skarstad  et  al.,  2007;  Kauppinen  et  al.,  2010;  Spooner  et  al.,  2012;  Silva  et  al.,  2013),  suggesting  that  this  association  is  widely  held  by  producers  and  other  industry  stakeholders,  independent  of  geographical  location.  Future  efforts  seeking  multi-­‐stakeholder  engagement  would  do  well  to  bear  this  linkage  in  mind.  In  particular,  those     70  outside  the  livestock  industries  who  seek  improvement  of  farm  animal  welfare  would  likely  be  more  effective  if  they  acknowledge  the  production  implications  of  welfare  for  those  within  these  industries.    Dairy  industry  participants  in  this  study  demonstrated  concern  for  animal  welfare  and  many  had  a  broad  conception  of  what  animal  welfare  encompasses.  As  such,  there  appears  to  be  scope  for  the  dairy  industry  to  emphasize  values  that  exist  in  broader  society,  including  among  critics.  Below  we  outline  three  examples,  each  in  varying  stages  of  resolution,  for  how  this  might  be  achieved.    (1) Tail  docking  A  useful  starting  point  is  the  issue  of  tail  docking.  In  the  United  States,  around  40%  of  dairy  farms  report  use  of  tail  docking  (NAHMS,  2007),  despite  abundant  evidence  that  the  procedure  has  no  production  or  health  benefits  (Eicher  et  al.,  2001;  Tucker  et  al.,  2001;  Schreiner  and  Ruegg,  2002;  Fulwider  et  al.,  2008;  Lombard  et  al.,  2010).  One  participant  in  this  study  shared  that,  “tail  docking…used  to  be  a  big  problem.  And  I  used  to  be  a  tail  docking  proponent  at  some  point…I’m  ashamed  of  that…”  [Veterinarian,  G4].  With  the  exception  of  a  few  mentions  in  the  context  of  discussion  around  painful  procedures,  this  was  the  only  thing  participants  had  to  say  about  tail  docking.    Canada’s  Code  of  Practice  for  the  Care  and  Handling  of  Dairy  Cattle  specifies  that  “dairy  cattle  must  not  be  tail  docked  unless  medically  necessary”  (NFACC,  2009),  so  this  finding  may  reflect  a  low  prevalence  of  tail  docking  on  Canadian  farms.  Alternatively,  it  may  be  simply  that  the  progressives  within  the  dairy  industry  consider  the  practice  of  tail  docking  to  be  a  ‘dinosaur.’  Regardless,  tail  docking  appears  to  represent  a  case  of  widespread  stakeholder  agreement  (Weary  et  al.,  2011)  for  one  solution  (to  stop     71  docking  cows),  with  the  path  to  resolution  relatively  straightforward.  The  main  barrier  to  implementing  change  appears  to  be  the  mistaken  belief  of  some  that  tail  docking  leads  to  cleaner  cows  (Weary  et  al.,  2011).  The  appropriate  solution  is  likely  targeted  extension  efforts  toward  those  who  have  yet  to  fall  in  line  with  the  Code  of  Practice.    We  note  here  that  phase-­‐out  periods  are  sometimes  implemented  to  allow  farmers  the  time  to  change  their  management  strategies.  For  example,  in  2004  Norway  banned  construction  of  new  tie-­‐stalls  but  provided  a  20-­‐year  phase-­‐out  for  existing  tie-­‐stall  facilities  (Skarstad  and  Borgen,  2007).  This  approach  seems  reasonable  in  cases  that  require  major  infrastructure  change,  but  it  is  less  clear  why  a  lengthy  phase-­‐out  should  exist  for  issues  like  tail  docking  (see  the  National  Milk  Producers  Federation’s  10-­‐year  phase-­‐out  period  for  tail  docking  in  2012  [NMPF,  2014]),  which  does  not  require  significant  producer  investment  in  infrastructure.    (2) Painful  procedures  without  pain  control  In  2013  the  practice  of  dehorning  dairy  cattle  made  media  headlines  when  actor  Ryan  Gosling  wrote  a  letter  to  the  National  Milk  Producers  Federation  in  which  he  described  the  practice  as  “painful”  and  “barbaric”  (Huffington  Post,  2013).  Some  responses  dismissed  Gosling’s  concerns  as  ignorant,  but  others  were  crafted  around  the  recognition  that  dehorning  is  indeed  painful  and  pain  mitigation  techniques  should  be  applied  (Huibregtse,  2013).  By  acknowledging  shared  concerns,  the  latter  approach  is  likely  to  be  more  appropriate  if  the  dairy  industry  is  to  engage  successfully  with  external  stakeholders.    The  percentage  of  US  and  Canadian  farms  reporting  the  use  of  anesthetics  during  dehorning  is  generally  low  (~12-­‐45%),  and  use  of  post-­‐operative  analgesics  is     72  exceedingly  rare  (0-­‐1.8%,  Misch  et  al.,  2007;  Fulwider  et  al.,  2008;  Vasseur  et  al.,  2010).  However,  participants  in  the  current  study  often  expressed  their  concerns  about  dehorning,  lameness,  and  disease  specifically  in  terms  of  pain.  Thus,  it  appears  that  the  lack  of  analgesic  use  is  out  of  step  with  values  even  within  the  dairy  industry.  It  is  increasingly  evident  that  members  of  the  public  feel  the  same  way  (Rutgers,  2003;  Spooner  et  al.,  2014a).  Acting  swiftly  to  ensure  that  pain  management  procedures  are  included  in  daily  farm  practice  would  be  one  way  for  the  dairy  industry  to  achieve  an  ‘easy  win.’  We  encourage  future  work  to  address  constraints  that  hinder  farmers  from  using  pain  control  during  dehorning  and  other  common  management  procedures.    (3) Pasture  access  and  natural  living  Resolving  other  welfare  issues  within  the  dairy  industry  may  prove  more  challenging.  The  complex  etiology  of  some  issues  (e.g.  lameness  and  mastitis)  makes  simplistic  solutions  largely  inappropriate,  while  other  issues,  like  providing  dairy  cows  with  a  natural  life,  present  a  more  fundament  challenge  to  resolution.  Participants  here  did  not  discuss  pasture  or  outdoor  access  as  important  elements  for  dairy  welfare,  in  contrast  to  strongly  expressed  preferences  by  citizens  (Ellis  et  al.,  2009;  Boogaard  et  al.,  2011b;  IGD,  2011;  Schuppli  et  al.,  2014).  However,  pasture  access  is  just  one  element  of  a  broader  desire  to  provide  animals  with  the  opportunity  to  live  more  natural  lives.  It  is  within  this  broader  concept  of  ‘natural’  that  links  across  diverse  stakeholder  groups  may  be  found.  Representatives  from  the  producer  and  research  communities  in  this  study  routinely  expressed  preferences  for  allowing  cows  behavioural  freedom  and  criticized  situations  where  cows  were  restricted  from  normal  postural  movements.  We  see  similar  preferences  for  adequate     73  space  (Ellis  et  al.,  2009;  IGD,  2011)  expressed  by  citizens,  which  suggests  that  there  may  be  some  room  for  agreement  on  this  issue.  It  is  clear  that  continued  research  is  warranted  to  parse  out  which  aspects  of  natural  living  are  most  important  to  different  stakeholders  and  to  more  clearly  define  relatively  nebulous  concepts  like  ‘adequate  space’  (which  is  crucial  if  any  resulting  policy  is  to  be  even  marginally  enforceable).  It  may  be  that  the  dairy  industry  can  reduce  the  gap  between  public  expectations  and  industry  practices  by  phasing  out  its  most  restrictive  housing  and  management  practices,  as  Norway  did  in  the  example  above.  However,  it  may  also  be  that  the  public  is  unwilling  to  support  what  they  see  as  merely  incremental  change;  from  this  perspective,  something  like  larger  free  stalls  may  not  be  seen  as  adequate  substitute  for  pasture  access.  2.6 Study  conclusions       This  chapter  described  the  use  of  focus  groups  to  engage  a  range  of  industry  stakeholders  on  welfare  issues  in  the  dairy  industry  and  the  results  illustrate  some  promise  in  this  method  of  stakeholder  engagement.  Agreement  on  ‘low-­‐hanging  fruit’  issues,  including  abolition  of  tail  docking  and  implementation  of  pain  control  protocols  for  procedures  like  dehorning,  would  be  a  way  to  achieve  easy  wins  that  serve  to  strengthen  stakeholder  relations.  More  effort  will  be  needed  to  tackle  more  complex  issues  like  pasture  access,  as  public  and  industry  concerns  around  this  issue  appear  to  be  substantially  different.  Even  in  cases  where  agreement  on  issues  is  widespread,  however,  barriers  to  welfare  improvement  persist.  Chapter  3  thus  addresses  how  people  within  the  industry  perceive  these  barriers  and  the  desired  strategies  to  overcome  them.       74  Chapter  3:   Dairy  industry  perspectives  on  animal  welfare  challenges  and  solutionsφ     “If  we,  the  ones  who  know  things,  won’t  do  it,  who  will?”  Cattle  Veterinarian,  Anonymous    3.1   Introduction     The  conditions  in  which  humans  raise  farm  animals  have  become  a  common  topic  in  discussions  on  the  ethical  challenges  faced  by  modern  society.  The  past  two  decades  have  seen  a  series  of  studies  that  have  focused  on  the  perceptions,  attitudes  and  values  regarding  animal  welfare  held  by  the  public,  both  as  citizens  and  as  consumers  (e.g.  Harper  and  Makatouni,  2002;  Lassen  et  al.,  2006;  Kjaernes  et  al.,  2007;  Boogaard  et  al.,  2006,  2008,  2011b;  Vanhonacker  et  al.,  2008,  Prickett  et  al.,  2010).  Also  important  are  the  various  actors  who  work  within  or  tangential  to  the  livestock  industries  (including  producers,  industry  leaders,  livestock  veterinarians,  university  faculty  and  graduate  students  working  in  agriculture  or  veterinary  medicine,  and  industry  service  providers),  as  these  individuals  hold  much  of  the  power  over  the  lives  of  farm  animals  and  are  most  affected  by  policy  changes.       These  people  may  be  considered  as  ‘experts’  as  they  have  accumulated  a  unique  body  of  knowledge  and  experience  with  livestock  as  a  result  of  their  respective  roles.  For  example,  the  proximity  of  farmers  to  the  conditions  in  which  farm  animals  are  raised  gives  them  a  unique  perspective  on  the  ethical  debates  on  agricultural  practices  (Driessen,  2012).  Livestock  veterinarians  are  likewise  in  a  unique  position  to  lead  in                                                                                                                  φ  A  version  of  this  chapter  has  been  submitted  for  publication:  Ventura,  B.  A.,  D.  M.  Weary,  A.  S.  Giovanetti,  and  M.  A.  G.  von  Keyserlingk.  Stakeholder  perspectives  on  cattle  welfare  challenges  and  solutions.       75  improving  animal  welfare,  as  farmers  often  highly  value  their  opinion  on  matters  related  to  animal  heath  (Lam  et  al.,  2007;  Kaupinnen  et  al.,  2010).  In  contrast  to  Europe  where  research  initiatives  such  as  the  Welfare  Quality®  projects  have  started  to  address  industry  stakeholder  perspectives,  the  views  of  North  Americans  have  received  little  attention.  The  need  to  better  incorporate  these  industry  stakeholders  into  discussions  on  farm  animal  welfare  has  become  critical  in  Canada  and  the  United  States  where  the  debate  on  farm  animal  welfare  is  highly  polarized  (Fraser,  2001;  Croney  and  Reynnells,  2008),  the  federal  governments  have  largely  remained  silent  on  the  issue,  and  industry-­‐led  initiatives  remain  largely  unproven  (von  Keyserlingk  and  Hotzel,  2015).    In  light  of  the  challenges  specific  to  different  sectors  of  livestock  farming,  research  should  examine  stakeholder  perspectives  on  these  issues  within  each  industry.  To  this  end,  we  held  two  cohorts  of  focus  groups,  the  first  in  Guelph,  Ontario,  in  October  2012  (hereafter  ‘Guelph  cohort’)  and  the  second  in  Madrid,  Spain  (hereafter  ‘Madrid  cohort’)  approximately  1.5  years  later.  Chapter  2  described  conversations  in  the  Guelph  cohort  with  respect  to  participants’  perceptions  of  priority  animal  welfare  problems  in  the  dairy  industry.  To  provide  context  for  the  current  chapter  we  note  that  the  key  problems  identified  included  lameness,  cow  comfort,  disease,  on-­‐farm  mortality,  poor  handling,  routine  management  procedures,  injuries,  cull  cow  management,  calf  management,  and  inability  to  perform  natural  behaviours  (see  Chapter  2).  The  aim  of  the  current  paper  was  to  identify  cattle  industry  stakeholders’  perceived  challenges  to  resolving  such  welfare  problems  as  well  as  participants’  perceptions  of  their  own  and  others’  roles  in  solutions  to  these  problems.     76  3.2 Methods    3.2.1 Study  approach     Focus  groups  use  dynamic  group  interaction  to  elicit  information  grounded  in  individuals’  experiences  (see  Carey  and  Smith,  1994),  which  is  desirable  in  gaining  insight  into  the  constraints  faced  by  these  individuals.  As  farmers,  veterinary  practitioners,  and  other  industry  actors  operate  within  complex  social  webs  in  farming  communities,  providing  opportunities  to  discuss  cattle  welfare  with  their  peers  should  elicit  richer,  more  honest  reflections  on  the  subject  (Albrecht  et  al.,  1993).  3.2.2 Guelph  cohort     For  a  complete  description  of  the  Guelph  methodology  please  see  Chapter  2.  In  brief,  five  heterogeneous  focus  groups  (n=47  participants,  divided  into  groups  of  7-­‐10),  composed  of  dairy  farmers,  veterinarians,  researchers,  graduate  students  and  dairy  industry  leaders  and  specialists,  were  held  immediately  before  a  dairy  cattle  welfare  meeting  in  Guelph,  Ontario,  Canada  in  October  2012  (see  Table  2.1  for  Guelph  participant  demographics).    3.2.3 Madrid  cohort     To  examine  the  extent  to  which  the  Guelph  findings  were  repeatable  and  to  explore  the  views  of  veterinarians  in  greater  depth,  six  focus  groups  were  held  directly  before  the  7th  Boehringer  Ingelheim  Expert  Forum  on  Farm  Animal  Well-­‐Being  in  Madrid,  Spain  in  June  2014.  Trained  facilitators  prompted  participants  to  discuss  a  series  of  five  main  questions  over  a  period  of  75  minutes.  The  groups  were  composed  of  cattle  veterinary  practitioners  (e.g.  dairy,  beef,  and  mixed  practice  that  included  cattle)     77  and  veterinary  researchers  based  predominantly  in  Europe.  We  considered  veterinarians  to  be  an  important  focus  for  continued  discussions  on  these  issues,  as  the  Guelph  data  indicated  that  they  see  themselves  as  critical  “gatekeepers”  to  animal  welfare  but  often  struggle  to  fulfill  their  roles  as  leaders.  Our  previous  experience  with  the  Guelph  participants  indicated  that  a  significant  portion  of  their  discussions  focused  on  the  technical  aspects  related  to  welfare  issues,  a  phenomenon  documented  by  others  (Te  Velde  et  al.,  2002).  To  allow  more  time  for  discussion  of  participants’  perceptions  of  welfare  challenges  and  solutions,  the  guide  (or  script,  see  Appendix  B)  for  this  study  was  modified  so  that  the  initial  question  (“What  do  you  think  are  the  most  important  welfare  issues  that  affect  cattle?”)  was  asked  via  an  online  survey  circulated  to  all  participants  two  weeks  before  the  conference.  Participants’  answers  were  then  displayed  during  the  focus  groups  and  used  as  a  starting  point  for  the  rest  of  discussion.  All  other  questions  matched  those  used  with  the  Guelph  cohort.     Participants  As  in  Guelph,  we  used  a  convenience  sample  drawn  from  conference  attendees.  As  such,  we  aimed  to  gain  a  deeper  understanding  of  some  of  the  challenges  faced,  and  the  solutions  desired,  by  members  of  these  groups.  Conference  organizers  emailed  invitations  to  all  conference  registrants,  who  then  contacted  the  researchers  if  they  wanted  to  participate.  Between  7-­‐10  people  participated  in  each  of  six  groups,  resulting  in  50  participants.  The  sample  was  predominantly  European  (84%)  and  male  (70%,  see  Table  3.1  for  Madrid  participant  demographics).  Focus  groups  were  largely  homogeneous  with  respect  to  stakeholder  role:  four  of  the  groups  were  composed  of     78  veterinarians  (and  of  those,  73%  specified  during  the  introductions  that  they  practiced  or  had  a  history  of  practice  with  dairy  and/or  beef  cattle).  The  two  other  groups  were  composed  predominantly  of  veterinary  researchers.  Table  3.1  Demographics  of  the  participant  sample  (n=50)  in  the  veterinary  stakeholder  focus  groups  in  Madrid,  Spain  Variable   Label   n   Percent  (%)  Stakeholder   Veterinarian   33   66.7     Veterinary  researcher   17   33.3  Sex   Female   15   30.0     Male   35   70.0  Nationality   France   7   14.0     Netherlands   7   14.0     Belgium   5   10.0     UK+  Ireland   5   10.0     Turkey   5   10.0     Germany   4   8.0     Spain   4   8.0     Italy   3   6.0     Canada   2   4.0     USA   2   4.0     Argentina   1   2.0     New  Zealand   1   2.0     Portugal   1   2.0     Sweden   1   2.0     Unspecified   2   4.0  3.2.4 Analyses     All  discussions  were  audio-­‐recorded  and  transcribed  to  generate  112  and  130  pages  of  text  from  the  Guelph  and  Madrid  cohorts,  respectively.  B.  A.  Ventura  transcribed  the  Guelph  data,  while  the  Madrid  data  were  transcribed  by  a  professional  transcription  service.  Content  from  the  online  question  used  with  the  Madrid  cohort  yielded  an  additional  five  pages  of  data.  Welfare  concerns  from  these  data  were  coded  into  themes  and  sub-­‐themes  using  the  qualitative  data  management  program,  NVivo     79  (QSY  International  Pty  Ltd.  Version  10,  2014)  following  the  approach  described  in  Chapter  2.    Both  data  sets  were  analyzed  using  content  analysis  (Coffey  and  Atkinson,  1996)  to  identify  participants’  perceptions  of  challenges  to  cattle  welfare  and  potential  solutions.  Two  authors  (B.  A.  Ventura  and  A.  S.  Giovanetti)  independently  read  the  transcripts  multiple  times,  making  notes  on  emerging  patterns  in  participants’  comments  and  assigning  codes  and  sub-­‐codes  to  related  sections  of  text.  For  example,  the  statement  “…we  have  some  [farms]  that  are  very  progressive  and  they  have  a  lot  of  capital  to  pull  from.  And  then  we  have  a  lot  of  small  farms  that  are  really  struggling  and  the  market  is  swinging  back  and  forth”  was  assigned  the  code  “Challenge-­‐economic”  and  sub-­‐code  “market  stability”.  Once  transcripts  were  coded,  researchers  compared  their  respective  code  lists  to  evaluate  consistency.  As  initial  consistency  was  high,  coders  discussed  their  interpretations  until  a  mutually  consistent  coding  scheme,  consisting  of  codes  and  sub-­‐codes,  was  reached  (henceforth  termed  themes  and  sub-­‐themes).  Ultimately,  we  developed  a  set  of  themes  and  sub-­‐themes  for  both  challenges  and  solutions,  with  stakeholder  roles  embedded  throughout  the  discussion  of  both.    Participant  quotations  are  used  below  to  illustrate  themes  and  to  ensure  transparency  of  the  research  process.  Each  quotation  is  followed  by  a  subscript  of  the  type  of  stakeholder  and  their  focus  group  (e.g.  G1  indicates  Guelph  Group  1  and  M5  denotes  Madrid  Group  5).       80  3.3 Results  and  discussion    3.3.1 Perceived  challenges  to  animal  welfare      Six  primary  challenges  emerged  from  the  combined  data  sets  (see  Table  3.2):  animal  welfare  definition  and  assessment,  external  regulations,  economics,  and  farmer-­‐,  veterinarian-­‐,  and  researcher-­‐related  challenges.  Participants  in  both  cohorts  discussed  five  of  these  challenges;  in  addition,  the  Madrid  cohort  discussed  veterinarian-­‐related  challenges,  likely  due  to  the  high  proportion  of  participating  veterinarians  in  this  cohort.  Unless  otherwise  stated,  there  were  no  differences  between  the  two  cohorts  in  how  participants  discussed  challenges  to  welfare.       81  Table  3.2  Themes  discussed  by  participants  in  the  context  of  challenges  to  animal  welfare  (AW)  and  the  proportion  of  focus  groups  from  Guelph  (n=5  focus  groups)  and  Madrid  (n=6)  in  which  each  theme  emerged  Challenges  to  AW   Theme  description   Guelph   Madrid  Definition  and  assessment   Lack  of  consensus  on  meaning  of  AW;  complexity  of  AW;  difficulties  in  AW  measurement  and  evaluation     4/5   6/6  External  regulations   External  regulations  as  insufficient,  difficult  to  enforce,  or  detrimental   4/5   5/6  Economics   Low  cash  flow;  market  instability;  complex  relationship  between  AW  and  production   4/5   5/6  Producer     5/5   6/6  Knowledge/awareness   Deficits  in  producer  knowledge  or  awareness  of  AW  issues  and  solutions   5/5   4/6  Attitudes   Cultural  and  psychological  impediments  that  contributed  to  producer  unwillingness  to  address  AW   3/5   6/6  Management   Reactive  management;  low  self-­‐efficacy   3/5   6/6  Veterinarian     0   6/6    Knowledge   Deficits  in  veterinarian  knowledge  about  AW  issues;  inadequate  AW  education  in  curricula   0   2/6  Attitudes   Dismissal  or  avoidance  of  AW   0   4/6                      Self-­‐efficacy   Conflict  of  interest  between  client  and  animal  leads  to  constraints  against  veterinary  action   0   4/6  Researcher    Questionable  relevance  of  research  to      farm  reality;  conflict  between        practical  solutions  and  AW     2/5   2/6    1)     Animal  welfare  definition  and  assessment  All  groups  in  both  cohorts,  save  one  of  the  Guelph  groups,  described  difficulties  about  how  to  define  and  assess  animal  welfare  on  farm.  For  instance,  one  participant  stated  that,  “One  of  the  big  things  that  stands  in  the  way  for  us  with  welfare…a  lot  of  it  is     82  definition.  How  you  define  animal  welfare,”  [Veterinarian,  M5].  Others  noted  that  they  were  often  too  narrow  in  their  own  definition  of  animal  welfare,  which  they  argued  hindered  progress:  “As  veterinarians,  I’m  certainly  guilty  of  looking  at…health  and  production  as…a  proxy  for  welfare…and  they’re  not  really  a  very  good  measure  of  welfare  holistically,”  [Veterinarian,  M5].  Some  participants  also  argued  that  the  lack  of  agreement  surrounding  the  definition  of  animal  welfare  contributed  to  inconsistent  messaging  to  farmers:  “I  think  the  farmer  sees  a  lot  of  consultants…I  would  wish  that  all  those  guys  could  come  to  the  same  point  regarding  the  welfare  because  I  know  that  some  economical  consultants  also  recommend  overstocking  of  about  10%...it’s  people  like  that  I  would  like  to  come  to  the  same  point,”  [Veterinarian,  M1].    Participants  also  noted  that  the  complexity  of  many  welfare  issues  made  it  difficult  to  track  effects  of  management  or  treatment  changes,  citing  for  example  the  multi-­‐factorial  causes  of  lameness  and  mastitis:  “What’s  the  lameness  status  of  my  herd?  ...How  do  you  quickly  get  an  assessment  of  that  situation?  And  as  with  mastitis,  it’s  a  multifactorial  problem,  so  you  can’t  just  put  your  finger  necessarily  on  one  thing.  You  have  to  have  a  systematic  approach  to  it,”  [Researcher,  G4].  Others  noted  that  this  complexity  meant  that  a  potential  solution  for  one  issue  might  create  another.    Many  participants  expressed  sentiments  along  the  lines  of,  “we’re  still  looking  for  good  tools  to  measure  the  welfare  problems,”  [Veterinarian,  M3].  For  example,  many  veterinary  participants  stated  that  the  lack  of  tools  to  measure  pain  prevented  them  from  helping  farmers  detect  painful  conditions  like  lameness.  Some  also  criticized  approaches  such  as  the  reliance  on  environmental  versus  animal-­‐based  welfare  indicators.  Others     83  commented  that  existing  technologies  to  assess  welfare  were  often  insufficient  or  prone  to  malfunction.  2)     External  regulation  All  but  one  group  in  each  cohort  contained  at  least  one  participant  who  believed  that  issues  with  external  regulation  presented  a  challenge  to  improving  cattle  welfare.  Participants  varied  in  their  thoughts  on  regulations  to  dictate  standards  on  farms:  some  participants  saw  value  in  external  regulations  (even  if  they  were  critical  of  existing  measures),  but  others  were  suspicious  of  any  regulation  from  outside  actors.    Those  in  favor  of  external  regulations  tended  to  value  the  transparency  of  independent  oversight  or  believe  self-­‐governance  by  industry  to  be  slow  or  insufficient.  Their  concerns  often  involved  legislation  that  was  too  lax  or  insufficiently  enforced.  This  perspective  appeared  to  exist  independent  of  participants’  nationality.  For  example,  one  North  American  commented,  “there  is  very  little  oversight  to  animal  welfare  on  the  farms  in  the  US,  and  it’s  a  big  problem,  in  my  opinion.  The  vets  aren’t  on  the  farm,  and  we  really  haven’t  any  legislation  that  dictates  that  farms  have  to  have  permits  outside  of  the  milk  quality  issues…”  [Veterinary  Researcher,  M6].  Along  a  similar  vein,  a  New  Zealander  had  strong  concerns  over  what  he  perceived  to  be  lax  regulations  on  analgesic  use  for  painful  procedures,  while  a  Canadian  participant  expressed  frustration  over  the  lack  of  enforcement  in  sending  downer  cattle  to  market:  “Unfortunately  with  [provincial]  regulations  there’s  no  outcome  if  you  don’t  pay  your  fines  and  there’s  no  consequence…”  [Veterinarian,  G1].       Others  believed  that  external  regulation  was  at  best  a  nuisance  and  at  worst  a  hindrance  to  improving  cattle  welfare.  As  such,  mandatory  regulations  forcing     84  adherence  to  welfare  standards  were  believed  to  negatively  affect  both  animals  and  farmers.  For  example,  participants  in  both  cohorts  were  concerned  that  comparatively  lax  regulations  in  other  countries  threatened  the  viability  of  farms  in  countries  where  animal  welfare  regulations  were  stricter:  “…having  more  regulation  dumped  on  us,  without  any  increased  profit,  without  any  increased  border  protection  to  sell  our  product  in  this  country  without  cheaper  product  coming  in…I  see  red  flags,”  [Farmer/Industry  leader,  G5].  Regardless  of  their  position  on  the  role  of  external  regulation,  all  focus  groups  expressed  the  belief  that  forcing  changes  on  people,  rather  than  letting  them  come  to  the  realization  on  their  own,  was  a  problem.       Another  objection  to  external  regulations  was  the  perceived  lack  of  farmer  participation  in  their  development,  which  participants  argued  had  created  unrealistic  expectations  or  excessively  burdensome  regulatory  environments.  Veterinarians  also  mentioned  that  they  had  encountered  regulations  that  worsened  welfare  status  (e.g.  excessive  withholding  periods  for  medications  which  discouraged  pain  and  disease  treatment).  Finally,  some  objected  to  the  creation  or  enforcement  of  standards  by  people  perceived  to  be  ignorant  of  the  realities  of  farming,  e.g.:  “There  are  laws  coming  through  the  US  system…to  legislate  some  animal  welfare  issues.  Some  of  those  …  are  being  decided  out  of  perception  issues  and  not  backed  up  with  science,”  [Veterinary  Researcher,  M6]  and  “We  have  a  lot  of  policy  people…who  are  doing  a  lot  of  the  big  thinking  stuff  who  didn’t  grow  up  on  a  farm…”  [Industry  leader,  G3].  3)     Economics  All  groups  (save  one  in  each  cohort)  viewed  economic  challenges  as  a  barrier  preventing  improvements  in  cattle  welfare.  Participants  expressed  concern  with  low     85  incoming  cash  flow,  primarily  due  to  inadequate  compensation  for  their  products  and  as  a  result  of  difficulties  with  investors  (for  example,  banks  not  providing  loans  for  farmers  to  invest  in  high  welfare  infrastructure  changes).  Some  shared  their  frustration  with  the  low  economic  value  placed  on  some  animals  such  as  dairy  bull  calves.  Interestingly,  one  participant  cited  the  commodification  of  animals  as  a  hindrance  to  both  welfare  and  productivity:  “We  need  to  change  something.  They  are  not  things.  They  are  animals….  If  we  take  care  of  them,  they  give  more  quality  meat,”  [Veterinarian,  M6].    More  widespread  was  the  complaint  that  low  product  prices  constrained  farmers  from  being  more  proactive  on  welfare  (e.g.  “In  Norway,  one  barrier  is  the  economy…  the  farm  economy…  the  milk  prices  are  quite  low,”  [Researcher,  G3]).  Participants  sometimes  specified  that  supermarket  demand  for  low  cost  but  high  welfare  products  was  problematic,  with  some  commenting  that  consumer  willingness  to  pay  for  high  quality  products  must  rise.    One  farmer  echoed  this  through  his  frustration  with  supermarkets  selling  milk  as  a  ‘loss  leader,’  i.e.  using  cheap  milk  to  entice  consumers  to  enter  the  supermarket  with  the  hope  that  they  would  buy  other  products.  Market  instability  and  competing  markets  were  also  seen  to  be  a  challenge.  Participants  mentioned  that  in  certain  contexts  such  as  the  US,  fluctuating  markets  made  it  difficult  for  farmers  to  proactively  manage  their  farms.  As  one  participant  commented:  “We  have  a  lot  of  small  farms  that  are  really  struggling  and  the  market  is  swinging  back  and  forth…the  timeline  for  making  changes  is  often  longer  than  what  the  economic  realities  are  for  many  of  these  farmers,”  [Researcher,  G3].  Others  argued  that  highly  competitive  market  environments  discouraged  individual  farmers  from  experimenting  with  welfare  changes  or  even  advocating  for  high  welfare  amongst  their  peers.  Other     86  concerns  included  the  differences  in  economic  security  across  countries  as  a  result  of  variable  animal  welfare  legislation,  high  costs  of  meeting  sometimes  unrealistic  standards,  and  a  lack  of  funds  for  inspection  of  standards.    Relationships  between  animal  welfare  and  economics.  The  question  of  economics  is  one  that  frequently  surfaces  when  discussing  farm  animal  welfare  with  farmers  and  other  stakeholders  directly  linked  to  the  livestock  industries  (Hubbard  et  al.,  2007;  Skarstad  et  al.,  2007;  Kauppinen  et  al.,  2010;  Spooner  et  al.,  2014b;  de  Lauwere  et  al.,  2015).  Responses  from  the  present  study  often  revealed  a  paradoxical  view  of  the  relationship  between  animal  welfare  and  economics.  It  was  clear  that  some  participants  believed  the  relationship  between  welfare  and  economics  to  be  positive  such  than  an  increase  in  welfare  is  accompanied  by  an  increase  in  production.  For  example,  one  veterinarian  commented  that,  “better  welfare  is  linear  with  more  production,”  [Veterinarian,  M3].  This  belief,  documented  also  among  Dutch  dairy  farmers  and  their  advisors  (de  Lauwere  et  al.,  2015),  is  likely  rooted  in  values  that  emphasize  biological  health  and  functioning  as  the  primary  determinant  of  animal  welfare  (Moberg,  1985;  Broom,  1991;  McGlone,  1993),  which  in  turn  translates  downstream  into  production  benefits  or  losses.    Participants  also  argued  that  bad  welfare  was  bad  for  business,  particularly  in  cases  of  egregious  abuse  by  “bad  apple”  farmers  that  harm  the  image  of  the  industry.  However,  many  of  these  same  participants  also  appeared  to  believe  in  an  inverse  relationship  between  welfare  and  economics,  evident  through  comments  that  high  welfare  provisions  often  required  costly  investments  in  infrastructure  and/or  management  changes,  e.g.  “and  of  course  increasing  the  management,  increasing  the     87  welfare  of  the  animals,  increasing  the  prevention—cost[s]  them  [the  farmer]  money,”  [Veterinarian,  M2].  De  Jonge  and  van  Trijp  (2013)  describe  an  inherent  conflict  between  the  belief  that  current  production  methods  are  necessary  to  remain  competitive  and  the  desire  to  ensure  a  good  life  for  animals  (and  avoid  conflict  with  social  concerns).  Some  of  our  participants  clearly  experienced  this  same  conflict  and  seemed  to  believe  that  modifications  to  improve  animal  welfare  could  be  both  economically  risky  and  advantageous.  For  others,  this  matter  appeared  to  be  context-­‐dependent  such  that  changes  were  beneficial  for  some  issues  but  risky  for  others.  Still  others  seemed  to  reconcile  the  conflict  through  beliefs  that  costly  short-­‐term  investments  (e.g.  deeper  bedding)  could  translate  to  long-­‐term  economic  benefits  (e.g.  higher  cow  comfort  and  lower  lameness  leading  to  improved  cow  longevity  and  milk  production).  4)     The  Role  of  the  Farmer  As  has  been  noted  by  others  (Driessen,  2012),  the  farmer  was  widely  perceived  as  the  critical  actor  upon  which  action  moves  forward  (or  not).  Every  focus  group  considered  farmer-­‐related  issues  as  being  influential  in  determining  animal  welfare,  with  discussions  centered  on  farmer  awareness  and  knowledge,  attitudes  and  culture,  and  management  skills.  Overall  there  was  consensus  that  many  farmers  and  farm  workers  lacked  awareness  of  certain  welfare  problems,  which  is  in  line  with  work  on  Dutch  dairy  farmers’  perceived  limitations  (de  Lauwere  et  al.,  2015).  Some  referenced  the  limited  conceptions  of  animal  welfare  held  by  farmers  they  encountered.  Specific  knowledge  deficits  identified  by  the  participants  included  pain  management,  handling,  animal     88  behaviour,  and  disease  detection,  which  were  generally  attributed  to  a  lack  of  training  or  extension:    I  would  say  that  a  lot  of  farmers  still  don’t  see  that  there  is  a  welfare  problem  when  cows  are  sick.  [Veterinarian,  M2]      One  good  indicator  in  Canada  is  when  you  ask  a  producer  the  calf  mortality,  they  have  no  clue…When  we  did  the  study  we  see  that  they  underestimate  it  by  50%...You  don’t  know  if  they  don’t  see  the  problem  or  if  they  just  don’t  know…  [Researcher,  G2].      Some  producers  aren’t  doing  the  lidocaine  block,  but  that  actually  takes  a  fair  amount  of  thinking  through  how  you’re  going  to  do  that.  Who  do  you  have  to  contact?…How  do  you  learn  those  skills?…Each  one  of  those  is  a  little  mini  barrier…  [Researcher,  G3]       Welfare  problems  were  also  seen  to  be  an  artifact  of  farm  culture,  i.e.  bad  welfare  being  the  norm  for  some  farmers,  evidenced  for  example  by  high  calf  mortality  and  morbidity.  This  was  echoed  by  some  who  stated  that  there  was  an  acceptance  among  some  farmers  that  part  of  the  cost  of  doing  business  meant  that  some  animals  would  inevitably  slip  through  the  cracks:  “Unfortunately  to  these  people  [who  ship  downed  cattle  to  auction]…you  know  if  they  get  a  thousand  dollar  fine,  well  it’s  no  big  deal.  It’s  the  cost  of  business,”  [Veterinarian,  G1].  Some  participants  also  believed  that  long-­‐standing  traditions  translated  into  inaction  by  some  farmers.  One  veterinarian  described  it  thus:  “I  found  that  the  farmers  love  their  cows,  but  they’re  not  aware  about  these  welfare  issues…Because  everything  has  been  done  the  same  way  for  hundreds  of  years,  and  why  suddenly  are  we  talking  about  welfare  and  pain?”  [M2].  This  was  seen  to  be  especially  problematic  among  older  farmers:  “It’s  hard  to  convince  the  older  generation  that,  yes,  I’m  going  to  see  advantages  there...”  [Farmer,  G1].  Many  veterinarians  spoke  of  the  difficulty  of  broaching  the  subject  of  welfare  with  their  clients,  noting  that  farmers  were  often  reluctant  to  acknowledge  welfare     89  problems  on  their  farm:    “I  will  have  discussions  with  producers  and  they  say  ‘I  don’t  want  you  to  write  that  [problem]  down,’”  [Veterinarian,  M1].     Some  participants  linked  poor  knowledge,  coupled  with  a  high  degree  of  resistance,  with  poor  management.  Some  felt,  for  example,  that  farmers’  management  strategies  were  built  on  reacting  to  problems  rather  than  proactivity.  Others  commented  that  farmers  failed  to  implement  effective  solutions  even  in  cases  where  they  were  aware  of  the  problem.  Still  others  considered  that  farmers’  actions  were  limited  by  circumstances  beyond  their  control,  for  example  when  farmers  were  required  to  adhere  to  too  many  standards  (e.g.  “And  sometimes  it’s  very  hard  for  the  farmer  to  understand  all  the  rules,”  [Researcher,  M4],  or  “Producers  have  too  much  on  their  plate,”  [Researcher,  G2]).       Both  farmers  and  others  in  a  supporting  role,  such  as  veterinarians,  focused  on  farmers’  relationships  to  pain  in  cattle  (and  widely  found  these  to  be  deficient  in  some  way).  Research  has  indicated  that  farmers  tend  to  approach  pain  in  farm  animals  according  to  context  and  issue,  such  that  chronically  painful  conditions  like  lameness  and  disease  are  prioritized  (in  part  because  they  are  painful,  Leach  et  al.,  2010a,b)  while  shorter-­‐term  painful  experiences  like  dehorning  or  castration  are  often  dismissed  (Vanhonacker  et  al.,  2008;  Phillips  et  al.,  2009;  Spooner  et  al.,  2012;  Tuyttens  et  al.,  2012).  Though  we  did  not  probe  the  extent  to  which  farmers  in  the  current  study  valued  pain  mitigation  against  other  concerns,  this  finding  (together  with  work  from  Wikman  et  al.,  2013)  shows  a  level  of  concern  and  sensitivity  to  pain  among  commercial  livestock  farmers  beyond  that  reported  in  previous  research.     90  5)     The  Role  of  the  Veterinarian  Previous  research  has  shown  that  veterinarians  are  recognized  as  one  of  the  most  important  advisors  to  dairy  farmers  (Lam  et  al.,  2007;  Jansen  et  al.,  2010b;  de  Lauwere  et  al.,  2015),  but  veterinarians  perceived  specific  challenges  in  meeting  this  role  as  seen  in  comments  from  the  Madrid  cohort.  As  with  farmer-­‐related  challenges,  veterinarian  challenges  were  categorized  as  deficits  in  knowledge,  attitudes,  and  self-­‐efficacy.       Some  groups  argued  that  veterinarians  lacked  knowledge  on  key  topics  like  animal  behaviour  and  pain,  which  in  turn  compromised  their  ability  to  help.  Many  attributed  these  knowledge  deficits  to  inadequate  animal  welfare  education  in  the  veterinary  curriculum,  a  finding  that  aligns  with  other  studies  on  veterinarian  attitudes  about  pain  (in  North  America,  Dohoo  and  Dohoo,  1996;  Hellyer  et  al.,  1999;  and  in  Europe,  Capner  et  al.,  1999;  Raekallio  et  al.,  2003).       Participants  also  criticized  the  ‘traditional’  thinking  of  some  older  professionals  that  allowed  welfare  issues  such  as  pain  to  be  dismissed.  For  example,  one  person  shared  that,  “At  the  time  we  started  as  practitioners,  it  was  a  long  time  ago  and  pain  management  [was]  never  talked  about,  [the]  cow  never  had  pain…I  think  there  has  to  be  a  mentality  change,”  [Veterinarian,  M3].  This  culture  of  avoidance  and  denial  clearly  affected  some  of  the  participants,  who  noted  that  they  often  had  difficulty  speaking  up  when  they  encountered  welfare  problems  on  the  farm:  One  of  the  major  problems  is  getting  vets  to  want  to  talk  about  welfare.  [Veterinarian,  M6]    I  think  we  often  ignore  stuff…choose  not  to  mention  it…That’s  a  weakness.  [Veterinarian,  M1]       91  I  think  we’re  allowing  too  much  of  this  to  go  on,  whether  it  be  animals  being  taken  to  the  slaughterhouse  in  inappropriate  trucks  or  down.  You  know,  we’ve  all  seen  those  situations,  and  sometimes  we  turn  a  blind  eye.  [Veterinary  Researcher,  M4]       Central  to  this  issue  is  likely  the  conflict  of  interest  experienced  by  many  participants,  described  by  one  individual  as,    “It’s  a  difficult  thing  to—when  you’re  part  of  the  thing—to  take  it  forward,”  [Veterinarian,  M4].  The  need  to  protect  the  economic  health  of  their  client  (the  farmer)  at  the  occasional  expense  of  the  cow  was  viewed  as  a  constraint  by  these  veterinarians:  The  biggest  challenge  in  this  issue  is  that  they  are  our  clients,  so  we  depend  on  them  for  our  income…It’s  easy  if  you  have  a  sick  cow  and  you  heal  it…but  if  you  give  advice  about  animal  welfare…[Veterinarian,  M1]        As  veterinarians,  sometimes  we  are  a  bit  restricted  because  it’s  a  client  of  ours.  We  can’t  say  that  it’s  not  good  at  all,  what  you  are  doing,  otherwise  we’ll  lose  a  client.  [Veterinarian,  M1]    I  do  think  that  sometimes  herd  health  veterinarians  sort  of  feel  like…they  have  to  be  everything  to  the  farms…the  financial  expert,  the  financial  advisor…I  think  that  we  lose  perspective…We’re  supposed  to  advocate  for  the  cow…[I’m  not]  supposed  to  worry  about  your  bottom  line.  [Industry  leader/Veterinarian,  G2]     In  some  ways  this  conflict  of  interest  is  similar  to  the  economics-­‐welfare  conflict  described  above.  Morgan  and  McDonald  (2007)  refer  to  the  balance  between  client  and  patient  interests  as  “the  fundamental  question  in  veterinary  medical  ethics”  (p.  165)  and  explain  that,  “choices  are  hard  to  make  because  of  contextual  factors,  such  as  potential  negative  responses  from  clients  or  loss  of  income.  These  situations  are  not  moral  dilemmas  in  a  strict  sense,  because  an  ethically  correct  solution  is  apparent  but  is  difficult  to  enact,”  (p.  166).  These  so-­‐called  “practical  dilemmas”  were  clearly  felt  by  the  veterinarian  participants  in  the  present  study.     92  Others  have  also  observed  that  livestock  veterinarians  strongly  value  the  relationship  between  themselves  and  the  farmer,  and  want  their  clients  to  prosper  (de  Lauwere  et  al.,  2015).  We  suspect  that  this  desire  to  maintain  a  good  relationship  with  the  client  may  manifest  in  a  focus  on  the  monetary  aspects  of  animal  care  –  observed  across  the  veterinary  professions  (Coe  et  al.,  2007;  de  Lauwere  et  al.,  2015)  –  and  may  explain  why  veterinarians  feel  so  caught  between  their  patients’  and  clients’  needs.    Our  findings  suggest  that  greater  support  is  required  in  veterinary  curricula  to  equip  veterinarians  with  confidence  in  their  welfare-­‐assessment  capabilities.  However,  perhaps  even  more  important  is  to  look  for  ways  to  support  veterinarians  in  upholding  their  professional  obligations  to  protect  their  patients’  interests  (i.e.  the  animals)  while  also  remaining,  in  essence,  employed.  In  response,  Morgan  and  McDonald  (2007)  emphasized  the  importance  of  communication  in  addressing  these  dilemmas.  Good  communication  skills  are  required,  for  example,  to  understand  and  address  the  financial  and  practical  limitations  of  their  clients  (Coe  et  al.,  2007).  The  veterinarians  in  the  present  study  showed  strong  empathy  with  farmers’  economic  limitations,  but  further  work  may  be  required  to  “build  a  rapport  with  clients  in  non-­‐urgent  circumstances”  (p.  171;  Coe  et  al.,  2007)  and  thus  better  manage  emergency  situations.  Finally,  veterinarians  may  be  better  able  to  navigate  this  conflict  by  proactively  articulating  the  boundaries  of  what  they  are  and  are  not  willing  to  do,  for  example  as  part  of  a  designated  practice  policy  for  commonly  confronted  issues  (see  Coe  et  al.,  2007;  here,  a  good  example  would  be  mandated  use  of  comprehensive  pain  management  for  the  practices  discussed  in  this  study).     93  6)     The  Role  of  the  Researcher  Although  two  groups  within  each  cohort  identified  challenges  related  to  researchers  or  to  the  research  agenda,  this  was  not  identified  as  a  major  issue  contributing  to  poor  welfare.  Rather,  the  role  of  the  researcher  was  more  often  discussed  in  the  context  of  solutions.  Opinions  differed  on  the  quality  and  quantity  of  research  on  cattle  welfare.  For  example,  a  Norwegian  participant  felt  that  there  was  a  lack  of  research  funding  and  capacity,  while  a  UK  participant  suggested  that  the  scope  of  animal  welfare  research  was  too  narrow  to  be  able  to  address  more  complex  welfare  problems.       Participants  more  widely  agreed  that  researchers,  like  veterinarians,  struggled  to  connect  with  farmers.  Often  as  a  result  of  scant  on-­‐farm  research,  many  felt  that  it  was  difficult  to  translate  research  findings  to  the  reality  of  working  farms.  Researchers’  lack  of  understanding  of  the  challenges  associated  with  being  a  farmer  was  identified  as  a  challenge:  “I  think  sometimes  we  don’t  realize…what  the  industry  is  pointing  out  as  being  a  big  issue…I’ve  spent  some  time  on  various  things  that  I  don’t  know  how  much  is  going  to  be  implemented  in  Canada  anyway,”  [Student,  G2].  Notably,  researchers  discussed  the  difficulty  of  relating  their  findings  in  a  way  that  resonated  with  farmers.  Some  suggested  that  the  best  way  to  do  this  was  by  connecting  results  to  economic  payoff  even  though  this  was  often  difficult:  “I  think  as  researchers  that’s  always  the  one  thing  that  we  always  struggle  with,  is  putting  that  dollar  sign  in  front  of  everything…It’s  very  very  difficult  to  measure  [the  economic  impact],”  [Industry  leader/Former  researcher,  G1].  Like  veterinarians,  some  researchers  also  experienced  a  conflict  of  interest.  Researchers  felt  that  it  was  important  to  develop  a  strong  rapport  with  farmers  to     94  increase  receptivity  to  the  research  findings.  As  one  researcher  described:  “I  think  if  you  don’t  sort  of  go  native…if  they  don’t  buy  in,  the  research  is  sort  of  moot,  right?”  [Researcher,  M6].  Alternatively,  building  rapport  might  require  more  compromise  on  the  direction  of  research,  in  which  case,  “the  concern  is  that  then  actually  the  research  is  driven  by  them  [the  farmer]…It  shouldn’t  be  how  it  works  because  sometimes  we’re  going  to  have  to  address  things  that  they  don’t  really  want  to  address,”  [Researcher,  M6].  Compromising  on  research  objectivity  could  then  lead  to  a  loss  in  credibility,  as  one  participant  witnessed:  “I…had  some  particular  experiences  with  colleagues…where  they’ve  been  really…criticized  for  being  too  close  to  the  industry…sort  of  gone  native  and  have  taken  over  the  view  of  the  producer  rather  than  there  being  some  distance  there…”  [Researcher,  M6].  3.3.2 Desired  solutions     A  number  of  key  themes  emerged  on  participants’  desired  solutions  to  these  challenges  (see  Table  3.3).  Themes  were  identified  as  follows:  better  research  is  needed  to  address  the  lack  of  objective,  science-­‐based  measures  for  welfare  and  to  develop  quantifiable  standards.  These  standards  can  then  contribute  to  needed  accountability  for  the  industry  that  can  be  enforced  via  voluntary  inspections  or  mandatory  audits.  Participants  diverged  on  which  approach  to  take  and  much  of  the  discussions  focused  on  whether  monetary  incentives  (bonuses)  or  regulations  were  the  better  way  to  motivate  adherence  to  standards.  Finally,  we  observed  strong  consensus  on  the  need  for  increased  linkages  between  industry  stakeholders,  particularly  in  the  form  of  education.       95  Table  3.3  Themes  discussed  by  participants  in  the  context  of  desired  solutions  for  animal  welfare  (AW)  challenges,  and  the  proportion  of  focus  groups  from  Guelph  (n=5  focus  groups)  and  Madrid  (n=6)  in  which  each  theme  emerged  AW  solutions   Theme  description   Guelph   Spain  Research   Development  of  objective  measurements  for  AW;  increased  relevance  of  research  to  farm   5/5   4/6  Accountability   Industry  must  conform  to  higher  standards  and  be  transparent                Bonuses   Reward-­‐based  approaches  to  motivate  compliance   2/5   3/6          Regulations   Punishment-­‐based  approaches  to  force  compliance   5/5   2/6  Education   Improved  communication  and  education  to  producers,  farm  workers,  veterinarians,  and  future  external  stakeholders     5/5   6/6    1)     Research  Of  those  who  discussed  research  as  a  solution,  most  agreed  that  practical  objective  welfare  measures  and  more  quantifiable  tools  to  track  changes  in  welfare  were  needed  (e.g.  “I  think  in  the  future,  the  research  is  important,  but  it’s  important  this  data  is  easy  to  collect,”  [Veterinarian,  M2]).  Many  also  felt  that  researchers  had  a  pivotal  role  in  “developing  science-­‐based  standard  operating  procedures,”  [Researcher,  M4]  that  could  be  used  on  farms  and  for  policy  guidance.     Participants  also  expressed  the  desire  for  researchers  to  become  more  involved  with  farmers,  primarily  through  increased  extension.  Suggested  changes  included  minor  adjustments  in  communication  (e.g.  couching  recommendations  in  language  more  familiar  to  farmers)  as  well  as  more  on-­‐farm  research  to  help  engage  farmers.    Underscoring  recommendations  to  better  engage  farmers  was  the  desire  for  researchers  to  serve  as  a  bridge  between  stakeholders  within  and  external  to  the  cattle  industries.  For  example,  participating  researchers  spoke  of  wanting  to  liaise  with  policy  makers  and  industry  to  advocate  for  change,  e.g.  “researchers  also  have  a  role  to  play…of     96  bringing  new  issues  to  the  fore,”  [Researcher,  M6]  and  “as  a  researcher…I  see  myself  listening  to  producers  and  the  public,  and  then  trying  to  work  with  the  system  to  find  better  ways  of  managing  it…”  [Researcher,  G3].  2)    Accountability  Participants  recognized  the  need  for  increased  accountability  in  the  cattle  industries,  with  many  calling  for  greater  transparency  of  farm  practices  across  the  production  chain  and  with  society.    Many  participants  believed  that  better  checks  to  monitor  standards  were  needed  if  the  industries  were  to  progress.  Participants  spent  much  of  the  discussions  debating  the  relative  merits  of  whether  to  motivate  adherence  to  these  guidelines  via  voluntary  bonuses  or  mandatory  regulations.     Voluntary  bonuses.  Participants  in  approximately  half  of  the  focus  groups  explicitly  discussed  monetary  incentives  (often  termed  “bonuses”  by  participants)  as  a  method  to  motivate  welfare  improvement.  Dairy  industry  organizations  and  milk  companies  were  the  most  commonly  suggested  groups  to  compensate  farmers  for  adhering  to  good  practice,  at  least  in  the  shorter  term.  Others  suggested  increasing  the  price  to  consumers  to  cover  longer-­‐term  costs.     Some  participants  believed  that  bonuses  were  necessary  in  order  to  offset  farmers’  costs  of  adhering  to  standards  and  that  more  punitive  approaches  would  compromise  farmers’  economic  viability.  Bonuses  were  also  seen  to  be  a  good  alternative  to  circumvent  concerns  about  lack  of  enforcement  with  legislated  standards.  Most  prominent  was  the  belief  that  a  reward-­‐based  system  would  be  more  palatable  and  thus  engender  greater  uptake  by  farmers:     97  You  want  to  take  people  with  you…get  them  to  see  what  they’re  doing  rather  than  tell  them.  I  can  see  the  penalty  side  of  things...but  I  think  it’s  very  dangerous.  [Veterinarian,  M1]    If  you  could  provide  incentives  for  —  you  get  more  money  or  you  get  a  better  contract  or  something  —  that’s  probably  a  better  way  of  getting  farmers  to  buy  into  welfare.  [Researcher,  M6]    The  need  to  cultivate  industry  stakeholders’  buy-­‐in  was  a  unifying  theme.  Participants’  desire  for  ownership  over  the  industry’s  welfare  challenges  was  further  reflected  by  the  widespread  belief  that  force  for  change  must  originate  from  within  the  industry,  perhaps  best  captured  by  the  comment,  “If  we,  the  ones  who  know  things,  won’t  do  it,  who  will  do  it?”  [Veterinarian,  M5].  One  participant  suggested  that  the  best  way  to  increase  responsibility  toward  animal  welfare  was  to  shift  toward  self-­‐regulation:    Part  of  the  improvement  on  the  moral  aspects…of  animal  welfare  have  to  come  from  an  ethical  code…things  promoted  as  being  the  right  thing  to  do.  But  implementation  of  that  could  be  better  enforced  internally  by  the  organizations.  And  being  able  to  tell  to  a  producer…by  his  peers…you’re  out  of  the  picture  of  what  you  should  be  doing.  Then  there’s  an  internal  process  that  says,  that’s  the  way  you  should  do  it.  Then  eventually  things  will  keep  moving  step  by  step  and  then  we’ll  have  an  improvement  at  the  end.  [Veterinarian,  G4].         Despite  widespread  support,  some  people  shared  concerns  about  relying  exclusively  on  the  bonuses.  Some  concerns  related  to  product  differentiation,  with  participants  commenting  that  the  bonus  system  may  perpetuate  the  gap  between  niche  and  conventional  farms.  Others  found  the  focus  on  product  differentiation  to  be  distasteful  and  preferred  solutions  to  focus  on  improving  the  welfare  of  all  animals:  “We  actually  are  striving  to  improve  the  welfare  of  all  cows,  not  just  the  group  of  cows  where  there’s  a  certain  segment  of  the  population  of  people  making  mindful  decisions,”  [Industry  leader,  G2].  Other  concerns  were  practical.  For  example,  traceability  could  be  a  major     98  challenge  with  pooling  of  milk  from  different  farms  and  with  movements  of  animals  between  farms  throughout  the  production  cycle.    Mandatory  regulations.  Participants  also  debated  the  potential  of  government  and  industry-­‐driven  regulations  for  which  compliance  was  mandatory  under  threat  of  economic  penalties  (often  through  fines  or  market  loss,  e.g.  milk  buyers  refusing  to  buy  milk  from  noncompliant  farms.  See  Canadian  dairy  processor  Saputo’s  policy  to  refuse  milk  from  farms  implicated  in  cases  of  abuse  [Saputo,  2015]).  Many  participants  struggled  with  the  philosophy  of  this  approach,  with  some  believing  that  compelling  compliance  was  less  effective.  For  example,  one  farmer  shared,  “they  see  it  as  regulation  being  downloaded  on  them,  as  something  that  they  have  to  do,  and  why  do  I  need  to  do  this?”  [Farmer,  G1]  while  a  service  provider  explained,  “they  are  requested  to  change  habit,  with  no  real  explanation  actually,  but  they  just  get  fined  if  they  don’t  do  it  that  way…but  no  one  tells  them  WHY  and  what  is  the  benefit?”  [Service  Provider,  G2].    Others  felt  that  the  industries  required  greater  external  oversight  through  legislation,  either  because  it  was  believed  to  be  the  only  way  to  improve  animal  welfare  on  farms  or  because  it  was  needed  to  increase  accountability  to  society.  One  participant,  for  example,  felt  that  the  need  to  enact  basic  protections  for  animal  welfare  trumped  the  need  to  give  individual  farmers  total  freedom  to  manage  their  farms:  “The  question  is,  simply  because  the  producer  is  doing  a  sub-­‐optimal  job…is  that  a  good  reason  to  actually  compromise  on  political,  critical  issues…is  that  justification  to  compromise  on  animal  welfare?”  [Researcher,  M4].  Others  believed  that  this  approach  was  simply  necessary:  “…in  my  opinion,  the  only  way  of  changing  a  farmer  is  by  penalties,”  [Veterinarian,  M1]  and  “as  much  as  we  hate  doing  report  cards  and  the  producer  hates  them  too,  I  think  we  need  to  do  this  for     99  the  good  of  the  animal  welfare  and  some  of  these  producers  that  never  get  visits  by  industry,”  [Service  Provider,  G2].    Though  it  may  be  difficult  to  reconcile  this  support  for  regulation  with  the  negative  attitudes  toward  punitive  approaches  in  general,  participants’  support  makes  more  sense  when  considering  that  regulation  was  seen  to  confer  protective  benefits  for  complying  farmers  by  preventing  the  “bad  apple”  farmers  from  free-­‐riding:  “There’s  always  that  one  or  two  percent  that  won’t  do  the  right  thing,  and  so  you  need  the  regulations  to  kind  of  compel  them  to  do  what  the  vast  majority  are  doing.  Because…if  they’re  not  doing  the  right  thing…they’re  at  a  competitive  advantage  over  people…who  are  doing  the  right  things  in  terms  of  animal  welfare.”  [Farmer/Industry  leader,  G5].  Thus,  unless  all  farmers  within  the  industry  are  held  to  similar  standards  and  thus  bear  the  costs  of  production  equitably,  the  free-­‐riding  problem  threatens  individual  farmers.  In  this  context,  it  makes  sense  that  participants  in  the  current  study  appeared  more  likely  to  support  legislation  to  create  minimum  standards.  3)     Increased  stakeholder  linkages  Within  every  group,  participants  discussed  the  need  for  greater  linkages  among  industry  stakeholders  and  between  industry  stakeholders  and  society.  For  example,  participants  spoke  of  the  need  for  veterinarians  to  liaise  with  service  providers  (e.g.  taking  a  more  active  role  in  advising  in  barn  design);  for  researchers  to  communicate  more  directly  to  veterinarians;  for  all  stakeholders  (veterinarians,  researchers,  dairy  organizations,  and  farmers)  to  be  more  connected  to  societal  concerns  about  animal  welfare;  and  most  prominently,  for  veterinarians,  researchers,  and  other  service  providers  to  strengthen  their  communication  with  farmers.  Many  also  advocated  for     100  improved  consultation  with  farmers,  both  as  a  way  to  improve  education  (by  eliciting  their  input  on  how  they  want  to  receive  information;  see  Jansen  et  al.,  2010a,b  and  de  Lauwere  et  al.,  2015  for  examples  of  this)  and  also  to  increase  farmers’  agency  (by  involving  them  in  standards  development  and  other  industry  decisions).       Education.  Participants  in  all  groups  discussed  the  need  to  engage  farmers,  as  well  as  veterinarians,  through  improved  education.  Education  was  valued  as  a  means  to  “take  people  with  you”  rather  than  forcing  the  change  upon  them,  an  idea  that  carried  through  to  participants’  ideas  for  the  ideal  messaging  approach,  e.g.  “Provide  positive  messages…through  education,  and  what  can  be  done…‘This  producer’s  doing  a  good  job’…rather  than,  ‘This  producer  is  not  doing  a  good  job,  don’t  be  like  him,’”  [Farmer,  G1].  Farmers  were  generally  perceived  as  “the  first  actors  in  the  field”  [Veterinarian,  M1]  and  hence  those  in  most  need  of  attention.  Farmer  education  was  generally  felt  to  be  a  collective  responsibility,  with  veterinarians,  researchers,  extension  agents,  and  industry  organizations  all  offered  as  the  best  groups  to  take  leadership  in  this  regard.  Regardless  of  who  delivered  the  content,  participants  were  emphatic  that  messaging  must  be  consistent:  “...From  the  advisors,  your  veterinarians,  your  researchers,  your  farmers,  absolutely  everyone…who’s  involved  in  the  dairy  industry…  You  come  up  with…a  statement  together  on  what  the  key  messages  on  that  issue  [are]…so...you  got  a  cluster  of  organizations  delivering  this  same  message,”  [Industry  leader,  G1].  Participants  envisioned  many  goals  for  farmer  education,  including  but  not  limited  to  the  following:  increased  awareness  of  animal  welfare  principles;  improved  management  skills  like  handling,  as  well  as  practical  assessment  skills  like  disease  and  lameness  detection;  a  reorientation  of  philosophy  to  place  greater  emphasis  on  the  cow;     101  and  improved  proactivity  (elements  of  which  included  active  and  sustained  contact  with  veterinarians  and  other  advisors  and  having  an  established  herd  health  plan).      To  reach  these  goals,  participants  offered  many  suggestions,  among  them  that  educators  needed  to  consider  farmers’  motivations  and  tailor  their  approach  accordingly,  a  suggestion  that  aligns  with  other  research  on  segmentation  among  farmers  with  respect  to  their  motivations  and  trust  in  external  information  sources  (Jansen  et  al.,  2010a,b).  In  the  present  study,  farmers  were  perceived  to  have  differing  motivations.  As  one  veterinarian  commented,  “I  think  one  of  the  key  things  is  that  you  need  to  understand  the  farmer…Some  farmers  are  money  driven.  Some  farmers  are  [pride]  driven,  so  they’d  like  to  think  their  cows  look  better  than  the  neighbors’…Depending  on  what  farmers  you’re  talking  about,  you  need  to  press  the  right  buttons,”  [Veterinarian,  M2].    Participants  believed  that  a  certain  degree  of  creativity  was  required  to  get  welfare  messages  across  to  farmers  more  resistant  to  change.  One  service  provider,  for  example,  thought  that  avoiding  certain  trigger  words  (including  ‘animal  welfare’)  would  help:  “I  think  as  [farmer  participant]  has  already  mentioned,  if  it’s  going  to  be  in  a  positive  framework  for  the  producer,  then  it  has  to  be  packaged  in  things  like  ‘cow  comfort’  and  ‘stress-­‐free  handling’…rather  than  ‘welfare,’”  [Service  Provider,  G1].    Participants  also  stressed  the  need  to  emphasize  consequences  of  pro-­‐welfare  management  changes  and  equip  farmers  with  practical  evidence  of  changes  wherever  possible,  e.g.  “Practical  evidence.  For  a  farmer,  that  can  convince  him,”  [Veterinarian,  M3].  Specifically,  it  was  important  to  use  data  from  the  farmer’s  own  farm  to  chart  changes  over  time,  as  one  vet  shared:  “When  you  measure  something,  if  you  had  a  tool  to  measure,  it  will  improve…You’re  having  a  discussion  with  the  farmer  and  say  look,  you’re  3  out  of  5     102  here,  but  you  could  be  a  4…”  [Veterinarian,  M3].    Another  participant’s  suggestion  to  pursue  benchmarking  aligns  closely  with  this  suggestion.  This  approach,  which  allows  farmers  to  compare  the  performance  of  their  farm  against  that  of  their  peers,  has  been  used  successfully  to  improve  farm  performance  with  respect  to  welfare  indicators  in  the  past  (von  Keyserlingk  et  al.,  2012;  Chapinal  et  al.,  2014).    Many  participants  emphasized  that  successful  education  must  include  messaging  to  connect  welfare  to  production  and  economic  benefits.  This  was  a  common  suggestion  among  veterinarians,  e.g.  “We  need  to  try  to  convince  them  that  if  he  will  ensure  the  welfare  of  his  animals,  he  will  have  more  money  in  his  bank  account,”  [Veterinarian,  M3].  This  theme  was  also  repeated  across  groups.  As  a  veterinarian  in  another  group  reiterated,  “Our  work  is  to  say…you  will  lose  money  if  you  don’t  do  that,”  [M2].  Emphasizing  the  economic  benefits  of  welfare  changes  was  suggested  to  be  a  factor  in  prompting  farmers  to  take  a  more  progressive  view  of  welfare:  “Pick  the  low  hanging  fruit  where  animal  welfare  actually  goes  very  well  together  with  productivity,”  [Researcher,  M4].  Others  commented  that  while  it  was  important  for  communicators  to  emphasize  immediate  economic  benefits,  advisors  also  needed  to  capitalize  on  the  idea  of  a  social  license  to  produce  as  a  long-­‐term  economic  incentive,  as  captured  in  the  following  exchange:  I  think  one  of  the  economic  drivers  that  producers  need  to  understand…is  the  social  license…for  the  public  to  allow  you  to  continue  your  business.  [Industry  leader,  G4]    That  whole  economic  part  needs  to  be  emphasized,  as  why  we  need  to  do  these  things,  both  from  a  production  standpoint  –  the  dollar  in  your  pocket  —  but  preserving  a  market…[and]…the  social  license  to  produce  milk.  That’s  an  interesting  one  that  I  hadn’t  heard  before.  But  I  think  that’s  very  true.  [Service  Provider,  G4]       103  Participants  discussed  both  hands-­‐off  and  interpersonal  approaches  to  education,  the  former  including  things  like  articles  in  agriculture  magazines,  online  articles  (noted  to  have  the  advantage  of  cost  effectiveness  and  quick  delivery),  and  extension  manuals.  Dutch  dairy  farmers  surveyed  by  de  Lauwere  et  al.  (2015)  also  appeared  to  prefer  these  more  traditional  methods  of  information  delivery  over  routes  like  workshops.14  However,  these  routes  have  been  found  to  be  less  effective  in  prompting  behaviour  change  than  interpersonal  routes  (Gielen,  2003).    Perhaps  because  of  this,  participants  in  this  study  emphasized  face-­‐to-­‐face  education.  Some  veterinarians  shared  success  stories  of  organizing  training  workshops  for  farmers,  though  others  did  not  see  this  approach  as  feasible  in  their  current  roles  due  to  time  constraints.  More  agreed  that  veterinarians  could  take  a  more  proactive  role  in  speaking  up  when  they  encountered  poor  management  on  farms,  and  in  so  doing  participate  in  a  level  of  informal  education,  or  as  one  vet  put  it,  “You  should  stand  up  as  a  professional.  Say,  ‘Guys,  NO.’  [laughs].  Just…say  your  opinion,”  [Veterinarian,  G2].  Modeling  good  practice  while  on  farm  was  thus  suggested  as  a  simple  way  for  vets  to  change  practices  like  pain  medication  for  dehorning.    A  popular  suggestion  was  for  veterinarians  and  others  to  facilitate  peer-­‐peer  networks  among  farmers  to  increase  farmers’  ability  to  connect  with  and  learn  from  each  other.  This  approach  was  seen  as  a  positive  way  to  improve  farmer  uptake  of  information,  as  participants  felt  that  farmers  would  listen  best  to  each  other.  This  belief                                                                                                                  14 This is a somewhat surprising discrepancy between the present study and de Lauwere et al.’s (2015), but may have something to do with the differing modes of inquiry (survey v. focus group), in that who is perceived to deliver the information could greatly affect farmer support. Our participants’ suggestions to incorporate farmers who are already doing things ‘right’ as models to lead sessions may bridge preferences to seek out advice from individual peers (as seen among the Dutch farmers) and explain the support for workshops in the current study.   104  was  evident  in  participants’  recommendations  to  incorporate  farmer  stories  of  success  into  messaging  and  in  their  advocacy  for  the  creation  of  peer-­‐peer  education  strategies  like  farmer-­‐led  workshops,  a  concept  reminiscent  of  the  farmer  field  schools  used  in  Europe  to  foster  mutual  learning,  empowerment,  and  goal-­‐meeting  among  dairy  farmers  (see  Vaarst  et  al.,  2007):    One  thing  that  does  help  is  telling  a  success  story  to  another  farmer…because  the  farmer  will  believe  another  farmer  before  he  believes  anyone  else.  [Veterinarian,  M2]    What  tends  to  work  well  is  case  studies…If  you  have  a  producer  that’s  done  it  well,  and  he’s  had  a  really  beneficial  impact  of  that  change  or  implementation  on  his  farm.  Using  them  as  case  studies  in  agricultural  magazines  or  even  in  discussion  groups…I  know  myself  I  learn  much  more  from  my  peers,  and  it’s  the  same  with  producers.  They  learn  much  more  from  one  another  than  we  can  ever  try  and  teach  them.  [Industry  leader,  G1]       In  addition  to  the  farmer,  participants  often  suggested  that  other  people  should  be  targeted  with  education.  One  interesting  suggestion  that  emerged  in  multiple  groups  was  to  direct  training  efforts  specifically  at  farmers’  wives.  For  example,  one  veterinarian  commented  that  he  had  found  success  organizing  workshops  for  the  wives,  whom  he  found  to  be  “…one  of  the  biggest  stakeholders  in…pain  relief,”  [Veterinarian,  M5].  The  key  idea  here  was  that  the  women  were  perceived  as  naturally  tending  to  take  on  more  caregiving  roles  on  the  farm  (particularly  with  regards  to  calf  care).    Enhanced  training  of  other  farm  workers  was  also  perceived  to  be  a  critical  step  in  improving  animal  welfare,  which  others  have  found  effective  in  modifying  worker  behaviour  as  well  as  welfare  and  production  indicators.  For  example,  Hemsworth  et  al.  (2002)  showed  that  cognitive  behavioural  therapy  improved  dairy  stockpersons’  beliefs  and  behaviour  toward  dairy  cows,  which  translated  into  reductions  in  cow  flight  distance  to  humans  and  improvements  in  milk  yield.       105  Participants  believed  that  efforts  must  also  move  beyond  training  to  improve  specific  skills  and  include  strategies  to  improve  worker  quality  of  life,  as  this  was  felt  to  be  directly  linked  to  animal  welfare:  “Quality  of  the  working  life  and  quality  of  your  job,  if  we  can  get  that  right  and  the  [worker]  education…then  we  will  inevitably  improve  the  welfare  of  our  animals,”  [Industry  leader,  G1].  Suggestions  to  this  end  included  training  in  the  workers’  native  languages,  developing  incentives  for  meeting  goals,  and  fostering  a  greater  sense  of  ownership,  for  example,  “assigning  people  particular  pens  allows  them  to  track  [animals]  over  time,  and  is  a  mechanism  where  you  can  put  incentives  in,”  [Researcher,  G3].       Some  participants  appeared  less  optimistic  about  change  occurring  in  the  current  generation  of  farmers  and  so  advocated  for  focus  on  the  next  generation.  This  desire  also  came  across  in  participants’  suggestions  to  expand  veterinary  curricula  so  to  foster  sensitivity  to  welfare  and  improve  graduates’  ability  to  facilitate  welfare  improvements  on  farm,  perhaps  in  part  to  combat  the  decline  in  empathy  to  animal  welfare  in  veterinary  students  as  they  progress  through  school  (Pollard-­‐Williams  et  al.,  2014).    Finally,  there  were  some  suggestions  to  reach  out  to  other  future  stakeholders  who  required  education  on  the  realities  of  farming  and  welfare  if  they  were  to  contribute  to  welfare  policy:  “We  need  to  interact  with  those  that  are  going  to  be  establishing  our  laws…They’re  coming  from  that  a  lot  of  times  out  of  ignorance  and  can  be  easily  swayed  by  perception  and  not  listening  to  our  voice  [as]  animal  scientists  and  veterinarians,”  [Veterinary  Researcher,  M4].     106  3.4 Concluding  remarks     Our  primary  objective  was  to  elicit  perspectives  from  stakeholders  within  the  cattle  industries  on  the  challenges  they  face,  and  the  solutions  they  desire,  regarding  animal  welfare  issues.  Despite  differences  in  nationality  and  regulatory  and  market  environments  among  participants  in  these  groups,  we  observed  considerable  overlap  in  perceived  challenges  and  solutions.  Our  results  show  a  degree  of  generality  in  many  of  the  themes  identified,  suggesting  that  the  results  may  be  transferable  to  others  within  the  cattle  industries  beyond  those  sampled  in  the  present  study  We  also  observed  some  trends  across  most  of  the  discussions,  one  of  which  was  the  complexity  of  the  issues.  The  degree  of  variation  –  among  farms,  farming  systems,  farmer  personalities  and  management  strategies,  and  regulatory  and  market  environments,  each  setting  off  different  cascades  of  effects  —  was  perceived  to  make  simplistic  solutions  inappropriate.  Most  participants  recognized  this,  which  may  explain  the  level  of  debate  within  groups  on  some  proposed  solutions,  such  as  whether  reward  or  punitive  approaches  stood  the  best  chance  of  ensuring  successful  implementation  of  animal  welfare  standards.  Some  participants  reconciled  this  problem  by  taking  the  view  that  multiple  approaches  were  required.  We  see  this  as  a  positive  indicator  of  openness  to  consider  and  deploy  a  range  of  strategies  to  address  animal  welfare  challenges  within  the  cattle  industries.       We  also  observed  consensus  for  positive  approaches  to  change,  seen  in  participants’  affinity  for  reward-­‐based  approaches  to  motivate  adherence  to  standards,  their  desire  for  proactivity  over  reactivity  at  both  the  farm  level  (in  management  strategies)  and  industry  level  (in  terms  of  industries  taking  ownership  of  challenges     107  and  initiating  solutions),  and  in  consensus  for  education  as  a  positive  force  to  motivate  change.  The  consensus  on  education  is  likely  attributable  to  two  aspects:  first,  that  education  was  seen  as  a  fitting  solution  to  the  deficits  in  welfare  knowledge,  awareness,  and  attitudes  cited  by  participants,  and  second,  that  education  was  perceived  as  a  way  to  foster  change  in  a  positive  way.  Consensus  on  the  goals  is  a  key  step  towards  implementing  effective  solutions,  but  we  also  need  to  recognize  that  different  people  may  have  different  goals.  Increasing  linkages  between  stakeholders  with  different  roles  in  the  industry,  as  discussed  by  our  participants,  may  allow  for  greater  consensus  on  the  complex  issue  of  animal  welfare  in  livestock  production.  In  summary,  we  suggest  that  engaging  stakeholders  who  have  an  intimate  knowledge  of  livestock  agriculture  aids  in  the  development  of  strategies  to  resolve  animal  welfare  challenges  on  farms.  This  study  revealed  some  differences  in  stakeholder  perspectives  (e.g.  whether  voluntary  bonuses  or  mandatory  regulations  are  more  appropriate  for  compelling  animal  welfare  standards  compliance),  but  we  also  observed  consensus  on  some  desired  solutions,  such  as  the  need  for  peer-­‐peer  educational  networks  to  address  the  deficits  in  welfare  knowledge  among  producers  and  veterinarians.  We  suggest  that  such  solutions  deserve  attention  as  the  cattle  industries  seek  methods  to  improve  the  lives  of  their  animals.       108  Chapter  4:   Changes  in  animal  welfare  knowledge,  perceptions,  concerns  and  values  among  citizens  visiting  a  dairy  farmφ      4.1 Introduction     Animal  agriculture  has  come  under  increasing  criticism  with  respect  to  farm  animal  welfare,  although  the  dairy  industry  has  received  less  attention  than  some  of  the  other  animal  industries  (Kjaernes  and  Lavik,  2008;  Mench,  2008;  Ellis  et  al.,  2009;  Boogaard  et  al.,  2011a).  The  relatively  positive  image  of  dairy  farming  is  probably  due  to  two  factors:  (1)  with  the  exception  of  tie-­‐stalls,  the  predominant  housing  systems  used  in  the  dairy  industry  (free  stalls  and  dry  lots)  are  less  restrictive  of  movement,  and  2)  the  dairy  industry  has  historically  cultivated  an  image  of  farms  providing  an  idyllic  and  pastoral  life  for  dairy  cows,  thus  positioning  dairy  farming  as  relatively  immune  to  the  concerns  about  industrialization  in  other  livestock  sectors  (DuPuis,  2002;  Molloy,  2011).    As  public  interest  in  farm  animal  welfare  continues  to  rise,  erosion  of  the  industry’s  reputation  may  occur  if  industry  practices  do  not  align  with  key  societal  values.  Negative  interactions  between  the  industry  and  the  public  may  also  erode  public  trust  (Brom,  2000).  Dairy  producers  cannot  operate  in  isolation  of  societal  expectations  and  indeed  require  a  social  “license  to  produce”  (Croney  and  Botheras,  2010;  Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning,  2013).  In  this  regard,  it  is  in  the  best  interest  of  the  dairy  industry  to  proactively  engage  with  interested  members  of  the  public  on  animal  welfare.                                                                                                                    φ  A  version  of  this  chapter  is  under  review  for  publication:  Ventura,  B.  A.,  H.  Wittman,  M.  A.  G.  von  Keyserlingk,  and  D.  M.  Weary.  Changes  in  animal  welfare  knowledge,  perceptions,  concerns  and  values  among  citizens  visiting  a  dairy  farm.       109  Understanding  public  views  also  has  implications  for  the  long-­‐term  sustainability  of  the  dairy  industry  since  animal  welfare  has  become  embedded  into  notions  of  sustainable  agriculture  (Boogaard  et  al.,  2008).  This  means  that,  in  addition  to  environmental  and  economic  considerations,  the  dairy  industry  must  engage  with  broad  values  held  by  society  (Boogaard  et  al.,  2008;  von  Keyserlingk  et  al.,  2013).  Societal  values  may  shift  over  time  as  society  evolves.  These  shifting  values  may  varyingly  be  expressed  through  citizens’  goals  for  agriculture  as  well  as  in  their  concerns  about  it  (Boogaard  et  al.,  2008).  Thus,  inclusion  of  public  values  into  policy  can  help  democratize  livestock  production,  legitimizing  any  standards  that  are  then  developed  (Guelhstorf,  2008)  and  improving  public  trust.  Despite  the  importance  to  debates  on  farm  animal  welfare,  there  are  challenges  to  integration  of  citizens’  views  in  policy  and  practice.  One  challenge  is  resistance  within  the  livestock  industries  on  the  basis  that  public  concerns  are  misinformed  (see  Hubbard  et  al.,  2007;  Spooner  et  al.,  2012;  and  Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning,  2013  for  evidence  of  this  assumption  among  farmers,  for  example).  One  implication  of  this  knowledge  deficit  model  of  public  understanding  (also  referred  to  as  the  knowledge  gap,  informational  deficit,  or  cognitive  deficit:  Wynne  and  Irwin,  1996;  Einsiedel,  2000)  is  that  concerns  can  be  corrected  through  education  on  ‘the  facts’  to  bring  opinions  into  line  with  expert  views  (see  Hansen  et  al.,  2003).  This  knowledge  deficit  model  may  be  problematic  when  used  to  define  the  frame  of  reference  for  engaging  with  citizens  on  contentious  issues  in  livestock  production,  not  least  because  providing  people  with  more  information  about  practices  does  not  always  translate  into  higher  acceptance  (Hansen  et  al.,  2003).  Moreover,  in  addition  to     110  differences  in  knowledge  between  people  within  and  outside  the  livestock  industries,  people  may  differ  in  their  values  (see  Fraser  et  al.,  1997;  Hansen  et  al.,  2003).  Values  are  critically  important  to  conversations  about  farm  animal  welfare:  as  “desirable,  trans-­‐situational  goals…that  serve  guiding  principles  in  people’s  lives,”  (Seligman  et  al.,  1996)  values  are  fundamental  in  both  belief  and  attitude  formation  (Rokeach,  1973;  Schwartz,  1994).  With  respect  to  animal  welfare  and  agricultural  systems,  values  also  function  as  criteria  that  people  use  to  evaluate  methods  of  production  (Schwartz,  1999;  Boogaard  et  al.,  2008).  There  is,  however,  some  evidence  from  European  research  that  many  citizens’  experience  and  knowledge  of  livestock  production  is  low  (Boogaard  et  al.,  2006,  2008;  Ellis  et  al.,  2009).  Since  factual  knowledge  and  values  contribute  to  people’s  frames  of  reference  (Te  Velde  et  al.,  2002),  it  is  reasonable  to  expect  that  both  be  incorporated  into  research  seeking  to  understand  public  concerns  about  farm  animal  welfare.  Thus  the  second  challenge  to  integrating  public  input  into  debates  about  farm  animal  welfare  is  that  citizen  knowledge  and  values  are  poorly  understood,  particularly  for  North  Americans.  Although  the  Welfare  Quality®  projects  have  begun  to  examine  these  issues  for  European  citizens,  except  for  market  surveys  (Pirog,  2004;  see  AWI,  2011  for  an  overview)  and  quantitative  surveys  on  consumer  preferences  (e.g.  Prickett  et  al.,  2010),  until  recently  few  North  American  studies  have  examined  citizen  views  on  farm  animal  welfare  in  depth  (Weary  et  al.,  2011;  Schuppli  et  al.,  2014;  Robbins  et  al.,  in  press;  see  also  Chapter  5).  Moreover,  in  light  of  concerns  that  citizens  are  ignorant  of  livestock  farming,  there  have  been  calls  for  citizen  perception  studies  of  farm  animal  production  to  be  conducted  based  on  real-­‐life  experience,  i.e.  once  citizens  have  been     111  introduced  to  farm  life  in  person.  Except  for  two  studies  in  the  Netherlands  (with  dairy  cattle  and  pigs:  Boogaard  et  al.,  2008  and  2011b,  respectively),  we  are  not  aware  of  any  research  that  has  exposed  non-­‐farming  citizens  to  operating  farms  and  gauged  their  responses.  Therefore,  the  objectives  of  this  chapter  were  to:  1) Document  existing  cognitive  constructs  (perceptions,  concerns,  values  and  knowledge)  about  dairy  cattle  welfare  within  a  target  group  of  (non-­‐dairy  farming)  lay  Canadian  citizens.  2) Explore  the  extent  to  which  a  visit  to  a  working  dairy  farm  (as  an  immersive  form  of  information  provision)  shifts  dairy  cattle  welfare  knowledge,  perceptions  and  concerns.  4.2 Methods     We  conducted  surveys  of  Canadian  citizens  before  and  after  they  self-­‐toured  a  working  free  stall  dairy  farm  in  summer  2014  in  the  Fraser  Valley  of  British  Columbia.    4.2.1 About  the  tour  site  The  University  of  British  Columbia  Dairy  Research  and  Education  Centre  (hereafter  ‘the  farm’)  operates  as  a  working  dairy  farm  in  addition  to  a  research  site  for  the  university.  The  herd  consists  of  approximately  500  Holstein  cattle,  around  230  of  which  are  milking  at  any  time.  Included  on  the  tour  were  the  calf  barn,  in  which  participants  observed  calves  housed  in  individual  stalls  as  well  as  in  small  groups,  and  the  main  barn,  where  cows  were  housed  in  free  stall  barns  in  groups  of  12-­‐24.  Each  cow  had  access  to  a  stall  and  a  minimum  of  60  cm  of  feed  bunk  space.  Pasture  is  adjacent  to  the  barns,  but  cows  were  housed  indoors  during  the  tour.     112  4.2.2 Survey  description  The  survey  took  place  in  August  2014  during  the  Annual  Slow  Food®  bicycle  tour,  during  which  members  of  the  public  toured  various  crop  and  livestock  farms  along  a  predetermined  route.  The  farm  is  a  regular  stop  on  this  tour.  Visitors  were  invited  to  participate  in  a  short  survey  before  and  after  visiting  the  farm.  Participants  were  provided  an  ice  cream  bar  upon  completion.    Before  touring  the  farm,  participants  completed  a  5-­‐10  minute,  mostly  qualitative,  survey  (‘before’  survey,  see  Table  4.1  and  Appendix  C  for  survey  guide)  to  gauge  their  baseline  perceptions  (i.e.  top  of  mind  impressions  of  the  dairy  industry),  concerns  and  values  relating  to  dairy  cattle  welfare.  Participants  also  completed  a  five-­‐question  quiz  (‘before’  quiz).  Quiz  questions  were  designed  to  measure  knowledge  of  dairy  husbandry  practices  relevant  to  animal  welfare  and  around  which  there  are  common  misconceptions.    Participants  then  embarked  on  a  self-­‐guided  tour  through  the  farm.  The  tour  included  eight  stations  positioned  throughout  the  main  animal  facilities.  These  stations  addressed  calf  management  and  housing,  Canadian  guidelines  for  on-­‐farm  animal  care,  a  day  in  the  life  of  the  dairy  cow,  and  cow  health,  feeding,  reproduction  and  behaviour.  Graduate  students  staffed  each  station  and  were  available  to  answer  questions.  Participants  were  free  to  visit  any  stations  they  wanted  and  were  later  asked  to  indicate  which  stations  they  had  visited.  There  was  no  time  limit  to  the  tour.  Upon  completion  of  their  tour,  participants  completed  a  5-­‐10  minute  ‘after’  survey  designed  to  capture  any  shifts  in  concerns  and  values,  and  were  asked  to  again  answer  the  quiz  questions  (‘after’  quiz).     113  Table  4.1  Overview  of  dairy  farm  tour  survey  to  measure  citizens'  perceptions,  values,  concerns  and  knowledge  relative  to  dairy  cattle  welfare  Construct   ‘Before’   ‘After’        Perceptions     Free  association:  Write  up  to  five  (5)  words  that  come  to  mind  when  you  think  of  dairy  farming.  (QL1)      How  confident  are  you  that  dairy  cows  generally  have  a  good  life2?  (QT)  Free  association:  Now  that  you’ve  toured  the  farm,  write  up  to  five  (5)  words  that  come  to  mind  when  you  think  about  dairy  farming.  (QL)    What,  if  anything,  surprised  you  about  the  way  animals  are  cared  for  on  this  farm?  (QL)    Do  you  feel  that  animals  on  this  farm  have  a  good  life?  Why  or  why  not?  (QL)  Values   In  your  opinion,  what  does  a  dairy  cow  need  in  order  to  have  a  good  life?  (QL)   Do  you  feel  that  animals  on  this  farm  have  a  good  life?  Why  or  why  not?  (QL)  Concerns2   What  (if  any)  concerns  do  you  have  regarding  the  quality  of  life  for  dairy  cattle?  (QL)      Please  rank  up  to  three  (3)  of  your  top  concerns,  and  indicate  why  they  concern  you.  (QL)  Now  that  you’ve  toured  this  farm,  please  share  any  concerns  about  the  quality  of  life  for  dairy  cattle,  in  general  or  on  this  farm.  (QL)    Knowledge3    A  dairy  cow  needs  to  have  a  calf  to  keep  producing  milk.  (True/False)    Dairy  cows  in  British  Columbia  are  routinely  tied  in  their  stall  in  the  barn.  (True/False)    All  dairy  cows  in  British  Columbia  are  allowed  access  to  pasture.  (True/False)    How  many  days  after  birth  does  the  dairy  calf  typically  stay  with  its  mom?  Response  options:  a)  0  days  b)  1  week  c)  1  month  d)  never  separated    Which  best  describes  what  most  adult  cows  are  typically  fed  on  dairy  farms?  Response  options:  a)  milk  b)  grass  c)  pre-­‐mixed  feed  1  QL=  open-­‐ended  response  analyzed  qualitatively,  QT=Likert  scale  or  other  quantitative  response  option.  2  Note  that  we  used  concepts  of  the  ‘good  life’  and  ‘quality  of  life’  as  a  way  to  gauge  welfare-­‐relevant  concerns  and  values  and  avoided  using  the  term  ‘animal  welfare’  in  the  survey  in  an  attempt  to  avoiding  both  confusion  about  the  term  and  possible  biases.  Concerns  are  a  reflection  of  attitudes,  which  in  turn  shed  light  on  underlying  values  (Ajzen  and  Fishbein,  1980;  Ajzen,  2001).  Thus  responses  to  questions  about  concerns  offered  additional  insight  into  participants’  values.    3  Correct  answers  are  indicated  here  in  bold.     114  4.2.3 Participant  sample  A  total  of  50  participants  completed  both  ‘before’  and  ‘after’  surveys  and  were  included  in  the  analysis  (see  Table  4.2  for  participant  demographics).  Of  these,  60%  were  female,  54%  were  between  the  ages  of  35  and  54  with  an  additional  30%  above  the  age  of  55,  most  (60%)  had  a  bachelor’s  degree  or  higher,  and  the  majority  had  lived  most  of  their  lives  in  urban  or  suburban  settings  (80%).  Of  the  8%  who  indicated  that  they  had  grown  up  on  a  farm,  none  indicated  that  they  had  lived  or  worked  on  a  dairy  farm.  Half  of  the  participants  indicated  that  they  were  not  knowledgeable  about  dairy  farming,  with  an  additional  44%  indicating  that  they  were  somewhat  knowledgeable.  All  participants  lived  in  Canada  at  the  time  of  the  survey  and  all  but  two  consumed  dairy;  those  who  did  not  consume  dairy  indicated  that  they  were  lactose-­‐intolerant.  We  note  that  these  participants  were  assumed  to  have  an  existing  level  of  interest  in  food  and  agriculture  because  they  were  recruited  from  a  Slow  Food®  activity.             115  Table  4.2  Description  of  participants  who  completed  both  'before'  and  'after'  surveys  for  the  dairy  farm  visit  (n=50)  Variable   %  of  n  Sex            Female   60          Male   40  Age            19-­‐34   14          35-­‐54   54          >55   30          Prefer  not  to  say   2  Country  of  residence          Canada   100  Where  have  you  lived  most  of  your  life?            Urban   44          Suburban   36          Rural,  not  on  a  farm   12          Rural,  on  a  farm1   8  Education  level            Vocational/apprenticeship   8          High  school  diploma   28          Undergraduate  degree   24          Graduate  degree   24          Professional  (e.g.  MD,  DVM)   14  2          Other  Do  you  consume  dairy?          Yes   96        No   4  Knowledge  of  dairy  farming?            Very  knowledgeable   6          Somewhat  knowledgeable   44          Not  knowledgeable   50  Confidence  that  dairy  cattle  generally  have  a  good  life?            Confident  or  very  confident   42        Neutral  or  unsure   30        Somewhat  or  not  confident   28  1Farms  other  than  dairy  cattle  farms.         116  4.2.4 Analysis    Qualitative  analysis     Content  analysis  was  used  to  analyze  participants’  qualitative  responses  (Coffey  and  Atkinson,  1996).  This  process  involves  a  thorough  reading  and  re-­‐reading  of  the  generated  text,  with  the  researcher(s)  noting  emerging  patterns  and  assigning  themes  and  sub-­‐themes  to  related  sections  of  text.  Comments  were  read  with  the  goal  to  identify  perceptions,  concerns  and  values  with  respect  to  the  dairy  industry  and  animal  welfare.  The  lead  author  (B.  A.  Ventura)  coded  the  data,  with  an  additional  researcher  trained  in  qualitative  analysis  independently  coding  a  subsection  of  the  data  to  strengthen  the  robustness  of  the  codes.  Codes  were  discussed  until  both  researchers  agreed  on  the  final  coding  schemes.    Ultimately  two  main  schemes  were  developed  to  describe  participants’  baseline  perceptions  and  values,  i.e.  before  the  farm  visit:  1)  ‘industry  perceptions’  to  describe  general  perceptions  of  the  dairy  industry  and  2)  ‘FAW  values’  to  describe  participants’  values  around  farm  animal  welfare  (FAW),  including  what  they  valued  as  part  of  a  good  life  for  dairy  cows  and  their  resulting  concerns.  The  ‘industry  perceptions’  scheme  derived  largely  from  participants’  free  association  responses,  which  we  had  initially  intended  as  a  warm-­‐up  question  to  the  survey.  These  responses  resulted  in  generalized  associations  of  the  dairy  industry  (positive  and  negative)  from  many  participants.  Some  responses  were  unclear  and  nothing  of  substance  could  be  gleaned  (e.g.  “hay  barn  cats”);  these  were  not  incorporated  into  the  final  scheme.  As  part  of  the  coding  process  for  FAW  values,  Fraser  et  al.  (1997)’s  framework–which  posits  that  people  tend  to  think  of  animal  welfare  in  terms  of  biological     117  functioning  (e.g.  physical  condition  and  health),  natural  living  (the  degree  to  which  an  animal  can  live  a  natural  life),  and  affective  states  (how  an  animal  feels)–  was  used  as  a  starting  point  to  organize  comments,  but  the  final  coding  scheme  was  expanded  beyond  this  framework  based  on  participants’  responses.    Particularly  demonstrative  responses  are  included  below  to  illustrate  the  themes,  followed  by  participant  number  in  brackets  (e.g.  [P23]  to  designate  Participant  #23).  Quantitative  analysis     Although  this  was  a  primarily  qualitative  study  and  so  not  designed  to  predict  effects  of  measured  variables  on  before-­‐  and  after-­‐visit  responses,  we  did  check  for  relationships  between  demographics  (sex,  age,  education  level,  rural/urban  status,  self-­‐reported  knowledge,  and  ‘before’  confidence  in  cattle  welfare)  and  the  following  before-­‐  and  after-­‐visit  responses:  ‘before’  quiz  score  (out  of  5),  ‘before’  confidence,  FAW  value  expression  and  range,  and  perception  shift  upon  visiting  the  farm  (see  Table  4.3  for  explanation  of  variables).    We  used  χ2  tests  to  test  for  relationships  between  categorical  variables,  Spearman  rank  correlation  to  test  for  relationships  between  two  continuous  variables,  and  Kruskal-­‐Wallis  tests  to  test  for  relationships  between  categorical  and  continuous  variables.  Alpha  was  set  at  0.05  for  all  tests.  Unless  otherwise  stated,  relationships  between  the  variables  were  not  significant.           118  Table  4.3  Description,  type  and  levels  of  demographic  and  response  variables  included  in  analysis  of  citizen  responses  before  and  after  visiting  the  dairy  farm  Variable   Description   Type   Variable  levels  Sex   Demographic   Categorical   Female  or  Male  Age   Demographic   Continuous   19-­‐24,  25-­‐34,  35-­‐44,  45-­‐54,  55-­‐64,  or  65+  Education   Demographic   Categorical   Vocational/apprenticeship,  High  school  diploma,  undergraduate  degree,  graduate  degree,  professional,  or  other  Rural/urban              status   Demographic   Categorical   Rural  or  urban:  where  rural  =  (rural  not  on  a  farm  +  rural  on  a  farm)  and  urban  =  (urban  +  suburban)  responses.  Self-­‐reported            knowledge             Subjective  self-­‐assessment  of  general  knowledge  of  dairy  husbandry    Categorical     No  knowledge,  At  least  some  knowledge:  Only  three  people  self-­‐reported  as  very  knowledgeable  so  these  were  re-­‐categorized  as  At  least  some  knowledge    ‘Before’  quiz              score     Objective  score  on  the  ‘before’  quiz  on  dairy  husbandry     Continuous   0,  1,  2,  3,  4  or  5  (out  of  a  total  of  5  possible)  correct  responses.  Blank  responses  were  incorrect.    ‘Before’            confidence   ‘Before’  visit  confidence  about  how  good  of  a  life  dairy  cattle  have  Continuous   Confident,  neutral,  not  confident:  Created  by  collapsing  five  to  three  levels  for  analysis  as  we  were  primarily  interested  in  valence  of  confidence.  FAW  value              expression   ‘Before’  response:  was  each  animal  welfare  value  criterion  as  determined  from  the  qualitative  analysis  expressed?    Categorical   Yes  or  No:  for  each  of  biological  functioning,  natural  living,  affective  states,  humane  care,  drugs  and  respect  for  life.  FAW  value              range   ‘Before’  response:  number  of  FAW  value  criteria  referenced   Continuous   0,  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  or  6  values  expressed  Perception              shift   ‘After’  response:  Shift  in  individuals’  perception  of  the  level  of  animal  welfare  after  farm  visit  Continuous   Positive  shift,  no,  or  negative  shift:  Created  by  comparing  ‘before’  confidence  against  ‘after’  responses  on  whether  cows  had  a  good  life.  Positive  shift  =  improved  view  of  FAW  after  visit,  no  =  no  change,  negative  shift  =  worsened  view  of  FAW     119  4.3 Results  4.3.1 Responses  before  visiting  the  dairy  farm    Perceptions  of  the  dairy  industry    Both  positive  and  negative  perceptions  of  the  dairy  industry  were  evident  in  participants’  ‘before’  responses,  with  a  total  of  seven  themes  identified  (Table  4.4).  Positive  associations  with  the  dairy  industry  were  classed  as  follows:  (1)  Dairy  farming  as  an  enterprise  that  entails  hard  work  (14%  of  participants):  i.e.  top  of  mind  responses  of    “a  lot  of  work”  [P9],  “labour  intensive”  [P35]  and  “dedicated  farmers”  [P10],  that  referenced  the  long  hours  and  labour  involved  in  dairying  and  often  associated  with  respect  for  the  farmers  involved;  and  (2)  dairy  farming  as  an  idyllic,  important  activity  (8%  of  participants),  i.e.  generalized  notions  of  dairying  as  a  wholesome,  family-­‐friendly  pursuit  with  a  distinct  place  in  the  rural  landscape,  e.g.  “good  way  of  life,  essential  for  our  area”  [P24],  “wholesome  country”  [P62],  and  “enjoyable  environment  for  family  life,”  [P57].      By  far  the  most  predominant  theme  (58%)  describing  perceptions  of  the  dairy  industry  referenced  (3)  dairy  products  (e.g.  “nice  good  food”  [P62]  and  “cheese,  milk,  ice  cream”  [P49]).  Arguably  this  theme  could  reflect  positive  associations  with  the  dairy  industry  by  way  of  the  pleasure  derived  from  consumption  of  its  products,  or  alternatively,  indicate  that  the  participant  had  hitherto  given  little  to  no  thought  to  dairy  production.  Because  of  this  ambiguity,  we  did  not  assign  a  valence  to  this  theme.  16%  of  participants  also  gave  responses  that  indicated  (4)  sensory  associations  with  the  dairy  farm,  most  notably  by  referencing  the  “smelly”  farm  environment.  Negative  associations  with  the  dairy  industry  included:  (5)  dairy  farming  as  industrial  (14%  of  participants),  involving  objections  to  “intensification,     120  industrialization,  mechanization…killing”  [P18]  and  to  “factory  like  conditions  that  are  not  humane,”  [P11].  Some  (8%)  also  perceived  dairy  farming  as  (6)  profit-­‐oriented  and  so  made  objections  about  the  prioritization  of  production  and  economic  earnings  over  attention  to  animals,  e.g.  “It’s  a  business.  I  don’t  think  people  take  the  time…they  are  just  pushing  them  through  the  turnstyle,”  [P2].  Embedded  within  some  (6%  of  participants)  of  those  comments  were  notions  that  (7)  big=bad,  meaning  that  larger  farms  were  worse  for  animal  welfare:  “large  commercial  farms  seem  to  have  more  emphasis  on  production  [than]  animal  welfare,”  [P9].         121      Table  4.4  Description  of  industry  perception  (IP)  and  FAW  value  themes  and  the  percentage  of  participants  referencing  each  theme  before  visiting  the  dairy  farm  Theme   %  of  participants1   Theme  description  IP  (+)                Hard  work   14   Acknowledgement  of  the  hard  work  of  dairying  and  respect  toward  farmers            Idyllic  &                      important  8   Agrarian  views  of  dairying  as  wholesome,  idyllic  and  positive  for  family  and  community    IP  (ambiguous)                  Dairy  products   58   Associations  of  dairying  with  its  end  products  (e.g.  milk  and  ice  cream)  and  references  to  wholesomeness  and  health              Sensory   16   Visceral,  sensory  responses  to  dairying,  e.g.  references  to  smells  of  the  farm    IP  (-­‐)                Industrial   14   Mechanization  and  industrialization  of  dairying  as  harmful,  particularly  for  animals            Profit-­‐oriented   8   Prioritization  of  economic  goals  over  AW              Big=bad   6   Growth  and  size  of  dairy  farms  as  bad  for  cows  FAW  values                Biological                    functioning  72   Reference  to  feed  and  water  (resources),  physical  health,  hygiene,  shelter            Natural  living   66   Reference  to  allowing  animals  to  lead  natural  lives,  e.g.  pasture  and/or  outdoor  access,  space,  freedom,  social  and  individual  behaviours              Affective  states   22   Reference  to  animals  experiencing  peace,  quiet,  happiness,  and  freedom  from  pain,  discomfort  and  stress            Humane  care   56   Reference  to  gentle  humane  care,  humane  treatment,  routine  management  duties  (e.g.  regular  milking);  avoidance  of  abuse            Drugs   22   Concerns  about  administration  of  “drugs,”  e.g.  antibiotics  and/or  hormones            Respect  for  life   10   References  to  end  of  life  and  short  lifespan;  killing  of  bull  calves  1The  sum  does  not  equal  100%  within  each  category  as  participants  often  referenced  multiple  themes,  and  some  participants  did  not  reference  any  themes  within  a  category.     122  Concerns  and  values    Before  visiting  the  farm,  participants  were  divided  in  their  assessment  of  the  overall  quality  of  life  for  dairy  cattle:  42%  of  respondents  were  at  least  confident  that  dairy  cattle  generally  had  a  good  life,  but  30%  were  neutral  and  28%  were  not  confident.    Participants  considered  the  following  elements  as  necessary  for  dairy  cattle  to  have  a  good  life  (in  decreasing  order  of  frequency):  fresh  food  and  water,  pasture  access,  gentle  and  humane  care,  space,  shelter,  hygiene,  fresh  air  and  sunshine,  social  companions,  absence  of  stress,  health  and  safety  from  predators.  These  elements  were  organized  into  the  following  FAW  value  criteria  (Table  4.4):    1) Biological  functioning  emphasized  provisions  for  the  health  and  physical  condition  of  the  animal  (e.g.  fresh  food  and  water,  shelter,  hygiene,  health  and  safety),  as  indicated  by  requirements  for  a  good  life  like,  “food,  water,  adequate  sleep,  safe  environment  (no  predators),  adequately  hygienic,”  [P33].  2) Natural  living  emphasized  an  animal’s  ability  to  live  as  “natural[ly]  as  possible,”[P66].  Participants  articulated  different  elements  of  natural  living.  These  included:  exposure  to  pasture  and  other  outdoor  elements  such  as  fresh  air  and  sunshine,  normal  social  interactions  with  other  cattle,  and  space  to  carry  out  natural  behaviours.  For  example:  “pasture  with  a  variety  of  plant  life,  some  budd[ies],  sun  and  shelter”  [P54].  3) Affective  states  focused  on  the  animal’s  mental  well-­‐being  and  included  references  to  peace  and  quiet,  happiness,  comfort  and  an  absence  of  stress  and  pain,  e.g.  “keep  their  stress  level  down,”  [P1].     123  4) Humane  care  emphasized  the  care  and  attention  provided  by  humans,  with  participants  mentioning  compassionate  attention  at  the  level  of  the  individual  animal,  gentle  handling  techniques,  and  consistent  and  predictable  management.  For  example  some  felt  that  cows  needed  “human  kindness”  [P32]  or  even  “love”  [P35],  while  others  focused  on  more  practical  aspects  of  management  like  regular  milking.    5) Drugs  condemned  the  overuse  of  drugs,  most  notably  antibiotics  and  hormones,  e.g.  “adding  growth  hormones15  to  increase  production”  [P11].  While  this  theme  surfaced  mainly  as  a  specific  concern  about  cattle  quality  of  life,  for  some  participants  this  concern  was  also  associated  with  effects  on  the  environment  and  human  health.    6) Respect  for  life  included  concerns  about  the  culling  of  bull  calves  and  the  end  of  life  and  longevity  of  the  cow,  e.g.  “I  feel  bad  that  their  life  is  shorter  than  a  ‘natural’  lifespan,”  [P64],  which  seemed  to  relate  to  fundamental  concerns  about  lack  of  respect  for  animal  life.    Biological  functioning  and  natural  living  were  the  most  commonly  expressed  FAW  values,  with  72  and  66%  of  participants  incorporating  these  values  into  their  responses,  respectively.  These  were  followed  by  humane  care  (56%),  affective  states  and  drugs  (each  at  22%),  and  respect  for  life  (10%).  Most  participants  included  more  than  one  FAW  value  in  their  responses,  with  a  median  value  range  of  2.5  (range:  0-­‐5).  For  example,  the  comment  “food,  water,  shelter,  regularly  milked,  space”  [P67]  referenced                                                                                                                  15  Interestingly,  the  hormone  relevant  to  this  comment  (recombinant  bovine  somatotropin  or  rBST)  has  never  been  approved  for  use  in  Canadian  dairy  cattle  anyway,  so  this  concern  could  reflect  misinformation  among  these  participants.     124  values  for  biological  functioning  (food,  water,  shelter),  natural  living  (space),  and  humane  care  (regularly  milked).  Although  not  categorized  as  a  FAW  value,  14%  of  participants  also  acknowledged  that  FAW  is  variable  among  farms  and  is  affected  by  multiple  factors,  in  so  doing  acknowledging  the  complexity  of  animal  welfare,  e.g.  “I  think  it  depends  on  the  farmers’  husbandry  skills,”  [P1].  Not  surprisingly,  participants’  concerns  about  dairy  cattle  welfare  typically  reflected  uncertainty  about  whether  they  believed  these  value  criteria  were  being  met  on  dairy  farms.  ‘Before’  FAW  concerns  thus  included  the  following  issues:  (1)  insufficient,  biologically  inappropriate,  unnatural  feed,  (2)  lack  of  pasture  access  and  indoor  confinement  (with  related  concerns  about  overcrowding  and  behavioural  restriction)  and  (3)  abusive  treatment  of  cattle.  In  addition,  18%  of  respondents  indicated  that  they  did  not  have  any  concerns  about  the  welfare  of  dairy  cattle,  evident  through  responses  such  as,  “generally  I  feel  that  most  dairy  cattle  would  have  a  good  quality  of  life”  [P2]  or  more  simply,  “don’t  have  any  [concerns],”  [P5].  Knowledge    We  did  not  find  any  relationship  between  self-­‐reported  knowledge  and  ‘before’  quiz  score.  Although  most  participants  indicated  that  they  were  either  “somewhat”  (44%)  or  “not”  (50%)  knowledgeable  about  dairy  farming,  ‘before’  scores  on  the  dairy  husbandry  quiz  were  fairly  high,  with  a  median  correct  response  rate  of  3  out  of  5  questions  (2.9±1.1  [mean±SD],  range:  1-­‐5).    Even  before  touring  the  farm,  many  participants  were  knowledgeable  about  basic  feeding  and  housing  practices:  74%  answered  the  diet  question  correctly,  and  the  majority  knew  that  dairy  cows  in  British  Columbia  were  not  routinely  tethered  in  their     125  stalls  (72%)  and  that  pasture  access  was  not  mandatory  (60%).  Fifty-­‐eight  percent  of  participants  knew  that  dairy  cattle  must  give  birth  to  a  calf  to  give  milk,  but  most  did  not  know  that  calves  were  separated  from  the  dam  immediately  after  birth  (‘before’  correct  response  rate=26%).    Relationship  between  demographics  and  ‘before’  survey  responses  Sex,  age,  education,  rural-­‐urban  status,  and  self-­‐reported  knowledge  were  not  associated  with  FAW  value  expression  or  range,  other  than  a  relationship  between  age  and  expression  of  the  FAW  value  around  drugs  (χ2  =4.2,  df=1,  p=0.04).  This  relationship  was  driven  by  no  respondents  under  the  age  of  34  referencing  drugs  versus  40%  of  those  45  and  older  who  did.  We  likewise  did  not  detect  any  relationship  between  self-­‐reported  knowledge  and  FAW  value  expression  or  value  range.  However,  ‘before’  quiz  scores  were  related  to  expression  of  the  FAW  value  for  biological  functioning  (χ2  =9.2,  df=1,  p=0.024)  such  that  participants  with  higher  ‘before’  scores  were  also  more  likely  to  incorporate  the  biological  functioning  value  into  their  responses  (e.g.  around  half  of  participants  with  scores  of  1  or  2  referenced  this  value,  versus  85%  of  people  with  scores  of  3  and  4  and  100%  of  people  scoring  5/5  who  did).    We  also  found  a  relationship  between  ‘before’  confidence  in  the  welfare  of  cattle  and  expression  of  the  FAW  value  for  natural  living  (χ2  =8.20,  df=1,  p=0.0042).  A  lower  confidence  that  dairy  cattle  had  good  lives  was  associated  with  references  to  natural  living  (e.g.  almost  80%  non-­‐confident  and  over  90%  neutral  participants  expressed  the  value  for  natural  living  versus  less  than  40%  of  confident  participants  who  did).     126  4.3.2 Responses  after  visiting  the  dairy  farm  Shifts  in  knowledge  Median  quiz  score  after  the  farm  visit  was  4  out  of  5  questions  (4.0±0.8  mean±SD),  indicating  that  participants  answered  over  1  additional  question  correctly  after  the  farm  visit.  Average  performance  increased  for  every  question  (Figure  4.1),  with  the  most  improvement  seen  on  the  cow-­‐calf  separation  question.    Figure  4.1.  Percentage  (%)  of  Canadian  citizens  with  correct  responses  on  dairy  husbandry  quiz  questions,  before  and  after  the  dairy  farm  visit.  Milk  Q=  A  dairy  cow  needs  to  have  a  calf  to  keep  producing  milk,  Tie  stall  Q=  Dairy  cows  in  British  Columbia  are  routinely  tied  to  their  stall  in  the  barn,  Pasture  Q=  All  dairy  cows  in  British  Columbia  are  allowed  access  to  pasture,  Separation  Q=  How  many  days  after  birth  does  the  dairy  calf  typically  stay  with  its  mom?  and  Diet  Q=  Which  best  describes  what  most  adult  cows  are  typically  fed  on  dairy  farms?”  Shifts  in  perception  We  were  also  interested  in  whether  people’s  overall  perceptions  of  the  level  of  dairy  cattle  welfare  would  shift  upon  touring  the  dairy  farm.  Participants’  qualitative  responses  to  the  ‘after’  questions  of  whether  they  thought  cattle  had  a  good  life  on  the  0  10  20  30  40  50  60  70  80  90  100  Milk  Q   Tie  stall  Q   Pasture  Q   Separation  Q   Diet  Q  Correct  response  (%)    Question  Before  visit  After  visit     127  farm  and  whether  they  had  any  remaining  concerns  were  coded  into  three  categories  as  follows  (Table  4.5):  1) Confident  indicates  those  (n=14)  who  gave  unequivocal  affirmative  answers  that  dairy  cattle  had  a  good  life  on  the  farm  such  that  only  positive  attributes  and  no  concerns  were  mentioned.  Examples  included:  “It  was  better  than  I  expected…I  was  expecting  more  crowding  than  what  I  saw  at  this  farm,”  [P17],  “Yes,  plenty  of  food-­‐unlimited  milk  for  calves,  yee  haw!”  [P53]  and  “Great  life,  the  owners/workers  actually  care  for  the  animals.  This  farm  is  great  to  all  of  the  animals,”  [P62].    2) Nuanced  indicates  participants  (n=27)  who  mentioned  both  positive  and  negative  attributes.  Many  individuals  in  this  category  gave  somewhat  affirmative  answers  that  dairy  cattle  generally  seemed  to  have  a  good  life  on  the  farm,  but  then  raised  specific  concerns,  e.g.  “Fairly  fair  life  for  a  cow  [but]  I  am  sure  they  would  love  to  be  outdoors,”  [P29],  “I  guess  so.  They  are  healthy,  they  have  some  freedom  of  movement,  they  can  eat  and  drink  as  much  as  they  want…[but]  it  would  be  nice  if  they  could  go  outside  more  often”  [P11],  and  “yes  [they  have  a  good  life]  but  I  would  still  prefer  to  see  animals  grazing  in  the  fields,  eating  the  grass  and  calves  not  separated  so  quickly  from  mothers,”  [P61].  3) Not  confident  indicates  those  (n=9)  who  after  touring  the  farm  gave  clear  negative  responses  that  dairy  cattle  did  not  have  good  lives.  These  individuals  made  no  mention  of  any  positive  attributes.  Examples  included:  “Cows  do  not  have  a  good  life!  Very  little  space  to  roam  and  are  kept  in  unsanitary  conditions  …the  fact  that  they  are  always  indoors  and  standing  in  their  own  feces  concerns     128  me,”  [P38]  and  “No,  conditions  are  poor.  Industry  is  profit  driven  and  animal  welfare  falls  second  to  profit  margins,”  [P34].      Table  4.5  Citizens'  perceptions  in  response  to  the  question,  "Do  dairy  cattle  have  a  good  quality  of  life?"  before  and  after  visiting  the  dairy  farm1    AFTER  VISIT  Perception  as    indicated    by  qualitative    responses    BEFORE  VISIT  Perception  as    indicated  by  answers    to  ‘before  visit’                  Confident    (14)                Nuanced    (27)                Not  confident  (9)  Confident  (21)   9   10   2  Neutral  (15)   1   10   4  Not  confident  (14)   4   7   3  1  ‘Before’  categories  indicate  confidence  level  (confident,  neutral,  not  confident)  of  whether  dairy  cattle  have  good  lives  before  visiting  the  farm.  The  ‘after’  visit  category  of  ‘confident’  indicates  participants  with  affirmative  answers  that  dairy  cattle  had  a  good  life  on  the  farm  with  no  expressed  concerns;  ‘nuanced’  indicates  participants  who  mentioned  concerns  as  well  as  positive  attributes;  and  ‘not  confident’  indicates  participants  with  negative  answers  and  no  mentions  of  positive  attributes.  The  bracketed  numbers  adjacent  to  or  below  possible  response  categories  indicate  the  total  participants  within  the  respective  row  or  column  (out  of  50).  The  number  in  each  cell  indicates  the  number  of  participants  expressing  each  pair  of  perceptions  before  and  after  the  farm  visit.  Black  cells  (n=16)  indicate  participants  whose  perceptions  of  the  level  of  FAW  became  more  negative  (negative  shift),  white  cells  (n=12)  indicate  participants  whose  perceptions  became  more  positive  (positive  shift),  and  grey  cells  (n=22)  indicate  participants  whose  perceptions  did  not  appear  to  shift  in  valence  (no  shift).    Shifts  in  perceptions    We  then  compared  these  ‘after’  visit  perceptions  with  ‘before’  confidence  levels  about  cattle  welfare  to  determine  whether  participants  experienced  a  positive,  negative,  or  no  shift  in  perceptions  relative  to  dairy  cattle  welfare  (Table  4.5).  For  example,  a  positive  perception  shift  would  describe  an  individual  who  before  touring  the  farm  indicated  that  they  were  not  confident  about  cattle  welfare  but  after  the  tour  indicated  that  cattle  on  the  farm  did  have  good  lives.  In  contrast,  someone  who  initially  expressed     129  confidence  but  indicated  concerns  after  the  tour  that  cattle  did  not  have  good  lives  would  have  experienced  a  negative  shift.       We  found  that  a  minority  of  participants  experienced  a  full  reversal  in  the  valence  of  their  perception  of  cattle  welfare:  just  two  participants  started  confident  but  ended  negatively  with  nothing  positive  observed,  while  four  initially  non-­‐confident  participants  ended  very  positively  with  no  concerns.  Overall,  shifts  in  perception  were  distributed  fairly  evenly  among  the  participants  such  that  16  participants  (32%)  negatively  shifted  their  perceptions,  12  positively  shifted  their  perceptions  (24%),  and  22  did  not  shift  (44%,  Table  4.5).    Concerns  behind  the  perception  shifts  There  were  no  detectable  relationships  between  demographics  and  perception  shift,  or  between  ‘before’  expression  of  FAW  values  and  perception  shift.  Thus  it  did  not  appear  that  expression  of  any  particular  FAW  value,  for  example,  was  associated  with  whether  or  how  an  individual  shifted  their  perception  after  touring  the  farm.      Qualitative  analysis  of  the  ‘after’  responses  nonetheless  identified  some  characteristics  of  those  who  shifted  their  perceptions  positively  or  negatively.    Those  for  whom  the  farm  visit  improved  their  perceptions  of  dairy  cattle  welfare  (24%)  seemed  to  be  pleasantly  surprised  by  what  they  observed.  In  particular,  the  following  attributes  were  perceived  as  positive  by  individuals  in  this  segment:  the  high  level  of  care  given  to  cattle  by  farm  workers,  plentiful  food  and  water,  a  hygienic  barn  environment,  and  adequate  space  allotted  to  cattle.  For  example,  one  participant  initially  commented  that  they  were  concerned  about  “humane  treatment,  cramped  living  conditions,  and  access  to  grazing,”  but  after  touring  the  farm  remarked  that  they  had  no     130  concerns  because  “the  animals  seem  to  be  well  cared  for…the  practices  on  this  farm  seem  very  ethical,”  [P65].  Moreover,  the  quality  of  care  was  perceived  to  be  positive  regardless  of  whether  participants  came  away  from  the  visit  with  an  improved  perception  of  dairy  cattle  welfare  overall.  We  received  no  feedback  that  individual  care  toward  animals  was  poor  and  many  commented  positively  on  the  level  of  staff  attention  to  animals.    In  contrast,  those  for  whom  the  farm  visit  negatively  affected  their  perceptions  of  cattle  welfare  (32%)  seemed  either  to  have  had  their  existing  concerns  reinforced  or  new  concerns  elicited.  The  most  prevalent  of  these  new  concerns  was  early  separation  of  the  calf  from  the  cow,  reflected  in  an  average  increase  of  participants’  knowledge  of  this  practice  from  26%  before  the  visit  to  74%  after.  Interestingly,  individuals  in  this  group  also  commented  on  barn  space  and  hygiene,  but  in  contrast  to  the  positive  shifters,  negative  shifters  perceived  the  barns  to  be  cramped  and  dirty  rather  than  spacious  and  clean  (prompting  one  individual  to  suggest,  “maybe  wash  the  floor  more  often?”  [P69]).  However,  the  most  prominent  complaint  was  the  lack  of  pasture  and  outdoor  access.  For  example,  one  participant  who  initially  “never  had  any  concerns”  was  disappointed  by  the  farm:  “It’s  not  ideal…I’m  sure  the  cows  would  rather  be  in  a  field…cows  should  have  a  larger  freedom  area,”  [P28].  Indeed,  nearly  every  participant  who  commented  on  pasture  or  calf  separation,  regardless  of  whether  that  participant  ultimately  shifted  their  perception,  expressed  disappointment  about  the  lack  of  pasture  and  outdoor  access  and  surprise  at  cow-­‐calf  separation.       131  4.4 Discussion  4.4.1 Citizen  perceptions  of  the  dairy  industry    This  chapter  focused  on  lay  peoples’  perceptions  of  dairy  farming  and  its  effects  on  animal  welfare.  Though  all  but  two  participants  were  also  consumers  of  dairy  products16,  our  goal  was  to  elicit  citizen  perspectives  on  this  topic.  As  such,  questions  were  focused  on  people’s  ideal  visions  on  how  dairy  cattle  should  live,  thus  activating  notions  of  how  society  in  general  should  operate.  It  was  not  the  goal  of  this  study  to  determine  how  or  whether  thinking  about  this  ideal  vision  may  also  influence  participants’  intents  to  purchase  dairy  products.    We  also  targeted  participants  with  an  existing  interest  in  food  and  agricultural  issues  with  the  intent  of  eliciting  a  rich  understanding  of  how  people  perceive  and  value  dairy  cattle  welfare.  This  sampling  strategy  was  intentional,  as  people  with  high  levels  of  engagement  tend  to  shape  discourse  on  contentious  issues.  We  were  aware  that  these  individuals  would  likely  be  more  interested  in  and  knowledgeable  about  livestock  farming  than  other  lay  citizens  in  this  population.  Despite  this  bias,  we  observed  considerable  variation  among  individuals  in  FAW  perceptions,  concerns  and  values.  This  variation  was  evident,  for  example,  in  the  diversity  of  perceptions  of  the  dairy  industry  as  a  whole,  with  participants  expressing  positive  and  negative  views.    Our  results  align  with  Boogaard  et  al.’s  (2011a)  conclusion  that,  in  general,  citizens  seem  to  adopt  relatively  cautious  opinions  about  dairy  farming.  In  one  respect,  and  similarly  to  how  Dutch  citizens  “preferred  relatively  traditional  and  natural  farms”  (p.  259;  Boogaard  et  al.,  2011a),  it  was  clear  that  nostalgia  for  the  dairy  farms  of                                                                                                                  16  Indeed  the  consumption  question  was  only  included  to  allow  for  potential  explanation  for  how  views  might  be  affected  by  ethically-­‐motivated  vegetarianism  or  veganism.     132  yesterday—and  alongside,  rejections  of  industrialization  and  intensification  as  threats  to  that  nostalgic  imagining—informed  perceptions  of  some  individuals  in  the  current  study.  These  expectations  may  relate  to  the  agrarian  ideals  that  proliferated  in  America  in  the  late  1700’s  (see  Thompson,  1998;  Fraser,  2001;  DuPuis,  2002),  with  farming  seen  as  a  natural  extension  of  the  surrounding  landscape,  where  “animals  on  traditional  farms  were  seen  as  living  natural  and  wholesome  lives,  much  as  the  human  members  of  the  agrarian  family  were  seen  as  living  natural  and  wholesome  lives…”  (p.  181;  Fraser,  2001).     However  (here  and  as  others  have  also  noted,  Boogaard  et  al.,  2011a),  citizen  preferences  for  agrarian  ideals  did  not  necessarily  “imply  an  outright  rejection  of  modern  animal  farming,”  (p.  259;  Boogaard  et  al.,  2011a).  Rather,  citizens  seemed  to  balance  their  preferences  for  what  is  natural  and  traditional  against  their  acceptance  of  technological  advances  on  the  farm.  This  was  also  evident  for  some  of  our  participants,  both  in  their  support  of  the  dairy  industry’s  connection  to  the  vitality  of  their  local  communities,  as  well  as  in  comments  that  participants  liked  seeing  how  technology  was  used  to  improve  the  lives  of  the  cows  on  the  farm.  4.4.2 Citizen  concerns  and  values  We  sought  to  examine  perceptions  of  dairy  farming  specifically  as  they  related  to  animal  welfare,  and  to  better  understand  the  knowledge  and  values  that  help  inform  these  perceptions.  Although  participants  varied  in  their  expression  of  FAW  values  in  that  some  people’s  conceptions  were  broader  than  others’,  collectively  we  observed  a  multi-­‐dimensional  and  nuanced  understanding  of  animal  welfare.  Earlier  research  had  indicated  that  lay  citizens  tend  to  focus  mainly  on  natural  living  and  de-­‐emphasize     133  other  values  (Te  Velde  et  al.,  2002).  However,  this  and  other  research  (see  below)  indicates  that  lay  citizen  values  around  animal  welfare  are  not  always  so  narrow  in  focus.    Natural  living  Our  findings  align  with  evidence  that  natural  living  tends  to  figure  strongly  in  what  citizens  believe  is  necessary  for  farm  animals  to  live  a  good  life  (Harper  and  Makatouni,  2002;  Spooner  et  al.,  2014a).  For  example,  our  results  resonate  with  others  who  found  that  citizens  emphasize  freedom  to  move  and  fulfill  natural  motivations  (Te  Velde  et  al.,  2002;  Lassen  et  al.,  2006;  Maria,  2006;  Spooner  et  al.,  2014a),  performance  of  natural  behaviours  (Vanhonacker  et  al.,  2008;  Prickett  et  al.,  2010;  Boogaard  et  al.,  2011b;  Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning,  2013;  Spooner  et  al.,  2014a),  access  to  increased  space  (which  is  intimately  connected  to  notions  of  freedom,  Vanhonacker  et  al.,  2008;  Boogaard  et  al.,  2011b;  Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning,  2013),  outdoor  access  (Vanhonacker  et  al.,  2008;  Prickett  et  al.,  2010;  Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning,  2013;  Spooner  et  al.,  2014a),  and  daylight  (Boogaard  et  al.,  2011b;  Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning,  2013;  Spooner  et  al.,  2014a).    We  also  found  strong  objections  to  the  practices  of  early  cow-­‐calf  separation  and  zero  grazing  in  the  current  study.  Our  findings  fit  with  others  who  found  that  citizens  do  not  approve  of  early  cow-­‐calf  separation  (Boogaard  et  al.,  2011a),  in  part  because  it  is  perceived  to  be  an  affront  to  the  natural  order  (see  Chapter  5).  Boogaard  et  al.  (2011a)  found  that  this  practice  was  more  objectionable  than  other  undesirable  practices  such  as  artificial  insemination  and  slaughter  of  unproductive  cows.  Likewise  (and  of  little  surprise  given  similar  findings,  Vanhonacker  et  al.,  2008;  Ellis  et  al.,  2009;  Prickett  et  al.,     134  2010;  Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning,  2013;  Spooner  et  al.,  2014a),  failing  to  provide  animals  access  to  the  outdoors  was  objectionable.  Biological  functioning  Citizens  in  the  current  study  also  valued  aspects  related  to  biological  functioning  (particularly  nutrition  and  hygiene)  to  the  extent  that  this  was  the  most  frequently  expressed  FAW  value  among  participants.  For  example,  providing  dairy  cattle  with  unrestricted  access  to  biologically  appropriate  feed  and  clean,  fresh  water  were  among  the  most  frequently  cited  requirements  for  a  good  life.  Other  research  has  likewise  indicated  that  provision  of  food  and  water,  along  with  treatment  for  injury  and  disease,  are  included  in  the  most  important  requirements  of  American  (Prickett  et  al.,  2010)  and  European  citizens  (Vanhonacker  et  al.,  2008;  Boogaard  et  al.,  2011b).    Hygiene  of  animals’  surroundings  was  also  considered  important,  as  also  reported  by  Boogaard  et  al.  (2008,  2011a).  That  citizens  valued  aspects  of  biological  functioning  should  be  considered  promising  for  the  dairy  industry,  as  these  are  also  highly  valued  by  farmers  and  others  connected  to  the  livestock  industries  (in  Europe:  Te  Velde  et  al.,  2002;  de  Greef  et  al.,  2006;  Bock  and  Van  Huik,  2007;  Hubbard  and  Scott,  2011;  and  in  North  America:  Spooner  et  al.,  2012,  2014b).  In  other  words,  it  seems  that  industry  and  non-­‐industry  stakeholders  agree  on  the  importance  of  animal  health  and  functioning.  However,  there  are  differences  in  how  biological  functioning  is  ultimately  incorporated  into  the  way  in  which  FAW  is  defined  and  evaluated  by  these  stakeholders.  Citizens  in  the  current  study  often  incorporated  multiple  FAW  values  in  their  responses  of  what  it  means  for  dairy  cattle  to  have  good  lives,  indicating  that  they  consider  health  and  functioning  to  be  necessary  but  not  sufficient  for  a  good  life.     135  Affective  states  The  existing  literature  on  citizens’  attitudes  is  consistent  in  showing  that  imposing  pain  and  other  negative  affective  states  on  animals  is  unacceptable.  For  example,  US  surveys  show  that  the  majority  believe  that  farm  animals  should  be  protected  from  pain  (Rauch  and  Sharp,  2005),  and  work  in  Canada  and  the  US  has  shown  that  citizens  object  to  the  performance  of  routine  painful  procedures  (e.g.  tail  docking  and  dehorning)  without  pain  relief  (Rutgers,  2003;  Weary  et  al.,  2011;  Robbins  et  al.,  in  press.)    In  the  present  study,  just  under  a  quarter  of  participants  made  direct  references  to  affective  states  in  dairy  cattle,  including  happiness  and  an  absence  of  pain  and  stress.  The  lack  of  comments  may  relate  to  our  framing  of  the  survey  questions,  as  asking  about  a  good  life  may  prime  responses  related  to  elements  external  to  the  cow  rather  than  to  the  cow’s  internal  affective  state.  Therefore,  inferences  regarding  how  much  participants  valued  this  aspect  of  FAW  should  be  made  with  caution.    Beyond  the  three  spheres  of  animal  welfare  In  this  study  we  found  that  participants  valued  aspects  of  welfare  that  included  both  the  state  of  the  animal  and  what  is  provided  to  it  (see  the  World  Organization  for  Animal  Health’s  definition  of  animal  welfare;  OIE,  2008).  For  example,  disease  incidence  (a  state  of  the  animal)  and  provision  of  vaccines  (an  external  input)  both  fall  under  the  value  related  to  biological  functioning.    However,  the  results  of  this  chapter  indicate  that  citizen  values  for  FAW  extended  beyond  the  three  spheres  framework  (biological  functioning,  natural  living  and  affective  states)  as  traditionally  understood  by  scientists.  Notably,  over  half  of  the     136  respondents  also  saw  the  welfare  of  dairy  cattle  as  intertwined  with  the  actions  and  attitudes  of  humans  charged  with  their  care.  Others  have  also  noted  the  relevance  of  farmer-­‐animal  contact,  gentle  handling,  and  general  humane  care  to  citizen’s  perceptions  of  farm  animal  welfare  (Boogaard  et  al.,  2011a;  Spooner  et  al.,  2014a).  While  human  actions  are  obviously  associated  with  (and  directly  affect)  biological  functioning,  natural  living  and  affective  states  in  animals,  it  is  important  to  specify  that  the  need  for  cattle  to  have  attentive  and  loving  caretakers  seemed  to  be  treated  as  distinct  from  these  other  three  aspects  (and  indeed,  can  be  considered  an  additional  element  of  ‘what  is  provided  to  the  animal’).  The  importance  placed  on  humane  care  can  be  traced  at  least  as  far  as  the  pastoralist  archetype  in  which  human  use  and  consumption  of  animals  was  legitimized  in  the  context  of  “diligent  care,”  (p.  180;  Fraser,  2001).  Care  ethics  dictate  that  our  duties  to  animals  are  borne  out  of  our  relationships  with  them  (see  Engster,  2006),  and  pastoralist  views  envision  humans  and  domesticated  animals  as  contracted  to  each  other  such  that  animals  give  their  lives  in  exchange  for  human  provision  of  protection  and  dutiful  care.  Against  this  context,  we  can  understand  citizens’  objections  to  poor  care  of  farm  animals  (running  the  gamut  from  simply  not  being  loving  enough  to  physical  abuse)  as  objections  to  a  breach  of  this  ancient  contract.      This  desire  for  kindness  also  functions  reciprocally  such  that  humans  stand  to  benefit  from  positive  interactions  with  animals.  Seabrook  and  Wilkinson  (2000),  for  example,  interviewed  Australian  dairy  stockpersons  who  considered  positive  interactions  with  their  animals  as  integral  to  a  good  and  satisfying  workday.  Here  then,  we  not  only  see  links  to  broader  societal  desires  for  gentle  care  toward  livestock,  but     137  also  grounds  for  the  argument  that  gentle  handling  is  something  that  benefits  the  humans  who  work  with  them.    4.4.3 Effects  of  the  farm  visit  With  one  exception,17  the  types  of  FAW  values  expressed  by  participants  did  not  relate  with  their  existing  knowledge,  or  with  how  their  perceptions  of  dairy  cattle  welfare  changed  after  visiting  the  farm.  As  this  study  was  not  designed  to  test  these  relationships,  the  lack  of  relationships  should  be  treated  with  caution.  However,  the  ways  in  which  perceptions  and  knowledge  shifted  upon  touring  the  farm,  and  the  concerns  underlying  them,  seem  to  indicate  that  people’s  knowledge  and  values  in  relation  to  FAW  may  be  relatively  independent.       Hansen  et  al.  (2003)  addressed  how  and  why  people’s  evaluations  of  situations  are  affected  by  factors  well  beyond  their  knowledge,  and  how  deeply  embedded  values  are  in  these  processes.  On  the  surface,  it  seems  intuitive  that  familiarity  breeds  content  and  unfamiliarity,  suspicion:  we  know,  for  example,  that  people  who  work  within  the  livestock  industries  are  more  accepting  of  contentious  practices  and  less  concerned  about  animal  welfare  than  are  people  unaffiliated  with  these  industries  (Vanhonacker  et  al.,  2008).  However,  emerging  work  suggests  that  learning  about  livestock  practices  fails  to  improve  acceptance  for  many  people,  and  in  some  cases  may  decrease  acceptance.  For  example,  Ryan  et  al.  (2013)  showed  that  citizens  became  less  likely  to  support  gestation  housing  for  commercial  sows  after  being  exposed  to  various  sources  of  information  including  scientific  articles,  images,  and  videos.                                                                                                                    17  Participants  with  higher  ‘before’  quiz  scores  were  more  likely  to  include  biological  functioning  in  their  FAW  value  expressions.  This  association  may  be  similar  to  the  emphasis  on  biological  functioning  found  among  farmers  (Te  Velde  et  al.,  2002;  Lassen  et  al.,  2006;  Kaupinnen  et  al.,  2010;  Silva  et  al.,  2013).       138  In  the  present  study,  baseline  knowledge  about  farming  practice  was  variable  among  participants  depending  on  the  practice  in  question,  with  knowledge  of  some  practices  fairly  high  and  others  low.  Pronounced  areas  of  knowledge  deficit  included  cow-­‐calf  separation  and  protocols  for  hormone  adminstration,  the  latter  of  which  became  apparent  through  participants’  concerns  about  growth  hormones.  Knowledge  about  dairy  farming  improved  on  every  question  for  nearly  every  participant  after  the  visit.  However,  this  improvement  in  knowledge  was  not  accompanied  by  a  similar  improvement  in  perceptions  of  dairy  cattle  welfare  across  participants.  If  we  look  to  the  divergence  in  confidence  in  cattle  welfare  among  participants  before  visiting  the  dairy  farm  (42-­‐30-­‐28%  confident-­‐neutral-­‐not  confident,  respectively)  and  to  the  scattered  distribution  in  perceptions  of  cattle  welfare  after  the  visit  (24-­‐44-­‐32%  positive-­‐no-­‐negative  shift,  respectively),  it  would  seem  that  the  farm  visit  did  not  result  in  an  overall  increase  in  confidence,  as  would  have  been  predicted  by  the  knowledge  deficit  model  of  public  understanding  (Wynne  and  Irwin,  1996;  Einsiedel,  2000).  Collectively,  the  farm  visit  only  improved  perceptions  in  24%  of  participants;  the  majority  experienced  no  shift  or  became  more  critical.         People  reacting  negatively  to  the  farm  visit  provided  many  reasons,  including  poor  hygiene  and  lack  of  space,  but  some  participants  also  commented  positively  on  these  issues  after  the  visit.  Such  differences  in  citizens’  perception  of  FAW  are  common  (Boogaard  et  al.,  2006;  Vanhonacker  et  al.,  2007;  Prickett  et  al.,  2010),  and  suggest  that  the  public  cannot  be  considered  as  a  single  entity.  Boogaard  et  al.  (2011a)  wrote  that,  “concerns  about  modern  animal  farming  will  only  be  allayed  when  information…addresses  the  more  fundamental  values  that  shape     139  [public]  concerns,”  (p.  281).  Participants  in  this  study  saw  humane  care  toward  cattle  as  a  highly  positive  attribute  of  the  farm.  The  farm  visit  therefore  seemed  effective  in  demonstrating  compliance  with  this  value,  even  if  this  did  not  ultimately  shift  all  participants’  perceptions  about  dairy  cattle  welfare.  Societal  objections  to  large  farms  and  to  industrialization  and  mechanization  of  the  industries  thus  make  more  sense  in  the  context  of  a  value  for  individualized  attention  and  humane  care  for  farm  animals.  Though  Fraser  et  al.’s  (1997)  three  spheres  of  animal  welfare  is  an  excellent  foundation  for  understanding  societal  concerns  about  farm  animal  welfare,  we  suggest  that  considering  this  emphasis  on  human-­‐animal  relationships  may  better  capture  societal  concerns  and  thus  provide  a  more  inclusive  framework  from  which  to  approach  societal  engagement.  The  valuing  of  humane  care  may  also  make  the  dairy  industry  particularly  vulnerable  to  reputational  loss  when  cases  of  abusive  practices  are  brought  to  light.  In  contrast,  it  was  clear  that  the  farm  visit  failed  to  meet  the  natural  living  criterion  for  most  participants,  particularly  in  the  case  of  pasture  access  and  cow-­‐calf  separation.  Given  the  importance  many  placed  on  natural  living,  it  seems  likely  that  people  wish  to  see  evidence  that  dairy  cows  are  kept  in  ways  that  allow  them  to  engage  in  natural  behaviour.  In  light  of  participants’  concerns  about  space  allocated  to  cattle,  increasing  space  per  animal  within  the  current  barn  environment  might  make  the  lack  of  outdoor  access  easier  for  some  people  to  accept.  The  problem  of  cow-­‐calf  separation  will  be  more  difficult  to  resolve.  This  practice  illustrates  how  the  interplay  of  knowledge  and  values  inform  acceptance,  as  it  appeared  not  to  be  a  problem  for  people  until  they  were  made  aware  of  this  routine  practice.  This  issue  will  be  addressed  in  more  detail  in  the  next  chapter.       140  4.4.4 A  note  about  study  limitations  Past  studies  have  estimated  citizen  knowledge  of  livestock  farming  through  proxy  questions  on  rural-­‐urban  background  (e.g.  Boogaard  et  al.,  2011b).  There  is  some  reason  to  question  self-­‐reports  as  an  effective  barometer  of  citizen  knowledge:  for  example,  though  citizen  participants  in  one  study  reported  low  familiarity  with  pig  husbandry,  many  of  their  spontaneous  welfare  concerns  (e.g.  tail  docking  and  teeth  clipping,  limited  space,  injured  legs  and  joints)  were  indeed  recognized  welfare  issues  in  the  industry  and  characteristic  of  at  least  some  pork  operations  (Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning,  2013).  In  other  words,  their  concerns  were  grounded  in  reality.  To  our  knowledge,  this  study  is  the  first  to  measure  citizen  knowledge  of  livestock  production  practices  directly.  We  suggest  that  this  approach  provides  a  more  accurate  picture  of  citizen  knowledge,  but  also  acknowledge  that  our  approach  of  using  quiz  questions  requires  refinement.  The  inclusion  of  true/false  questions  to  gauge  knowledge  is  particularly  limited;  we  did  not  measure  confidence  in  answers  and  so  cannot  account  for  participant  guessing.  We  also  cannot  determine  whether  any  change  in  knowledge  (or  perceptions)  lasted  beyond  the  day  of  testing.    Given  the  constraints  associated  with  longer  surveys  (e.g.  participant  inattention,  drop-­‐out,  frustration;  see  Maniaci  and  Rogge,  2014)  we  were  limited  in  the  number  of  questions  we  could  ask.  We  made  every  attempt  to  construct  quiz  questions  that  anyone  with  working  knowledge  of  dairying  could  answer  but  that  were  also  possible  to  know  without  ever  having  been  on  a  dairy  farm.  Finally,  we  realized  after  data  collection  that  the  correct  response  to  the  cow-­‐calf  separation  question  was  worded  (“0  days”)  in  a  way  that  may  have  confused  participants,  potentially  over-­‐   141  estimating  ignorance  on  this  question.  However,  due  to  the  number  of  qualitative  responses  specifically  referencing  surprise  at  the  practice,  we  are  confident  that  this  practice  was  new  information  for  many  participants.    The  dairy  farm  used  in  this  study  was  also  a  university  research  center.  This  role  may  have  been  seen  as  positive  for  some  participants,  resulting  in  more  positive  perceptions  than  if  participants  had  visited  another  farm.  Social  desirability  may  have  motivated  some  respondents’  answers,  as  they  may  have  wanted  to  seem  complimentary  of  the  farm  given  its  associated  role  as  a  teaching  farm.  As  no  identifying  information  was  collected  from  the  participants,  and  the  researchers  did  not  observe  participants  while  they  filled  out  the  surveys,  we  hope  that  social  desirability  bias  was  minimized.  We  also  suggest  that  this  issue  underscores  the  considerable  variation  among  farms  in  practices  and  the  quality  of  care  provided;  we  encourage  constructive  replication  of  this  study  to  consider  other  types  of  visitors  and  other  farms.  4.5 Conclusion     This  study  was  the  first  to  explore  perceptions,  knowledge,  and  values  of  animal  welfare  among  North  American  citizens  in  the  context  of  a  farm  visit.  The  results  indicate  that  citizens  hold  nuanced  conceptions  of  animal  welfare  that  extend  beyond  those  traditionally  referenced  in  the  scientific  literature.  Allowing  citizens  to  tour  a  dairy  farm  improved  knowledge  of  dairy  husbandry  practices,  but  did  not  improve  perceptions  of  dairy  cattle  welfare  for  most  participants.  Shifts  in  perception  appeared  to  be  primarily  rooted  in  whether  various  values  for  animal  welfare  were  satisfied  (or  not).  Overall,  the  tour  appeared  to  satisfy  values  around  humane  care,  but  failed  to  meet  values  for  natural  living.  We  suggest  that  engaging  with  the  public  through  one-­‐way     142  education  efforts  only  (even  immersive  experiences,  such  as  the  farm  tour  described  in  the  present  study)  will  not  resolve  societal  concerns  about  animal  welfare  on  livestock  farms.         143  Chapter  5:   Mixed  stakeholder  attitudes  toward  cow-­‐calf  separation:  a  case  studyΦ    5.1 Introduction     The  dairy  industry  has  traditionally  enjoyed  a  positive  public  image,  but  this  may  erode  if  practices  are  perceived  to  be  out  of  step  with  societal  expectations.  Thus,  those  who  work  with  dairy  cattle  should  engage  with  the  public  on  controversial  issues  related  to  animal  care.  Creating  platforms  for  communication  about  contentious  issues  fosters  engagement  with,  and  interaction  between,  diverse  industry  stakeholders,  including  the  public  (Castle  and  Culver,  2006).  We  suggest  that  such  engagement  will  help  the  dairy  industry  remain  socially  sustainable  (Boogaard  et  al.,  2008)  –  that  is,  maintain  good  standing  as  an  industry  committed  to  fulfilling  public  trust  (Schweikhardt  and  Browne,  2001).    Animal  welfare  is  conceptualized  in  different  and  sometimes  overlapping  ways  (Fraser  et  al.,  1997).    For  example,  some  people  may  especially  value  cow  health  or  milk  production  as  indicators  of  good  welfare,  while  others  may  emphasize  subjective  experiences  (such  as  pain  and  distress)  or  the  ability  to  express  natural  behaviours.  Much  of  the  literature  on  farm  animal  welfare  attitudes  originates  from  Europe  and  has  focused  on  the  views  of  people  not  involved  in  animal  production  (e.g.  Eurobarometer,  2007).  The  limited  data  available  on  North  Americans  (e.g.  Prickett  et  al.,  2010)  also  shows  a  high  level  of  concern  about  farm  animal  issues.  People’s  views  toward  animal  welfare  vary  depending  on  a  variety  of  factors  such  as  the  species  in  question  (Driscoll,                                                                                                                  Φ  A  version  of  this  chapter  has  been  published:  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.  96:6105-­‐6116.       144  1992),  the  animals’  perceived  cognitive  capacity  and  familiarity  with  the  animal  (Knight  and  Barnett,  2008),  as  well  as  family  and/or  personal  experience  with  farm  animals  (Boogaard  et  al.,  2006;  Kendall  et  al.,  2006).  Non-­‐industry  people  often  conceptualize  good  animal  welfare  largely  in  terms  of  the  animals’  living  environment  (e.g.  abundant  space  and  freedom  to  roam)  but  also  in  terms  of  health,  including  nutritional  aspects  (Harper  and  Henson,  2001;  Frewer  et  al.,  2005;  Ellis  et  al.,  2009;  see  Chapter  4).  Notably,  the  naturalness  of  husbandry  systems  (in  rearing  systems,  housing,  and  behavioural  opportunities)  is  a  dominant  concern  among  people  not  involved  in  animal  production  (Te  Velde  et  al.,  2002;  Lassen  et  al.,  2006;  Maria,  2006;  Vanhonacker  et  al.,  2008;  Chapter  4).    In  contrast,  natural  living  seems  to  be  lower  priority  for  those  working  within  agriculture,  who  tend  to  instead  emphasize  concerns  related  to  animal  health  (Te  Velde  et  al.,  2002;  Vanhonacker  et  al.,  2008),  though  this  is  not  uniformly  the  case.  For  example,  European  organic  livestock  farmers  also  view  natural  living  as  an  important  component  of  animal  care  (Lund  et  al.,  2004;  Vetouli  et  al.,  2012).  Moreover,  approaches  to  animal  welfare  vary  among  individual  farmers  (Vetouli  et  al.,  2012)  and  farmers  are  often  aware  of  the  diverse  elements  that  affect  farm  animal  welfare  (Spooner  et  al.,  2012;  see  Chapters  2-­‐3).    Some  European  research  has  addressed  views  on  issues  specifically  relevant  to  dairy  cattle  (Boogaard  et  al.,  2008,  2010;  Ellis  et  al.,  2009),  but  this  work  has  focused  on  individuals  not  involved  in  agriculture  and  there  is  little  information  on  attitudes  of  dairy  producers  and  other  dairy  industry  stakeholders.  With  the  exception  of  our  previous  studies  on  tail  docking  (Weary  et  al.,  2011),  pasture  access  (Schuppli  et  al.,     145  2014)  and  dehorning  (Robbins  et  al.,  in  press),  there  has  been  little  work  on  the  views  of  North  Americans  on  issues  in  dairy  cattle  welfare.  The  aim  of  this  chapter  is  to  examine  the  views  of  participants  from  within  and  outside  the  dairy  industry  specific  to  the  practice  of  separating  the  dairy  calf  from  the  dam  at  or  soon  after  birth.  This  common  management  practice  represents  a  particularly  interesting  case  study  for  stakeholder  engagement.  In  nature,  a  cow  nurses  the  calf  for  months,  weaning  is  gradual,  and  calves  form  strong  bonds  with  their  mother  and  with  other  cows  and  calves  in  the  herd  that  can  last  for  years  (Kilgour  and  Dalton,  1984;  Vitale  et  al.,  1986).  In  contrast,  most  dairy  farms  separate  the  cow  and  calf  within  a  few  hours  of  birth,  whereupon  the  cow  re-­‐enters  the  production  cycle  and  the  calf  is  placed  in  individual  or  group  housing  and  fed  milk  artificially  until  weaning  at  4  to  12  weeks  of  age  (von  Keyserlingk  and  Weary,  2007).  European  research  suggests  that  separation  of  the  newborn  dairy  calf  from  its  dam  elicits  concern  from  members  of  the  public  (Boogaard  et  al.,  2010),  but  again,  it  is  unclear  how  North  Americans  view  this  practice.       The  goals  of  this  study  were  thus  to:  1)  examine  the  views  of  participants  from  within  and  outside  of  the  dairy  industry  on  early  separation  of  the  cow  from  her  calf,  and  2)  compare  these  views  with  the  scientific  literature  on  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  the  practice.  This  study  was  one  component  of  the  CowViews  project  (see  Weary  et  al.,  2012),  designed  to  provide  a  forum  for  diverse  stakeholders  to  air  their  views  on  issues  in  dairy  production.  One  intended  application  of  this  approach  is  to  help  foster  agreement  among  stakeholders  on  contentious  practices.         146  5.2 Methods         This  study  used  the  same  approach  as  an  earlier  study  on  tail  docking  (Weary  et  al.,  2011).  Here  we  present  the  results  of  one  of  many  scenarios  describing  contentious  practices  in  dairy  production,  in  this  case  cow-­‐calf  separation,  hosted  on  an  online  forum.  The  forum  was  hosted  on  the  YourViews  site  (http://www.yourviews.ubc.ca),  designed  to  facilitate  public  engagement  on  ethical  issues  in  science  and  technology  (Ahmad  et  al.,  2006).  This  methodology  used  the  “N-­‐Reasons”  platform  (described  in  Danielson,  2010),  which  collects  both  quantitative  (responses  to  close-­‐ended  questions)  and  qualitative  data  (responses  to  open-­‐ended  questions).  Knight  and  Barnett  (2008)  point  out  that  qualitative  approaches  are  particularly  appropriate  when  examining  people’s  attitudes  toward  animal  use,  especially  when  little  is  known  about  the  topic  in  question  (in  this  case,  the  range  of  views  that  exist  around  cow-­‐calf  separation).  Incorporating  a  qualitative  aspect  also  overcomes  some  of  the  issues  associated  with  more  traditional  survey  methods  (Ahmad  et  al.,  2010)  by  allowing  participants  to  generate  constructs  beyond  those  conceived  by  the  researchers  (as  discussed  in  Knight  et  al.,  2003;  Kalof  et  al.,  2008).     In  keeping  with  the  typology  of  public  engagement  mechanisms  put  forward  by  Rowe  and  Frewer  (2005),  this  approach  is  one  of  stakeholder  consultation.  More  specifically,  the  engagement  process  used  in  this  study  is  a  form  of  electronic  consultation,  which  involves  sending  a  document  -­‐-­‐in  this  case,  a  link  to  an  interactive  website-­‐-­‐  to  potential  participants,  with  the  aim  of  obtaining  “open  responses  on  a  significant  issue,”  (p.  279;  Rowe  and  Frewer,  2005).       147  5.2.1 Participant  recruitment     As  our  sampling  was  not  random,  we  did  not  intend  our  results  to  be  representative  of  any  specific  population.  Rather,  our  aim  was  to  include  a  diverse  range  of  participants  to  increase  the  chances  of  achieving  saturation  in  views.  Recruitment  methods  included  advertisements  in  online  newsletters  and  informal  announcements  at  conferences  and  undergraduate  classes,  but  the  forum  was  made  available  on  the  World  Wide  Web  so  anyone  with  Internet  access  could  theoretically  participate.  To  encourage  participation  of  people  in  the  North  American  dairy  industry,  brief  articles  were  published  in  producer  magazines  (Progressive  Dairyman  and  Ontario  Farmer)  that  invited  readers  to  participate.    Most  participants  entered  the  site  between  November  20,  2010  and  August  11,  2011  and  were  randomly  allocated  to  one  of  four  independent  groups  (Groups  1-­‐4).  This  approach  allowed  the  evaluation  of  potential  differences  between  groups  and  minimized  the  chance  that  particularly  persuasive  individuals  could  dominate  an  argument  (Henrich  and  Gil  White,  2001).  In  addition,  we  opportunistically  recruited  a  fifth  group  of  participants  at  the  farmer-­‐oriented  Western  Canadian  Dairy  Seminar  in  Red  Deer,  AB,  Canada  between  March  6-­‐9,  2012  to  increase  representation  of  views  from  people  within  the  dairy  industry  (Group  5).    5.2.2 Survey  design       Demographic  questions  classified  participants  on  the  basis  of  sex,  age,  education  level  and  country  of  origin  and  of  residence.  Participants  were  asked  to  describe  their  familiarity  (“Very  Familiar,”  “Somewhat  Familiar”  and  “Not  Familiar”)  with  dairy  production.  They  also  specified  if  they  had  no  involvement  in  the  dairy  industry  (e.g.     148  non-­‐industry  stakeholders),  or  if  involved  (e.g.  industry  stakeholders),  the  nature  of  their  involvement:  "Farmer  [e.g.  dairy  farmer,  operator  or  worker],"  "Veterinarian,"  “Student/Teacher  [e.g.  professor,  instructor  or  student  in  animal  or  veterinary  science],”  “Dairy  Industry  Professional  [e.g.  dairy  nutritionist,  researcher,  milking  equipment  dealer,  livestock  auction  employee],”  or  “Animal  Advocate  [e.g.  member  of  farm  animal  protection  organization].”       To  ensure  equal  access  to  the  same  basic  information,  participants  were  provided  with  the  following  background  on  cow-­‐calf  separation:    Dairy  farmers  often  remove  the  calf  from  the  cow  within  the  first  few  hours  of  birth.  This  is  done  in  response  to  several  concerns  including  the  following:  the  calf  may  become  infected  from  pathogens  carried  by  the  cow  or  her  environment;  the  calf  may  become  injured  by  the  cow  or  the  barn  equipment;  the  calf  will  not  be  able  to  nurse  from  the  cow  and  receive  adequate  colostrum  (first  milk  produced  by  the  cow  after  birth)  and  milk;  the  calf  will  drink  too  much  milk  which  increases  the  farmer’s  cost  of  feeding  and  increases  the  risk  of  diarrhoea;  allowing  the  cow  and  calf  to  bond  will  result  in  greater  separation  distress  when  separation  does  occur;  farms  are  often  not  well  designed  for  cow-­‐calf  pairs,  so  keeping  cows  and  calves  together  can  be  considered  an  extra  chore.    Others  consider  that  some  form  of  cow-­‐calf  contact  is  an  important  element  of  natural  behaviour,  and  believe  that  this  contact  is  beneficial  to  the  cow  and  calf.  On  these  farms  the  cow  and  calf  are  kept  together  for  days  or  even  weeks  after  birth.       Participants  were  then  asked  “Should  dairy  calves  be  separated  from  the  cow  within  the  first  few  hours  after  birth?”  and  could  respond,  “Yes,  because…”,  “No,  because….”,  or  “Neutral,  because…”.  Participants  were  able  to  explain  their  response  in  an  open  text  box  or  select  one  or  more  of  the  reasons  left  by  earlier  participants.  In  this  way,  the  number  of  yes,  no  and  neutral  responses  (quantitative  data)  was  recorded  along  with  the  reasons  for  the  responses  (qualitative  data).  An  added  benefit  to  this  approach  is  that  it  allowed  participants  to  see  and  respond  to  reasons  from  other     149  participants,  providing  participants  the  ability  to  reflect  upon  their  own  reasons  within  a  quasi-­‐social  context  (Danielson,  2010).     Reasons  were  displayed  in  a  list  format  typical  of  user  posts  on  a  web  forum.  The  number  of  reasons  accumulated  over  time  as  new  participants  joined  such  that  later  participants  could  view  a  larger  list  of  reasons  than  those  available  to  early  participants.  Within  each  group,  reasons  were  displayed  on  the  page  by  popularity  (according  to  votes)  to  inform  participants  about  any  emerging  social  consensus.  In  addition,  more  recent  reasons  were  also  displayed  near  the  top  to  counter  any  primacy  effect  (following  Danielson,  2010).       Participants  could  select  multiple  reasons,  but  for  analysis  each  selection  was  discounted  by  the  total  number  of  selections,  such  that  each  participant  contributed  a  single  vote  (e.g.  if  a  participant  selected  2  reasons,  0.5  “votes”  were  allocated  to  each  reason).    5.2.3 Quantitative  analysis     We  used  χ2  tests  to  test  the  effect  of  each  demographic  category  on  response  (yes,  no,  neutral).  This  test  requires  that  expected  frequencies  must  be  greater  than  5.  In  some  cases  this  requirement  was  not  met  due  to  the  low  proportion  of  neutral  votes;  in  these  cases  we  re-­‐ran  the  test  after  omitting  neutral  votes.  In  no  case  did  this  change  the  significance  of  the  results  presented  below.  5.2.4 Reason  analysis     Content  analysis  was  used  to  analyze  participant  reasons  (following  Coffey  and  Atkinson,  1996).  We  developed  a  coding  scheme  to  understand  the  central  themes  of     150  concern  raised  by  participants,  irrespective  of  participant  demographics.  This  process  began  by  reading  all  reasons  and  identifying  issues  (e.g.  repercussions  of  calf  not  receiving  enough  milk)  that  could  be  assigned  codes  (e.g.  calf  nutrition).  Reasons  were  then  reread  to  check  codes  for  consistency  and  altered  slightly  as  a  deeper  understanding  of  the  reasons  emerged.  Two  of  the  authors  (B.  A.  Ventura  and  C.  A.  Schuppli)  conducted  this  first  stage  independently.  We  compared  codes  to  evaluate  consistency;  initial  consistency  was  high.  Where  differences  arose,  we  discussed  our  interpretations  until  we  reached  a  mutually  consistent  coding  scheme  consisting  of  main  codes  and  sub-­‐codes,  subsequently  termed  “themes”  and  “subthemes.”    The  number  of  times  that  themes  were  referenced  was  counted.  A  theme  was  only  counted  once  within  each  reason,  regardless  of  how  many  times  it  was  referenced  within  that  reason.  Because  participants  from  different  demographic  groups  often  selected  the  same  reason,  the  analysis  focused  primarily  on  how  themes  were  used  within  each  response  category  (yes,  no,  neutral)  and  not  on  how  often  demographic  groups  used  certain  themes  in  their  reasons.  The  voices  of  the  participants  are  reflected  in  selected  quotations  that  capture  the  essence  of  the  participants’  concerns  for  each  theme.  Each  quotation  is  followed  by  the  number  of  times  that  other  participants  “voted”  for  that  reason.  Because  participants  could  select  multiple  reasons,  some  reasons  acquired  non-­‐integer  votes  (e.g.  “4.6”  times).  Letters  are  used  to  differentiate  any  reasons  that  were  selected  the  same  number  of  times,  so  that  each  bracket  also  serves  as  a  unique  reason  identifier  (e.g.  [1a]  and  [1b]  indicate  two  different  reasons  that  were  each  chosen  once).     151  5.3 Quantitative  results    5.3.1 Groups  1-­‐4     A  total  of  163  people  participated  in  Groups  1-­‐4  (range  38-­‐43  participants  per  group,  Table  5.1);  74%  were  female;  48%  were  between  the  ages  of  19-­‐29  and  21%  were  above  the  age  of  50;  64%  were  from  Canada  and  21%  from  the  United  States;  and  65%  had  attended  university  with  an  additional  27%  in  possession  of  at  least  some  graduate  education.  One  third  of  the  participants  were  academics  (students  or  teachers),  31%  had  no  involvement  with  dairy  farming,  13%  were  animal  advocates,  11%  farmers,  9%  veterinarians,  and  3%  dairy  industry  professionals.  Most  considered  themselves  either  somewhat  (43%)  or  very  (44%)  familiar  with  the  dairy  industry.         Overall,  43.6%  supported  early  separation  (chose  “yes”),  47.9%  were  opposed  (chose  “no”)  and  8.6%  were  “neutral”  (Table  5.1).  Decisions  varied  with  sex  (χ2=22.6785,  df=2,  p<0.0001),  age  (χ2=15.7037,  df=4,  p=0.0034),  education  (χ2=10.6916,  df=4,  p=0.0303),  nationality  (χ2=14.6812,  df=4,  p=0.0054),  involvement  (χ2=74.3550,  df=10,  p<0.0001)  and  familiarity  (χ2=32.7692,  df=4,  p<0.0001).  For  example,  support  for  early  separation  was  higher  among  males,  people  in  their  20’s,  people  with  graduate  education  and  participants  originating  from  the  U.S.  Participants  who  described  themselves  as  animal  advocates  or  with  no  involvement  with  the  dairy  industry  were  less  supportive  of  early  separation  than  veterinarians,  students  and  teachers,  farmers  and  dairy  professionals.  Support  for  early  separation  was  highest  among  participants  who  considered  themselves  very  familiar  with  dairy  production.       Most  (87%)  participants  chose  only  one  reason  in  support  of  their  views  (Table  5.1).  Participants  who  selected  multiple  reasons  were  always  consistent  in  their  yes,  no     152  or  neutral  responses  (i.e.  chose  either  all  supporting  or  all  opposing  reasons).  Within  each  group  (1-­‐4),  participants  were  divided  between  yes  and  no  decisions  (Table  5.1),  with  no  differences  in  vote  choice  between  groups  (χ2=9.5225,  df=6,  ns).  Table  5.1  Number  and  proportion  of  participants  (Groups  1-­‐4,  n=163)  who  supported  (“yes”),  opposed  (“no”)  or  were  “neutral”  to  early  cow-­‐calf  separation1     N     Yes  (%)   No  (%)   Neutral  (%)  Total  participants   163   43.6   47.9   8.6  Sex                  Female     117   31.6   57.3     11.1        Male     42   73.8   23.8   2.4  Age                19-­‐29     77   55.8   33.8     10.4      30-­‐49   50   32.0   56.0   12.0      50+     34   32.4   67.7   0.0  Country  of  Origin                  Canada     102   32.4   56.9     10.8        U.S.A     34   67.7   26.5   5.9        Other     24   54.2   41.7   4.2  Dairy  background                  Farmer     18   61.1   33.3     5.6        Veterinarian     15   100.0   0.0   0.0        Student/Teacher     54   63.0   22.2   14.8        Dairy  Professional   5   60.0   40.0   0.0        Animal  Advocate     21   4.8   95.2   0.0        No  Involvement     50   14.0   76.0   10.0  Familiarity                Very  Familiar   72   68.1   29.2   2.8        Somewhat  Familiar   70   24.3   61.4   14.3        Not  Familiar   21   23.8   66.7   9.5  Responses                Single     142   45.8   45.8   8.5      Multiple     21   28.6   61.9   9.5  Group                  1   39   38.5   56.4     5.1        2     43   41.9   55.8   2.3        3     38   39.5   47.4   13.2        4     43   53.5   32.6   14.0  1Responses  are  sorted  by  demographic  categories,  by  those  who  provided  a  single  vs.  multiple  responses  and  by  replicate  discussion  group  (Groups  1-­‐4).  Categories  with  <163  responses  resulted  if  some  participants  did  not  provide  demographic  information.     153  5.3.2 Group  5    Respondents  in  this  group  (n=28)  were  mostly  male  (64%)  and  directly  affiliated  with  the  industry  (e.g.  52%  farmers  and  industry  professionals;  see  Table  5.2  for  more  demographic  information).  Although  the  overall  level  of  support  for  early  separation  in  this  group  was  similar  to  Groups  1-­‐4,  there  were  more  neutral  responses  (and  consequently  fewer  opposing  responses,  Table  5.2).    Table  5.2  Number  and  proportion  of  industry-­‐targeted  participants  (Group  5,  n=28)  who  supported  (“yes”),  opposed  (“no”)  or  were  “neutral”  to  early  cow-­‐calf  separation1     N     Yes  (%)   No  (%)   Neutral  (%)  Total  participants   28   46.4   32.1   21.4  Sex                  Female     9   22.2   55.6   22.2        Male     16   56.3   18.8   25.0  Age                19-­‐29     8   37.5   25.0   37.5      30-­‐49   15   40.0   40.0   20.0      50+     2   100.0   0.0   0.0  Country  of  Origin                  Canada     20   45.0   30.0   25.0        U.S.A     3   66.7   0.0   33.3        Other     5   40.0   60.0   0.0  Dairy  background                  Farmer     11   63.6   18.2   18.2        Veterinarian     1   100.0   0.0   0.0        Student/Teacher     5   0.0   60.0   40.0        Dairy  Professional   3   33.3   33.3   33.3        Animal  Advocate     3   0.0   66.7   33.3        No  Involvement     4   100.0   0.0   0.0  Familiarity                Very  Familiar   17   52.9   23.5   23.5        Somewhat  Familiar   8   37.5   37.5   25.0        Not  Familiar   2   50.0   50.0   0  1  Responses  are  sorted  by  demographic  categories.  Categories  with  fewer  than  28  responses  resulted  from  some  participants  not  providing  demographic  information.         154  5.4 Qualitative  results  and  discussion    5.4.1 Group  differences     The  creation  of  separate  groups  allowed  the  evaluation  of  consistency  in  the  results  across  the  groups.  Although  groups  differed  in  participant  demographics,  they  were  similar  with  respect  to  the  number  of  reasons,  the  distribution  of  votes  and  the  major  themes.  Similarity  across  diverse  groups  suggests  that  these  themes  would  likely  also  emerge  in  other  samples  of  participants.  In  addition,  similarity  in  themes  across  groups  suggests  that  particularly  compelling  reasons  voiced  within  a  group  did  not  lead  to  idiosyncratic  outcomes.    Participants  in  Group  1-­‐4  provided  a  total  of  46  reasons  (10-­‐13  reasons  per  group)  averaging  52  words  in  length  (range  2  to  211).  Group  5  participants  provided  17  reasons  averaging  58  words  in  length  (17  to  144  word  range).  Votes  were  split  similarly  within  each  of  the  groups  and  all  groups  contributed  reasons  in  support  of  all  major  themes  identified.  5.4.2 Themes     Participants  raised  the  following  themes  (in  order  of  popularity):  cow  and  calf  emotions,  calf  health,  cow  health  and  production,  a  natural  life,  dissatisfaction  with  industry  motivations,  and  changeability  of  dairy  farming  structure  (Table  5.3).  Many  of  these  themes  incorporated  one  of  the  following  aspects  of  animal  welfare  (Fraser  et  al.,  1997):  biological  functioning  (calf  health,  cow  health  and  productivity),  subjective  experience  (cow  and  calf  emotions),  and  the  role  of  nature  (a  natural  life).  Cow  and  calf  emotions,  calf  health,  cow  health  and  production,  and  changeability  of  dairy  farming     155  structure  were  common  themes  among  all  types  of  responses;  thus,  although  opponents  and  supporters  reached  opposing  conclusions,  they  often  referenced  similar  issues  in  defending  their  stance  (Table  5.3).  Table  5.3  Reason  themes  and  sub-­‐themes  used  by  opponents  and  supporters  of  early  cow-­‐calf  separation       Theme   Sub-­‐themes   Description   Used  by  1)   Cow  and  calf  emotions     Emotional  life;  cow-­‐calf  bond;  stress   Awareness  of  the  emotional  lives  of  cows  and  calves;  references  to  the  bond  between  them;  concerns  about  how  and  when  severing  the  bond  could  create  stress.    Opponents  Supporters  Neutrals  2)   Calf  health   Health;  nutrition;  physical  safety   Beliefs  about  whether  early  separation  promotes  or  threatens  calf’s  ability  to  minimize  disease  risk,  obtain  adequate  colostrum  or  milk,  and  avoid  injury.    Opponents  Supporters  Neutrals  3)   Dairy  cow  health  and  production   Health;  production;  management   Beliefs  about  whether  early  separation  promotes  or  threatens  cow’s  health  (especially  related  to  udder  health);  efficiency  and  maximization  of  milk  production;  and  ease  of  management.  Opponents  Supporters  Neutrals  4)   A  natural  life   Reverence  for  nature;  natural  behaviour   Belief  that  nature  is  a  guide  in  evaluating  the  animals’  best  interest;  concerns  about  the  ability  to  express  natural  behaviours.  Opponents  Neutrals  5)   Dissatisfaction  with  industry  motivations   Dishonesty;  wrong  focus;  profit  motive   Disapproval  of  goals  and  motivations  of  dairy  producers;  beliefs  that  industry  focuses  on  profit  and  convenience  over  animal  welfare.  Opponents    6)   Changeability  of  dairy  farming  structure  Farm  design;  cost  burden   Beliefs  about  whether  farms  can  and/or  should  change  to  accommodate  cow-­‐calf  pairs.  Supporter  beliefs  often  underpinned  by  acceptance  of  status  quo  as  something  that  best  minimized  problems  in  an  unchangeable  system;  opponent  demands  for  change  often  supplemented  with  suggestions  to  shift  burden  of  cost  to  consumers.  Opponents  Supporters  Neutrals         156  1)   Cow  and  calf  emotions    The  most  common  theme  was  emotional  repercussions  for  the  cow  and  calf  as  a  result  of  separation.  Three  sub-­‐themes  were  identified:  a  general  awareness  that  cows  and  calves  have  an  emotional  life,  reference  to  the  bond  between  cow  and  calf,  and  concern  about  how  severing  that  bond  would  result  in  distress.  Opponents  of  early  separation  suggested  that  cows  have  feelings  and  that  cows  and  calves  enjoy  being  together  (e.g.  “she  has…[an]  emotional  investment  in  the  calf,”[4.6]).  This  concern  was  also  echoed  in  a  neutral  response:  “it  seems  like  an  awful  thing  to  have  to  do  and  I  would  ultimately  prefer  that  we  recognized  the  cows  as  sentient  beings...”  [1g].  Opponents  also  reasoned  that  “cows  benefit  by  forming  a  bond  with  their  calf…”  [12.3].  The  idea  of  severing  the  bond  provoked  strong  reactions,  in  part  because  the  cow-­‐calf  bond  was  seen  as  similar  to  the  human  mother-­‐child  relationship.  This  can  be  seen  in  the  use  of  language  like  “divorcing  or  orphanage  type  management”  [16.5]  and  “[the]  cow  being  a  mother  is  supposed  to  have  an  emotional  string  attached  to  her  calf…by  no  means  having  a  lesser  degree  of  recognition  compared  to  a  human  mother,”  [7.6].  Opponents  also  viewed  separation  as  stressful,  as  seen  in  statements  like  “immediate  separation  [would]  cause  a  grievous  trauma-­‐like  situation  for  both,”  [7.6].       Supporters  of  early  separation  also  voiced  concern  about  the  emotional  bond  and  acknowledged  that  separation  distress  was  “an  important  welfare  issue,”  [10.8].  However,  supporters  often  viewed  separation  as  inevitable  and  separation  distress  as  more  serious  the  longer  cow  and  calf  stayed  together.  Many  pointed  out,  “it’s  better  for  both  the  calf  and  the  mom  to  separate  sooner  because  otherwise  there  is  too  much  attachment,  and  it’s  very  hard  on  the  mother!”  [12].  This  view  is  consistent  with  scientific     157  literature  showing  that  the  cow-­‐calf  bond  develops  rapidly  and  strengthens  over  time  (as  reviewed  in  Flower  and  Weary,  2003),  such  that  cow  and  calf  distress  responses  escalate  when  separation  is  delayed  (after  4  days  vs.  6  hours  and  1  day,  Weary  and  Chua,  2000;  after  2  weeks  vs.  1  day,  Flower  and  Weary,  2001).  However,  there  has  been  little  research  to  investigate  the  positive  emotional  effects  of  prolonged  contact,  which  poses  challenges  to  meaningful  harm-­‐benefit  analysis  of  emotional  repercussions  of  separation.    2)   Calf  health  Concerns  about  calf  disease,  nutrition  (colostrum  and  milk  access),  and  injury  were  common.  Supporters  of  early  separation  tended  to  believe  that  physical  separation  protected  the  health  of  the  calf,  for  example,  “research  has  shown  it  benefits  calf  health,”  [17.3].  Another  supporter  suggested,  “the  calf  can  be  relocated  to  a  clean  housing  facility  where  it  will  not  be  exposed  to  the  various  diseases  commonly  found  in  maternity  areas,”  [2b].  This  relocation  was  valued  in  part  because  of  the  individual  care  made  possible,  but  more  importantly  because  it  provided  a  “means  to  break  disease  transmission,”  [6.5]  with  reduction  in  Johne’s  disease  (Mycobacterium  avium  subspecies  paratuberculosis)  most  often  mentioned.  Opponents  of  early  separation  expressed  skepticism  that  early  separation  reduced  disease  in  calves.  For  example,  a  popular  reason  suggested  that  early  separation  “does  not  work  in  preventing  disease;  current  methods  of  management  still  result  in  high  levels  of  disease  in  dairy  calves,”  [12.3].  It  is  unclear  from  the  comments  whether  opponents  believed  calf  health  could  be  effectively  managed  if  calves  were  not     158  separated  from  their  dams  or  if  they  did  not  consider  these  claims  sufficient  to  justify  early  separation  in  light  of  other  perceived  risks  to  cow  and  calf  welfare.       There  was  also  disagreement  on  whether  early  separation  was  effective  in  meeting  the  calf’s  needs  for  colostrum  and  milk.  Supporters  believed  that  early  separation  made  it  easier  to  deliver  and  monitor  colostrum  intake  (e.g.  “there  is  no  way  to  monitor  for  adequate  colostrum  intake  if  the  calf  nurses  freely,”  [3.3]).  Other  supporters  worried  about  the  repercussions  of  feeding  the  calf  if  separation  is  delayed:  “it’s  hard  to  feed  the  calf  after  they  get  used  to  feeding  from  the  mom,”  [12]  or  “a  cow  would  hold  her  milk…and  her  calf  cannot  drink  what  a  cow  has  in  her  udder,”  [4b].  Conversely,  opponents  reasoned,  “calves  benefit  from  the  care  they  receive  from  the  cow  (e.g.  by  better  access  to  milk  and  colostrum)…”  [12.3].  One  opponent  suggested  an  economic  incentive  for  allowing  the  calf  to  nurse:  “the  cow  produces  colostrum  which  isn’t  commercially  sale-­‐able  and  the  calf  should  have  free  access  to  this  for  the  first  couple  of  days  at  least,”  [1.3].    There  is  literature  to  support  both  opponent  and  supporter  perspectives  on  calf  health.  Cow-­‐calf  contact  appears  to  confer  many  benefits  for  calf  health  (EFSA,  2006):  it  has  been  shown  that  cows  stimulate  calves  and  encourage  earlier  meconium  expulsion  and  better  digestive  function  (Metz  and  Metz,  1986)  and  that  calves  show  improved  colostrum  absorption  (Selman  et  al.,  1970),  fewer  bouts  of  scours  (Weary  and  Chua,  2000),  and  greater  body  weight  gains  if  they  are  kept  with  the  cow  (Metz,  1987;  Flower  and  Weary,  2001).  More  generally,  a  number  of  studies  report  lower  morbidity  and  mortality  among  nursing  calves  than  among  separated  calves;  a  number  of  factors  including  milk  quality  and  quantity  could  account  for  these  differences  (Webster  et  al.,  1985;  Rajala  and  Castrén,  1995;  Krohn,  2001).  In  contrast,  other  work  suggests  a     159  harmful  effect  of  prolonged  contact:  calves  in  these  studies  were  at  greater  risk  for  failed  passive  transfer  (Wesselink  et  al.,  1999),  diarrhea  (Svensson  et  al.,  2003),  and  infection  by  the  bacterium  responsible  for  Johne’s  disease  (Marcé  et  al.,  2011).  As  Rushen  et  al.  (2008)  noted,  it  is  difficult  to  distinguish  if  effects  on  calf  health  are  attributable  to  the  act  of  separation  itself  or  to  subsequent  housing  and  management.  Regardless  of  whether  or  not  the  calf  is  with  the  mother,  it  is  critical  to  ensure  adequate  colostrum  intake  and  hygiene  (Frank  and  Kaneene,  1993;  Vasseur  et  al.,  2010).    3)   Cow  health  and  production  Participants  were  also  concerned  about  udder  health  and  milk  production.  Supporters  of  early  separation  expressed  concerns  about  the  lack  of  milk  letdown  causing  health  problems  for  the  cow  (i.e.  if  the  cow  became  accustomed  to  the  calf  sucking,  it  would  be  harder  to  trigger  milk  ejection  during  milking  time).  For  example,  some  suggested,  “the  farmers  then  have  to  use  oxytocin  on  the  cow  to  force  her  milk  to  come  out…Cows  can  get  very  sick  if  they  don’t  release  their  milk,”  [4b].  Early  separation  was  also  believed  to  reduce  the  risk  of  “teats  [being]  scraped  or  damaged  due  to  sucking...”  [1.3].       In  contrast,  opponents  believed  the  calf’s  presence  to  be  beneficial  to  the  cow’s  health  and  noted  that  “frequent  suckling  [helps  to]  prevent  mastitis  and  metritis,”  [12.3]  as  well  as  milk  fever.  Others  appeared  to  attribute  health  benefits  to  the  cow  having  avoided  the  emotional  distress  of  separation,  as  exemplified  by  the  comment:  “It  is  worth  consideration  as  to  how  much  adverse  effect  this  emotional  trauma  can  cause  to  the  physical,  medical  and  biological  health  and  efficiency  of  the  mother  in  terms  of  giving     160  milk,”  [7.6].  Or  as  another  participant  put  it,  “Allowing  the  cow  to  be  with  her  calf  certainly  keeps  her  happy  and  content.  I  believe  a  happy  cow  produces  more  milk,”  [1.5c].       In  this  case,  the  available  scientific  literature  tends  to  support  opponents:  suckling  has  been  reported  to  decrease  the  cow’s  retention  of  fetal  membranes  (Krohn  et  al.,  1990)  and  has  a  positive  effect  on  udder  health,  often  through  the  reduction  of  mastitis  (Krohn  et  al.,  1990,  1999;  as  reviewed  in  Krohn,  2001).  Further,  overall  milk  yield  is  not  reduced  by  the  presence  of  calves  (Metz,  1987;  Flower  and  Weary,  2001),  implying  that  cows  can  maintain  high  production  and  enjoy  the  health  benefits  associated  with  suckling.  Whether  positive  health  effects  are  also  attributable  to  the  cow’s  improved  emotional  health  is  less  clear.  We  were  unable  to  find  any  evidence  to  address  the  claim  that  suckling  is  an  actual  risk  for  teat  damage.    4)   A  natural  life  Opponents  often  cited  their  desire  for  a  more  natural  life  for  animals  either  because  of  inherent  benefits  of  nature,  or  because  a  natural  state  has  instrumental  benefits  in  performance  of  natural  behaviours.  Many  opponents  held  the  general  belief  that  cow-­‐calf  pairs  were  what  nature  intended.  For  example,  a  prevalent  view  was  that  “nature  tells  us  the  cow  is  born  to  enjoy  the  companionship  of  her  calf  for  a  certain  time  and  vice  versa...”  [16.5].  Hence  opponents  rejected  early  separation  in  part  because  “this  is  not  natural,”  [12.3].  Another  reason  suggested  that  early  separation  would  hinder  the  development  and  expression  of  natural  behaviours  in  the  calf:     161  As  cattle  are  social  animals,  the  establishment  of  socialization  behaviours  –for  example,  licking  and/or  grooming  and  the  self  confidence  toward  socialization—starts  at  early  life  of  the  animals  and  thus,  those  calves  separated  early  from  their  mothers  are  believed  to  have  low  socialization  and  [are]  more  stressed  when  mixed  later  with  group-­‐mates  in  a  pen.  Lastly…the  suckling  behaviour  which  has  a  great  impact  on  the  entire  life  of  the  calf  would  be  hijacked  by  the  early  cow-­‐calf  separation.  [16.5]       Opponent  views  on  this  theme  are  in  keeping  with  the  Farm  Animal  Welfare  Council’s  (1997)  recommendation  for  dairy  cattle  to  be  kept  in  environments  permissive  of  natural  behaviours.  It  is  clear  that  systems  that  allow  the  calf  to  be  kept  with  the  dam,  even  for  a  restricted  amount  of  time,  allow  expression  of  natural  maternal  behaviours  (reviewed  by  Krohn,  2001).  Maternal  rearing  also  has  important  consequences  for  the  calf’s  later  social  skills,  as  the  dam  is  an  important  social  model  for  the  calf  (Howery  et  al.,  1997;  Krohn  et  al.,  1999;  Flower  and  Weary,  2001).  For  example,  calves  raised  with  the  dam  show  decreased  fear  of  new  conspecifics  (with  4  days  of  maternal  contact,  Krohn  et  al.,  1999)  and  interact  more  with  other  calves  (with  2  weeks  of  contact,  Flower  and  Weary,  2001).    5)   Dissatisfaction  with  industry  motivations  Some  opponents  of  early  separation  also  expressed  dissatisfaction  with  what  they  perceived  to  be  the  dairy  industry’s  motivations.  For  example,  some  viewed  dairy  production  as  wrongly  prioritizing  practicality  or  productivity  over  animal  welfare  (e.g.  “I  think  [that]  early  cow-­‐calf  separation  is  practiced  for  the  purpose  of  reducing  labour  management  of  the  owner,  not  for  the  cow-­‐calf  well-­‐being,”  [16.5]).  Others  maintained  that  any  extra  effort  required  did  not  sway  their  opposition:  “I  know  that  keeping  the  cow  and  calf  together  [means]  extra  work  for  the  producers.  But  I  prefer  the  option  of  weaning  the  calf  slowly,  thinking  [of]  the  welfare  of  both  the  calf  and  cow,”  [5].  One  reason     162  contextualized  the  practice  of  early  separation  as  a  symptom  of  a  larger  problem:  “our  entire  system  of  agriculture  is  designed  around  productivity,  and  we’ve  lost  track  of  what’s  important,”  [1.6].    Some  opponents  considered  early  separation  to  be  unacceptable  because  it  is  a  profit-­‐driven  practice,  a  view  evident  from  language  such  as  “to  treat  a  cow  as  simply  a  money-­‐maker  is  callous,”  [4.6]  or  “excuses  to  exploit  the  animals  for  money,”  [2.8].  One  respondent  asked,  “Why  can’t  farmers  treat  the  very  thing  that  makes  them  so  much  money  with  some  respect,”  [0.5],  suggesting  a  moral  obligation  to  provide  cows  with  a  good  life  in  return  for  their  provision  of  milk  and  meat  (Rollin,  2010;  Janzen,  2011).    6)   Changeability  of  dairy  farming  systems  Finally,  beliefs  about  whether  dairy  farms  could  or  should  change  to  accommodate  cow-­‐calf  pairs  shaped  some  participants’  views  on  separation.  Some  supporters  tended  to  situate  the  issue  within  the  larger  context  of  current  production  systems,  where  early  separation  was  the  only  feasible  solution:  [Continued  contact]  is  probably  impossible  to  implement  in  most  dairies.  Dairy  farms  in  Canada  and  the  US  would  have  a  severe  limitation  of  space,  proper  housing  for  cows  and  calves  to  stay  together,  feeding  system  and  labor  in  order  to  try  such  a  change…In  this  case,  the  change  would  probably  lead  to  another  problem.  Looking  at  the  big  picture  from  an  entire  dairy  operation  point  of  view,  removing  the  calf  soon  after  birth  is  currently  the  practice  that  best  minimizes  the  possible  negative  consequences.  [10.8]    This  view  seemed  to  resonate  with  some  neutral  respondents  who  appeared  unable  to  decide  between  the  perceived  benefits  of  separation  and  impracticality  of  cow-­‐calf  pairs:  “given  the  present  circumstances  of  society  and  intensive  agriculture,  I  don’t  think  it  is  possible…on  the  other  hand  [if  evidence  shows  benefits  for  the  calf]...farming  units  should  be  built  to  accommodate  these  two  together,”  [1g].     163  In  contrast,  opponents  were  more  likely  to  believe  that  dairy  systems  could  be  changed  to  accommodate  both  producer  and  animal  needs.  One  reason  suggested,  “consideration  should  be  made  into  farm  design  that  accommodates  both  the  cow-­‐calf  relationship  and  production  efficiency,”  [2.3].  A  few  neutral  participants  also  reasoned,  “if  most  of  the  problems  around  leaving  the  cow  and  calf  together  are  a  matter  of  environment,  why  not  change  the  environment?”  [3c].    5.5 General  discussion  and  conclusions    5.5.1 Strengths  and  limitations  of  the  current  study     This  study  used  an  online  platform  that  enabled  diverse  stakeholders  to  share  their  views  on  the  issue  of  cow-­‐calf  separation.  One  advantage  of  this  approach  is  that  it  provides  a  rapid,  practical,  and  cost-­‐effective  way  of  reaching  and  collecting  information  from  diverse  groups  (Danielson,  2010).  Likewise,  the  use  of  mixed  stakeholder  groups  may  overcome  some  of  the  hurdles  (such  as  cost  and  organizational  barriers)  related  to  carrying  out  face-­‐to-­‐face  town  hall  meetings  or  focus  groups.  Though  we  collected  quantitative  data,  these  results  cannot  be  considered  representative  on  a  regional  or  national  scale,  nor  should  they  be  extrapolated  to  predict  participants’  behaviour  as  consumers  or  as  citizens.  Rather,  by  combining  quantitative  and  qualitative  response  options,  we  obtained  results  that  gave  a  sense  of  the  level  of  contention  generated  by  the  issue  of  cow-­‐calf  separation  along  with  the  reasoning  behind  these  diverse  views.    The  platform  did  not  require  participants  to  directly  engage  with  responses  from  previous  participants.  Although  many  participants  selected  reasons  authored  by  others,     164  showing  some  level  of  engagement,  some  likely  ignored  the  arguments  of  others  and  simply  entered  their  own  response.  Another  potential  limitation  of  this  approach  is  that  more  background  information  in  favor  of  early  separation  than  against  was  provided,  and  this  difference  may  have  biased  participant  responses  in  favor  of  support.  We  also  acknowledge  that  the  mere  provision  of  background  information  may  have  primed  or  constrained  participants.  However,  participants  introduced  new  issues  (e.g.  the  health  of  the  cow),  suggesting  that  the  provision  of  the  background  was  not  limiting.  We  encourage  future  work  to  consider  a  range  of  engagement  methods,  but  suggest  that  this  online  approach  of  collecting  open-­‐ended  responses  from  multiple  stakeholders  was  effective  in  describing  a  variety  of  themes  relevant  to  views  on  this  topic.    5.5.2 Bridging  industry  and  non-­‐industry  concerns     This  study  recruited  participants  within  and  outside  the  dairy  industry.  It  was  beyond  our  aim  to  fully  explain  differences  between  the  stakeholder  groups  who  took  part  in  the  study,  but  the  inclusion  of  the  5th  group  (consisting  primarily  of  individuals  closely  connected  to  the  dairy  industry)  provides  some  insight  into  how  views  differ  between  industry  and  non-­‐industry  stakeholders.  Producers  have  a  valuable  perspective  on  the  practices  that  prompt  ethical  debates  in  farming  (Driessen,  2012),  and  those  in  this  sample  often  showed  nuanced  reasoning  in  relating  how  they  decided  on  their  current  practice.  For  instance,  one  producer  acknowledged,  “I  end  up  varying  quite  a  bit  on  when  I  [wean]  calves.  I  falter  on  whether  it’s  more  beneficial  for  the  calf  to  get  that  initial  contact  with  the  cow…”  [1m].  Another  suggested,  “ideally  you  would  separate  them  physically  but  not  visually  for  24  hours  (and  then  remove  the  calf)…if  they  could  be  in  close  proximity  but  not  physical  contact,  then  that  would  help  the  cow  in  her     165  transition…”  [1n].  These  comments  illustrate  how  producers  are  well  positioned  to  formulate  creative  methods  of  management  that  address  the  competing  concerns.     Participants  with  close  ties  to  the  dairy  industry  and  who  expressed  their  support  of  early  separation  also  tended  to  evaluate  the  practice  within  the  larger  context  of  the  industry  and  viewed  this  issue  as  one  of  many  issues  to  balance.  In  contrast,  some  of  the  non-­‐industry  participants  may  have  been  less  able  to  see  the  ‘big  picture,’  perhaps  because  they  had  little  understanding  of  the  complexity  of  farming,  or  were  unwilling  to  make  some  trade-­‐offs  that  supporters  believed  were  required.  Further  work  is  needed  to  better  understand  how  the  connection  to  and  knowledge  of  the  dairy  industry  influences  views  on  such  practices  (see  Chapter  4),  but  perspectives  from  outside  the  dairy  industry  have  an  important  role  to  play  in  the  development  of  socially  sustainable  practices  (Boogaard  et  al.,  2008).    5.5.3 The  role  of  science  and  values  in  forming  solutions     We  also  compared  views  expressed  by  our  participants  to  the  scientific  research  on  cow-­‐calf  separation,  as  policy  makers  often  turn  to  science  to  address  social  concerns  about  animal  production.  In  some  situations,  disagreements  on  contentious  issues  can  be  resolved  by  applying  appropriate  scientific  research  (Croney  et  al.,  2012).  For  example,  Weary  et  al.  (2011)  found  that  supporters  of  tail  docking  often  expressed  the  belief  that  the  practice  improved  udder  health  and  cleanliness,  despite  abundant  evidence  showing  no  such  benefit  (see  Sutherland  and  Tucker,  2011).  This  finding  points  the  way  to  improved  extension  strategies  to  correct  this  misunderstanding  among  farmers,  which  will  ultimately  help  inform  a  change  in  practice  in  keeping  with  societal  concerns.       166     If  we  look  to  the  literature  on  cow-­‐calf  separation,  existing  research  on  effects  of  cow-­‐calf  contact  on  cow  health,  calf  social  development,  and  natural  behaviour  supports  prolonging  the  time  the  cow  and  calf  spend  together.  At  the  same  time,  the  literature  is  less  clear  on  effects  of  separation  on  calf  health,  while  findings  on  separation  distress  clearly  favor  swift  separation.  Resolving  this  issue  will  no  doubt  require  more  research  in  determining  when  and  how  separation  is  best  achieved  to  clarify  some  of  these  inconsistencies.  However,  scientific  efforts  that  address  just  one  area  of  concern  are  unlikely  to  be  considered  persuasive  by  participants  who  prioritize  other  issues.    A  key  finding  from  the  current  study  was  that  participants  on  both  sides  of  the  issue  raised  similar  concerns,  and  it  is  here  that  we  might  focus  to  find  ways  to  move  forward  on  this  issue.  For  example,  both  opponents  and  supporters  of  early  separation  expressed  concern  for  the  calf’s  well-­‐being,  suggesting  opportunities  for  practical  solutions  that  both  sides  may  be  able  to  live  with.  One  participant  suggested  that  changing  calf  management  may  help  resolve  some  concerns  around  early  separation:  “My  bigger  issue  is  that  calves  not  be  housed  individually  after  separation,  and  that  proper  management  skills  be  in  place  to  make  sure  that  calf  health  and  nutrition  is  not  compromised,”  [4].  This  type  of  suggestion  highlights  areas  of  compromise  that  might  be  implemented  fairly  rapidly;  social  housing  in  small  groups  can  meet  many  of  the  calf’s  social  needs  (De  Paula  Vieira  et  al.,  2010;  2012)  without  necessarily  compromising  health  (Losinger  and  Heinrichs,  1997;  Hänninen  et  al.,  2003).  Providing  social  housing  for  calves  would  not  address  all  the  issues  mentioned  above,  but  would  likely  be  considered  a  step  in  the  right  direction  by  some  of  the  opponents  in  this  study.       167  5.5.4 Summary     At  present,  it  seems  unlikely  that  science  alone  can  bridge  the  gaps  identified  in  the  current  study,  in  part  because  disagreements  are  rooted  in  value  differences  among  individuals  (Croney  et  al.,  2012).  Ultimately,  we  suggest  that  by  bringing  diverse  groups  together  in  a  common  forum,  engagement  efforts  like  the  one  described  here  serve  as  a  feedback  mechanism  and  highlight  areas  of  disagreement  that  policy  makers  may  need  to  address.  For  example,  it  appears  that  emotional  distress  and  calf  health  are  critical  areas  of  concern  around  cow-­‐calf  separation;  policy  that  addresses  only  one  concern  at  the  expense  of  the  other  is  likely  to  be  ill  received,  at  least  by  some  stakeholders.  Ultimately,  a  balanced  discussion  that  takes  into  account  multiple  perspectives  is  required  to  avoid  conflict  (Callon  et  al.,  2009);  from  there,  the  industry  will  be  able  to  better  understand  whether  (and  how)  to  change  certain  practices  to  better  align  with  the  values  of  multiple  stakeholders.               168  Chapter  6:   General  discussion  and  recommendations    6.1 Overview       This  thesis  aimed  to  provide  a  better  understanding  of  how  key  stakeholder  groups  perceive  and  value  the  welfare  of  dairy  cattle.  I  opened  with  a  review  of  farmer  and  other  industry  stakeholder  concerns  and  values  about  farm  animal  welfare  that  illustrated  a  pronounced  focus  on  biological  health  and  functioning  among  these  groups.  I  then  critiqued  the  framing  of  industry-­‐society  engagement  as  something  that  requires  the  industry  to  educate  the  public  in  order  to  resolve  concerns  about  farm  animal  care.  This  review  also  examined  the  values  and  concerns  of  lay  stakeholders  as  citizens,  showing  an  emphasis  on  natural  living.  The  chapter  closed  by  highlighting  the  lack  of  qualitative  approaches  to  these  questions,  including  how  North  American  stakeholders  value  the  welfare  of  dairy  cattle.     Chapter  2  described  the  animal  welfare  concerns  and  values  of  focus  group  participants  working  in  the  dairy  industry  as  farmers,  veterinarians,  researchers,  industry  leaders  and  service  providers.  Lameness  emerged  as  the  most  important  welfare  concern,  but  cow  comfort,  disease,  mortality,  poor  stockmanship,  painful  procedures,  calf  management  and  lack  of  behavioural  freedom  were  also  considered  priority  issues.  The  majority  of  these  issues  were  considered  important  due  to  pain  and  stress  on  the  animals.  Thus  this  research  demonstrated  areas  of  shared  concern  not  only  among  these  diverse  industry  groups  but  also  with  calls  from  the  broader  public  that  farm  animals  be  protected  from  pain  and  stress.       169  Chapter  3  sought  to  understand  the  challenges  industry  stakeholders  faced  in  their  work  to  ensure  good  animal  welfare  and  implement  their  desired  solutions  for  change.  I  again  used  focus  groups  for  this  study.  Despite  the  inclusion  of  participants  from  diverse  regulatory  and  economic  environments,  I  found  that  these  stakeholders  perceived  similar  challenges  to  animal  welfare—including  assessment  of  welfare,  external  regulations,  economic  barriers,  and  farmer-­‐,  veterinarian-­‐  and  researcher-­‐related  deficits  in  knowledge  and  self-­‐efficacy.  The  solutions  desired  by  all  participating  groups  (most  notably,  improved  education  for  farmers  and  veterinarians)  provides  policy  makers  with  a  list  of  strategies  that  may  stand  a  greater  chance  of  uptake.       Chapter  4  explored  the  perceptions  and  values  of  citizens  external  to  the  dairy  industry  through  the  use  of  surveys  before  and  after  a  visit  to  a  working  dairy  farm.  I  found  that,  like  the  industry  stakeholders  described  in  Chapters  2  and  3,  citizens’  values  were  often  multi-­‐dimensional  and  extended  beyond  the  three  spheres  described  by  Fraser  et  al.  (1997).  Moreover,  despite  becoming  more  knowledgeable  about  farm  practices,  these  values  persisted  after  visiting  the  farm.  In  some  cases  individuals  became  more  critical  of  dairy  farming,  in  part  because  they  became  aware  of  practices  of  which  they  had  no  previous  knowledge.     One  such  practice  is  the  early  separation  of  cow  and  calf.  This  practice  provided  a  compelling  case  study  to  explore  the  way  in  which  diverse  groups  interpret  contentious  issues  around  livestock  farming.  Chapter  5  used  an  online  town-­‐hall  forum  to  elicit  views  on  this  issue.  Supporters  and  opponents  of  this  practice  often  traced  their  reasoning  to  similar  core  issues,  suggesting  that  both  sides  may  be  able  to  live  with  certain  compromises  (such  as  more  comprehensive  health  care  and  nutrition  for     170  separated  calves  and  housing  calves  in  small  groups  to  address  concerns  about  emotionally  and  socially  barren  environments).    6.2 Success  and  limitations  of  research  6.2.1 Clarification  of  stakeholder  priorities  and  values       The  modernity  of  dairy  farming  today—and  the  framing  of  the  animal  welfare  issues  generated  by  it—has  created  an  interesting  juxtaposition  between  “progress,  convenience,  technological  innovation,  efficiency  and  prosperity”  and  “loss  of  traditions,  customs  and  values,”  (p.  261;  Boogaard  et  al.  2011a).  We  see  this,  for  example,  in  the  move  of  dairy  cattle  away  from  pasture  with  abundant  opportunities  for  behavioural  freedom  to  indoor  environments  that  provide  calibrated  access  to  feed  and  water,  protection  from  the  elements,  and  various  amenities  designed  with  the  animals’  comfort  in  mind  (automated  backscratchers,  to  take  one  example).  It  is  clear  that  this  juxtaposition  has  created  tension  between  and  among  the  stakeholder  groups  studied  in  this  thesis,  with  the  same  practices  valued  by  some  and  reviled  by  others.    In  general,  farmers  and  others  working  in  the  livestock  industries  seem  to  be  more  accepting  of  existing  practices  compared  to  citizens  outside  the  industry  (Maria,  2006;  Vanhonacker  et  al.,  2008).  It  has  been  suggested  that  this  gap  can  be  explained  by  a  divergence  in  values  of  the  different  groups.  My  research  suggests  that  this  is  true  to  a  certain  extent,  but  value  differences  are  probably  not  the  whole  story.  Indeed,  my  thesis  has  shown  that  value  emphases  are  variable,  not  just  between  these  diverse  groups  but  also  within  them.  It  is  becoming  clear  from  recent  research  (Spooner  et  al.,  2012,  2014a,b;  Silva  et  al.,  2013),  including  the  research  presented  in  this  thesis,  that  people  often  hold  multi-­‐   171  dimensional  values  around  animal  welfare  regardless  of  whether  or  not  they  work  with  livestock  industries.  It  also  seems  that  certain  values  are  stronger  and  more  prevalent  in  some  groups  than  others.  For  example,  dairy  farmers  and  veterinarians  prioritize  the  physical  health  and  functioning  of  animals.  Farmers  seem  to  have  more  context-­‐dependent  attitudes  to  pain  (particularly  shorter  term  procedural  pain  when  the  procedure  is  perceived  to  provide  other  benefits  to  the  animal),  but  veterinarians  and  others  within  the  industry  (like  researchers)  place  more  emphasis  on  alleviating  pain  regardless  of  the  cause.  Moreover,  even  among  farmers  there  exist  individuals  who  demonstrate  strong  concerns  for  pain  and  suffering  in  dairy  cattle.  Dairy  industry  stakeholders  are  more  likely  to  view  aspects  related  to  natural  living  (at  least  certain  elements  like  outdoor  and  pasture  access)  as  luxuries  rather  than  necessities  for  good  welfare,  but  lay  citizens  emphasize  natural  living  and  close  human-­‐animal  relationships  in  addition  to  good  health  and  functioning.    There  is,  of  course,  considerable  variation  even  within  stakeholder  groups.  Earlier  research  has  indicated  that  some  citizens  are  critical  of  animal  welfare  on  farms,  while  others  are  indifferent  (Vanhonacker  et  al.,  2008).  I  also  found  this  to  be  true  for  the  citizens  described  in  Chapter  4:  some  were  clearly  unconcerned  about  dairy  cattle  welfare,  while  others  were  ardent  critics  of  practices  in  dairy  farming.  Likewise,  some  farmers  appear  satisfied  with  current  levels  of  welfare  while  others  continually  strive  for  improvement  (Vetouli  et  al.,  2012).  Though  most  people  interviewed  in  the  focus  groups  described  in  Chapters  2  and  3  appeared  proactive  about  animal  welfare,  I  also  sampled  people  with  relatively  low  levels  of  concern.  These  differences  underscore  that  membership  in  a  given  stakeholder  category,  while  relevant,  may  be  superseded  by     172  other  factors.  I  conclude  that  we  must  take  a  holistic  view  when  trying  to  understand  what  informs  acceptance  or  rejection  of  contentious  issues  in  livestock  production.  Finally,  despite  the  differences  in  emphasis  on  animal  welfare  values  observed  between  industry  stakeholders  and  citizens,  I  observed  considerable  overlap  in  value  expression  among  the  stakeholders  sampled.  Notably,  the  farmers  and  veterinarians  in  Chapters  2  and  3  readily  discussed  animal  pain  and  suffering  and  the  need  to  minimize  it  (traditionally  understood  as  an  important  public  concern),  while  the  citizens  in  Chapter  4  spoke  of  biological  functioning  more  frequently  than  other  animal  welfare  values,  including  natural  living.  These  examples  suggest  that  there  is  more  common  ground  between  these  stakeholders  than  we  have  previously  acknowledged.  Indeed,  this  finding  may  be  the  most  promising  result  from  the  body  of  research  presented  in  this  thesis,  as  it  justifies  the  hope  that  the  dairy  industry  can  better  align  with  societal  values  for  animal  welfare.    6.2.2 Clarification  of  relationships  between  knowledge,  values,  and  acceptance  of  dairy  and  livestock  farming       Throughout  this  thesis  I  have  presented  arguments  and  evidence  that  the  informational  deficit  of  public  understanding  is  an  inappropriate  model  to  frame  relations  between  the  dairy  industry  and  the  public.  Chapter  4  demonstrated  that  learning  more  about  dairy  farming  did  not  always  translate  into  improved  perceptions  of  dairy  cattle  welfare.  Indeed,  learning  had  different  effects  depending  on  the  individual  in  question,  and  for  many  led  to  increased  concern.  Backfiring  effects  of  information  provision  have  also  been  shown  in  the  context  of  poultry  farming     173  (Bonamigo  et  al.,  2012).  In  light  of  this  evidence,  it  seems  unlikely  that  ‘educating  the  public’  will  meaningfully  address  animal  welfare  concerns.  What  makes  the  shift  away  from  this  model  challenging  (at  least  from  an  academic  standpoint)  is  that  demographic  factors  related  to  knowledge  are  also  associated  with  attitudes  towards  farming  practices.  For  example,  there  is  evidence  that  those  who  live  in  rural  areas,  or  who  grew  up  on  farms,  are  more  accepting  of  modern  farming  practices  than  are  people  unaffiliated  with  these  environments.  Boogaard  et  al.  (2011a)  showed  that  Dutch  respondents  who  grew  up  and  still  lived  in  rural  areas,  along  with  those  with  agricultural  work  experience,  were  most  satisfied  with  the  effects  of  modern  methods  of  dairy  production  (taking  into  account  not  only  animal  welfare  but  also  landscape  and  community  impacts).  Moreover,  these  groups  were  more  likely  to  accept  modern  technology  as  a  tradeoff  for  the  reduction  in  naturalness  in  dairying.       People  with  rural  and  agricultural  connections  also  tend  to  have  more  expertise  on  these  issues  (see  Driessen,  2012;  Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning,  2013),  particularly  on  the  day-­‐to-­‐day  operational  aspects  of  running  a  farm.  However,  given  the  evidence  described  in  this  thesis,  I  believe  it  is  mistaken  to  conclude  that  this  demographic  is  more  accepting  because  they  are  more  knowledgeable.  I  hypothesize  that  what  makes  those  with  rural  and  agricultural  backgrounds  more  accepting  of  livestock  farming  is  not  so  much  knowledge  but  culture—specifically,  the  cultural  environment  in  these  communities  that  rewards  expression  of  certain  values  over  others.       Dan  Kahan  has  explored  the  effect  of  the  ‘in  group’  cultural  environment  on  perceptions  of  risk  and  acceptance  (or  rejection)  of  a  given  issue  (Kahan  and  Slovic,  2006;  Kahan,  2012).  I  believe  this  idea  may  help  to  better  understand  farmer  responses     174  to  citizen  concerns.  From  this  perspective,  citizen  critiques  of  farm  animal  welfare  can  prompt  farmers  to  band  together  against  a  perceived  external  threat.  Kahan  aptly  described  this  as,  “if  you  are  one  of  us,  believe  this;  otherwise  we’ll  know  you  are  one  of  them,”  (p.  255;  Kahan,  2012).  This  then  could  lead  to  farmers’  evaluations  of  “agricultural  practices  not  entirely  on  the  practices’  own  merits  or  faults,  but  rather  through  a  lens  of  whether  the  practice  was  seen  as  ‘under  attack,”  (p.  398;  Cardoso  and  James,  2012).  This  explanation  lends  context  for  Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning’s  (2013)  findings  that  despite  engaging  in  prolonged  frame  reflection,  Dutch  pig  farmers  failed  to  dislodge  from  their  original  (uncritical)  stances  on  their  farming  practices,  even  in  the  face  of  concerns  from  citizens  who  had  “a  reasonable  understanding  of  farm  practices,”  (p.1022,  Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning,  2013).     This  type  of  response  indicates  that  people  with  different  cultures  (and  therefore,  different  values)  draw  different  conclusions  from  the  same  evidence,  not  because  they  are  irrational  but  perhaps  because,  as  Kahan  argued,  they  are  “too  rational—at  filtering  out  information  that  would  drive  a  wedge  between  themselves  and  their  peers,”  (Kahan,  2012).  In  this  way,  farmers  avoid  the  social  cost  associated  with  expressing  a  different  view  from  their  peers.  Following  this  line  of  reasoning,  frame  reflection  exercises  with  farmers  may  be  more  successful  if  farmers  are  not  tested  in  their  social  group.  Finally,  when  looking  to  how  the  public  interprets  information  about  livestock  farming,  Kahan  (2012)  provided  further  clarity  for  why  lay  citizens  are  more  critical  overall;  because  their  cultural  identity  is  not  wrapped  up  in  how  they  evaluate  farming,     175  they  are  freer  to  evaluate  and  critique  the  system  independent  of  their  personal  interests.    6.2.3 Addressing  limitations     How  relevant  are  my  results  beyond  the  individuals  sampled?  Given  the  nature  of  my  work,  I  used  convenience  and  purposive  sampling  to  recruit  my  participants.  As  such,  my  data  cannot  be  considered  representative  of  broader  populations,  but  I  would  argue  that  this  is  rarely  the  goal  of  qualitative  research.    I  accept  that  one  of  the  challenges  facing  qualitative  researchers  is  accessing  the  opinions  of  those  who  would  not  otherwise  talk  to  us  (Groger  et  al.,  1999).  My  approach  to  this  challenge  was  to  specifically  target  individuals  who  were  already  interested  in  dairy  cattle  welfare.  This  was,  in  one  respect,  a  matter  of  practicality  in  deference  to  the  barriers  of  reaching  busy  and  often  hard-­‐to-­‐reach  individuals.  By  recruiting  at  conferences,  for  example,  I  was  able  to  access  a  geographically  diverse  range  of  people  who  otherwise  would  have  taken  months  to  organize  into  group  discussions.  These  sampling  strategies  were  also  a  matter  of  intent,  as  so  little  is  known  about  the  constructs  I  was  interested  in  among  North  Americans.  It  thus  made  sense  to  start  with  individuals  who  likely  held  more  developed  views  on  these  topics.  The  information  gathered  from  these  people  is  also  of  interest  because  the  voices  of  those  most  interested  in  controversial  issues  are  often  those  who  construct  and  frame  debates.  In  addition,  the  repetition  in  themes  across  groups  drawn  from  diverse  regions,  as  demonstrated  in  Chapter  3,  suggest  that  at  least  some  of  the  core  issues  of  concern  may  be  transferable  to  other  stakeholders  within  the  dairy  (and  cattle)  industries.         176  I  was  also  interested  in  the  broader  question  of  how  best  to  engage  people  about  farm  animal  welfare,  and  thus  used  a  variety  of  methodologies.  This  range  of  methods  can  be  used  to  cross  validate  important  findings,  but  each  of  the  methods  used  have  different  benefits  and  drawbacks.       The  focus  groups,  for  example,  were  used  to  elicit  responses  grounded  in  the  complicated  reality  of  farming  amidst  competing  agendas  and  concerns.  Sitting  farmers  next  to  researchers  and  veterinarians  was  reflective  of  the  diverse  set  of  experts  working  within  the  dairy  industry  who  often  hold  different  perspectives.  My  hope  was  to  elicit  frank  responses,  since  participants  were  assumed  to  be  among  peers  and  thus  theoretically  more  comfortable  sharing  their  opinions.  Efforts  were  also  made  to  establish  ground  rules  for  discussion  so  that  respectful  dissenting  opinions  could  be  voiced  in  a  safe  space.  That  individuals  who  disagreed  with  the  group  did  speak  up  indicates  that  our  efforts  were  at  least  partially  successful.  That  said,  I  do  not  know  if  this  was  reflective  of  the  force  of  their  individual  personalities  or  if  they  truly  felt  safe  in  voicing  dissent.  One  obvious  weakness  in  the  design  of  the  heterogeneous  focus  groups  was  the  lack  of  comments  from  the  graduate  student  participants,  who  may  have  felt  intimidated  by  the  farmers  and  more  senior  academics.  Ensuring  that  at  least  two  graduate  students  were  allocated  to  each  group  may  have  encouraged  more  commentary  from  this  group.  Finally,  the  magnitude  of  agreement  on  major  issues  suggests  that  our  efforts  to  foster  discussion  amongst  peers  may  also  have  generated  increased  pressure  to  conform  to  the  group.       A  strength  of  focus  groups,  like  any  in-­‐person  interview,  was  the  ability  to  clarify  participant  comments  or  follow  up  with  them  on  interesting  lines  of  discussion.  I  also     177  found  the  focus  group  interactions  to  be  useful  in  themselves,  as  they  allowed  people  working  in  the  dairy  industry  to  interact  with  each  other  on  the  topic  of  animal  welfare.  I  advocate  for  this  approach  as  a  useful  form  of  engagement  for  the  industry.  Farm  visits,  on  the  other  hand,  are  not  likely  to  change  the  views  of  people  who  are  not  part  of  the  dairy  industry,  but  these  might  be  useful  in  conjunction  with  other  forms  of  engagement  like  that  described  in  Chapter  5.  Engaging  people  through  online  surveys  have  been  shown  to  reach  more  diverse  participants  than  other  survey  methods  (Gosling  et  al.,  2004).  6.3 Forward  paths:  recommendations  and  next  steps  6.3.1 For  the  farmer     There  exists  a  community  around  farmers  ready  to  support  them  in  their  work.  I  suspect  some  of  the  hesitancy  expressed  by  some  participant  farmers  to  access  this  network  stems  from  the  concern  that  there  is  insufficient  respect  for  the  constraints—economic  and  otherwise—faced  in  their  daily  work.  The  comments  from  veterinarians  and  researchers  in  Chapter  3  indicate  that  they  do  have  a  healthy  respect  for  these  constraints.  These  participants  also  displayed  a  desire  to  work  with  farmers  to  navigate  through  the  identified  barriers.  I  encourage  farmers  to  form  stronger  alliances  with  these  groups  and  be  more  vocal  about  their  needs.  Researchers  and  veterinarians  in  turn  need  to  remain  committed  to  helping  foster  connections  and  networks  among  farmers.  The  potential  for  peer-­‐peer  learning  seems  especially  strong  given  the  support  I  observed  in  the  focus  groups  described  in  Chapter  3.  Actions  that  capitalize  on  the  willingness  of  farmers  to  learn  from  each  other,  whether  through  benchmarking  (von  Keyserlingk  et  al.,  2012)  or  more  directly  through  community  projects  modeled  after     178  farmer  stable  schools  (Vaarst  et  al.,  2007),  seem  to  be  a  promising  avenue  for  continued  improvement  in  practice.    As  for  specific  welfare  issues  in  the  dairy  industry,  farmers  need  to  do  a  better  job  of  preventing  and  controlling  the  pain  experienced  by  their  animals.  Some  causes  of  pain  are  harder  to  address  (e.g.  chronic  ailments  like  lameness  and  metritis)  than  others  (e.g.  procedural  pain  due  to  castration,  disbudding  and  dehorning).  In  some  cases  the  solutions  are  clear;  for  example,  painful  surgical  procedures  like  dehorning  should  always  include  appropriate  anaesthetics  and  analgesics.  This  thesis  has  demonstrated  that  pain  control  is  a  broadly  held  value  among  stakeholders  and  I  argue  that  farmers  must  ensure  that  pain  mitigation  is  used  consistently  and  appropriately  on  their  farms.    6.3.2 For  the  dairy  industry     Kahan  (2012)  traced  the  root  of  science  debates  between  society  and  experts  to  a  “polluted  science-­‐communication”  environment  with  sides  pitted  against  one  another  and  unable  to  truly  engage  on  the  issues.  To  a  large  extent  I  have  seen  this  apply  to  how  dairy  industry  and  lay  stakeholders  interact  on  the  subject  of  animal  welfare.  Before  we  can  realistically  address  the  critiques  of  how  dairy  cattle  are  cared  for  on  farms  in  Canada  and  the  US,  we  must  change  the  environment  in  which  these  debates  take  place.  We  must  encourage  a  sustained  commitment  from  both  industry  and  lay  stakeholders  to  reframe  their  approach  to  this  debate,  but  I  think  the  dairy  industry  must  take  the  lead  here.    Increased  transparency  from  the  livestock  sectors  will  help  reduce  the  gap  between  those  in  favor  of  current  practices  and  those  in  favor  of  reform.  This  may  seem     179  counterintuitive  in  the  face  of  Chapter  4’s  conclusion  that  farm  visits  can  make  people  more  critical  of  dairy  farming.  However,  those  who  work  with  livestock,  and  especially  those  in  decision-­‐making  capacities,  cannot  decry  public  ignorance  about  farming  in  one  breath  while  supporting  efforts  to  greenwash  (or  rather,  “welfarewash,”  i.e.  engaging  “in  symbolic  communications  of  [issues]  without  substantially  addressing  them  in  actions,”  [p.  227,  Walker  and  Wan,  2012])  practices  on  the  other.  For  example,  marketing  efforts  to  depict  “happy  cows”  on  green  pasture  position  dairy  farming  as  something  it  is  not  (see  the  California  Milk  Board’s  “Great  Cheese  Comes  from  Happy  Cows”  campaign,  Sherman,  2002).  This  approach  constructs  an  unrealistic,  narrow  vision  of  dairying  and  may  backfire  because  it  positions  the  majority  of  current  dairy  farming  systems  as  insufficient.    There  was  an  interesting  public  relations  campaign  by  Domino’s  pizza  a  few  years  ago  in  which  they  responded  to  widespread  consumer  criticism  of  their  product  in  the  following  way:  they  heard  the  critiques,  they  announced  that  these  critiques  resonated  with  them,  and  they  went  back  to  the  drawing  board  to  change  their  recipes  (Ellett,  2011).  Perhaps  the  dairy  industry  could  apply  a  similar  model.  It  is  crucial,  however,  to  note  that  transparency  by  itself  will  not  solve  the  industry’s  problems.  Transparency  should  be  the  first  of  a  multi-­‐step  process  that  culminates  in  productive  two-­‐way  communication.  The  dairy  industry  risks  much  if  it  continues  to  defend  practices  that  fail  to  resonate  with  broadly  held  societal  values.  Instead,  the  industry  should  work  to  hear—and  respond  to—the  comments  that  result  from  this  openness.  ‘Closing  the  doors’  only  provokes  reactions  that  there  is  something  worth  hiding.  As  Chapter  4  demonstrated,  providing  knowledge  will  not  in  itself  resolve  concerns,  but     180  will  allow  for  informed  discussions  that  could  be  used  to  decide  where  the  industry  needs  to  change.  Listening  to  the  voices  of  stakeholders,  including  those  external  to  the  industry,  will  enable  the  industry  to  anticipate  current  and  future  animal  welfare  issues.  It  will  also  give  the  industry  a  chance  to  highlight  its  successes  and  underline  values  that  are  shared  with  society,  providing  a  solid  foundation  for  conversations  about  more  contentious  issues.  6.3.3 For  the  researcher     The  research  described  in  this  thesis  is  the  first  step  in  what  I  hope  will  be  a  series  of  future  projects  to  better  understand  stakeholder  priorities  around  farm  animal  welfare  in  North  America.  I  would  like  to  see,  for  example,  an  expansion  of  the  citizen  farm  visit  study  described  in  Chapter  4  to  an  online  platform.  The  in-­‐person  farm  visit—though  irreplaceable  in  terms  of  providing  a  fully  immersive  experience—is  not  a  viable  engagement  strategy  if  the  goal  is  to  reach  large  numbers  of  people.  To  complement  this  approach,  I  encourage  the  use  of  Amazon  Mechanical  Turk  or  similar  crowd-­‐sourcing  online  recruitment  tools  to  explore  similar  concepts  among  lay  citizens,  with  virtual  tours,  photographs,  or  other  forms  of  information  provision  replacing  the  farm  tour.  Such  an  approach  would  allow  us  to  test  how  different  types  of  media  frame  perceptions  and  concerns  about  livestock  agriculture  and  thus  inform  future  engagement  strategies.  Crowd  sourcing  would  also  generate  larger  sample  sizes,  providing  more  power  to  detect  how  farm  animal  welfare  values  and  other  factors  of  interest  may  predict  how  people  respond  to  farming  systems.    With  the  exception  of  the  online  tool  to  understand  conflicts  around  cow-­‐calf  separation  in  Chapter  5,  the  research  described  in  this  thesis  did  not  engage  industry     181  and  non-­‐industry  stakeholders  in  discussions  together.  This  is  a  logical  next  step  if  we  are  to  realistically  address  the  lack  of  inter-­‐stakeholder  dialogue  and  polarization  of  values  on  farm  animal  welfare.  There  are  a  variety  of  ways  to  bring  these  groups  together,  but  in  my  view  frame  reflection  (as  described  by  Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning  (2013)  provides  a  particularly  compelling  approach.  This  methodology  asks  disparate  groups  to  “put  themselves  in  the  others’  shoes,”  which  ultimately  allowed  citizens’  frames  of  reference  to  become  more  differentiated  and  inclusive  of  farmers’  values.  To  my  knowledge,  this  approach  has  not  yet  been  explored  in  Canada  or  the  US  with  respect  to  farm  animal  welfare.  This  approach  may,  in  the  words  of  Benard  and  de  Cock  Buning  (2013)  help  develop  a  “shared  vision”  for  the  future  of  animal  husbandry.    6.4 Conclusion     The  research  presented  in  this  thesis  has  used  qualitative  and  mixed-­‐method  approaches  to  engage  dairy  industry  and  lay  stakeholders  on  their  perceptions,  concerns  and  values  relative  to  the  welfare  of  dairy  cattle.  My  work  has  identified  areas  of  overlap  and  disconnect  between  societal  and  industry  concerns,  highlighted  the  relevance  of  values  in  informing  support  of  contentious  practices,  and  identified  promising  resolution  strategies  desired  by  diverse  stakeholders  in  the  dairy  industry.  Overall,  this  research  provides  greater  clarity  on  which  standards  and  practices  are  likely  to  resonate  with  societal  values  while  remaining  realistic  for  farmers.  Continued  commitment  to  open  engagement  between  and  among  industry  stakeholders  and  interested  members  of  society  is  recommended  to  allow  the  industry  to  improve  welfare  on  farms.         182  References    AAFC.  2011.  Socially  conscious  consumer  trends:  Animal  welfare.  International  Markets  Bureau,  Agriculture  and  Agri-­‐Food  Canada  (AAFC),  Ottawa,  Canada.    Aerts,  S.  2013.  The  consumer  does  not  exist:  overcoming  the  citizen/consumer  paradox  by  shifting  focus.  Pages  172-­‐175  in  The  Ethics  of  Consumption:  The  citizen,  the  market  and  the  law.  H.  Rocklinsberg  and  P.  Sandin,  eds.    11th  Cong.  Eur.  Soc.  Agric.  Food  Ethics  (Eursafe),  Uppsala,  Sweden.      Ahmad,  R.,  J.  Bailey,  G.  Bornik,  P.  Danielson,  H.  Dowlatabadi,  E.  Levy,  and  H.  Longstaff.  2006.  A  web-­‐based  instrument  to  model  social  norms:  NERD  design  and  results.  Integr.  Assess.  Bridg.  Sci.  Policy.  6:9-­‐36.    Ajzen,  I.  2001.  Nature  and  operation  of  attitudes.  Annual  Rev.  Psychol.  52:27–58.    Ajzen  I.,  and  M.  Fishbein.  1980.  Understanding  Attitudes  and  Predicting  Social  Behaviour.  Prentice  Hall,  New  Jersey.    Ajzen,  I.,  and  T.  J.  Madden.  1986.  Prediction  of  goal-­‐directed  behaviour:  Attitudes,  intentions,  and  perceived  behavioural  control.  J.  Exp.  Soc.  Psychol.  22:453-­‐474.    Albrecht,  T.  L.,  G.  M.  Johnson,  and  J.  B.  Walther.  1993.  Understanding  communication  processes  in  focus  groups.  Pages  51-­‐64  in  Successful  Focus  Groups:  Advancing  the  State  of  the  Art.  D.  L.  Morgan,  ed.  Sage,  Newbury  Park,  CA.    AWI.  2011.  Fact  sheet:  Consumer  perceptions  of  farm  animal  welfare.  Animal  Welfare  Institute  (AWI).  https://awionline.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/fa-­‐consumer_perceptionsoffarmwelfare_-­‐112511.pdf.    AVMA.  2013.  State  Summary  Report:  State  laws  governing  elective  surgical  procedures.  American  Veterinary  Medical  Association  (AVMA).  Accessed  Mar.  26,  2014.  https://www.avma.org/  Advocacy/StateAndLocal/Pages/sr-­‐elective-­‐procedures.aspx.    Bem,  D.  J.  1970.  Beliefs,  Attitudes  and  Human  Affairs.  Brooks/Cole  Publishing  Co.,  Monterey,  CA.      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.  26:1015-­‐1036.      Blayney,  D.  2002.  The  changing  landscape  of  U.S.  milk  production.  USDA  Statistical  Bulletin  No.  SB-­‐978.  US  Department  of  Agriculture  Economic  Research  Service,  Washington,  DC.       183  Bigras-­‐Poulin,  M.,  A.  H.  Meek,  and  S.  W.  Martin.  1984/5.  Attitudes,  management  practices,  and  herd  performance—a  study  of  Ontario  dairy  farm  managers.  II.  Associations.  Prev.  Vet.  Med.  3:241-­‐250.    Bock,  B.,  and  M.  Van  Huik.  2007.  Animal  welfare:  The  attitudes  and  behaviour  of  European  pig  farmers.  Brit.  Food  J.  109(11):931-­‐944.      Bock,  B.  B.,  P.  Swagemakers,  E.  Jacobsen,  and  P.  Ferrari.  2010.  Dialogue  between  farmers  and  experts  regarding  farm  animal  welfare.  Farmers’  Juries  in  Norway,  the  Netherlands  and  Italy.  Welfare  Quality  Reports  no.  17.  Cardiff  University,  Cardiff,  UK.    Bonamigo,  A.,  C.  B.  Dos  Santos  Silva  Bonamigo,  and  C.  F.  Maiolino  Molento.  2012.  Broiler  meat  characteristics  relevant  to  the  consumer:  Focus  on  animal  welfare.  Revista  Brasileira  De  Zootecnia-­‐  Braz.  J.  Anim.  Sci.  41(4):1044–1050.    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(1-­‐2):13-­‐22.      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(1):24-­‐33.      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.  Soc.  Agric.  Food.  17:24-­‐50.    Boogaard,  B.  K.  ,  B.  B.  Bock,  S.  J.  Oosting,  J.  S.  C.  Wiskerke,  and  A.  J.  van  der  Zijpp.  2011a.  Social  acceptance  of  dairy  farming:  The  ambivalence  between  the  two  faces  of  modernity.  J.  Agric.  Environ.  Ethics.  24:259-­‐282.    Boogaard,  B.  K.,  J.  S.  Boekhorst,  J.  Oosting,  and  T.  Sørensen.  2011b.  Socio-­‐cultural  sustainability  of  pig  production:  Citizen  perceptions  in  the  Netherlands  and  Denmark.  Livest.  Sci.  140(1-­‐3):189-­‐200.      Borgen,  S.  O.,  and  G.  A.  Skarstad.  2007.  Norwegian  pig  farmers'  motivations  for  improving  animal  welfare.  Brit.  Food  J.  109(11):891-­‐905.      Brannen,  J.  2005.  Mixing  methods:  The  entry  of  qualitative  and  quantitative  approaches  into  the  research  process.  Int.  J.  Soc.  Res.  Method.  8(3):173-­‐184.      Brom,  F.  W.  A.  2000.  Food,  consumer  concern  and  trust:  food  ethics  for  a  globalizing  market.  J.  Agric.  Environ.  Ethics.  12:127–139.    Broom,  D.  M.  1991.  Animal  welfare:  concepts  and  measurement.  J.  Anim.  Sci.  69:4167-­‐4175.     184  Callon,  M.,  P.  Lascoumes,  and  Y.  Barthe.  2009.  Acting  in  an  Uncertain  World:  An  Essay  on  Technical  Democracy.  MIT  Press,  London.      Capper,  J.  L.,  R.  A.  Cady,  and  D.  E.  Bauman.  2009.  The  environmental  impact  of  dairy  production:  1944  compared  with  2007.  J.  Anim.  Sci.  87:2160–2167.    Capner,  C.  A.,  B.  D.  X.  Lascelles,  and  A.  E.  Waterman-­‐Pearson.  1999.  Current  British  veterinary  attitudes  to  perioperative  analgesia  for  dogs.  Vet.  Rec.  145:95-­‐99.    Cardoso,  S.  P.,  and  H.  S.  James.  2012.  Ethical  frameworks  and  farmer  participation  in  controversial  farming  practices.  J.  Agric.  Environ.  Ethics.  25(3):377-­‐404.      Carey,  M.  A.,  and  M.  W.  Smith.  1994.  Capturing  the  group  effect  in  focus  groups:  A  special  concern  in  analysis.  Qual.  Health  Res.  4:123-­‐127.    Castle,  D.,  and  K.  Culver.  2006.  Public  engagement,  public  consultation,  innovation  and  the  market.  Integr.  Assess.  J.  6:137-­‐152.    CFI.  2008.  Consumer  Trust  in  the  Food  System.  Center  for  Food  Integrity  (CFI),  Kansas  City,  MO,  USA.    Chapinal,  N.,  D.  M.  Weary,  L.  Collings,  and  M.  A.  G.  von  Keyserlingk.  2014.  Lameness  and  hock  injuries  improve  on  farms  participating  in  an  assessment  program.  Vet.  J.  202:646-­‐648.    Coe,  J.  B.,  C.  L.  Adams,  and  B.  N.  Bonnett.  2007.  A  focus  group  study  of  veterinarians’  and  pet  owners’  perceptions  of  the  monetary  aspects  of  veterinary  care.  J.  Am.  Vet.  Med.  Assoc.  231:1510-­‐1518.    Coffey,  A.,  and  P.  Atkinson.  1996.  Concepts  and  coding.  Pages  26-­‐53  in  Making  Sense  of  Qualitative  Data:  Complementary  Research  Strategies.  A.  Coffey  and  P.  Atkinson,  eds.  Sage,  Thousand  Oaks,  California.    Cone,  T.  2009.  Schwarzenegger  Saves  Cow  Tails,  Bans  Tail  Docking.  Huffington  Post.  Accessed  Feb.  5,  2014.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/schwarzenegger-­‐saves-­‐cow_n_318980.html?view=print&comm_ref=false.  Croney,  C.  C.,  and  R.  D.  Reynnells.  2008.  The  ethics  of  semantics:  do  we  clarify  or  obfuscate  reality  to  influence  perceptions  of  farm  animal  production?  Poult.  Sci.  87:387-­‐391.    Croney,  C.  C.  2010.  Words  matter:  Implications  of  semantics  and  imagery  in  framing  animal-­‐welfare  issues.  J.  Vet.  Med.  Ed.  37:101-­‐106.    Croney,  C.  C.,  and  N.  A.  Botheras.  2010.  Animal  welfare,  ethics  and  the  U.S.  dairy  industry:  Maintaining  a  social  license  to  operate.  Tri-­‐State  Dairy  Nutr.  Conf.,  April  20-­‐21.       185    Croney,  C.  C.,  M.  Apley,  J.  L.  Capper,  J.  A.  Mench,  and  S.  Priest.  2012.  Bioethics  symposium:  The  ethical  food  movement:  What  does  it  mean  for  the  role  of  science  and  scientists  in  current  debates  about  animal  agriculture?  J.  Anim.  Sci.  90(5):1570-­‐82.      Cross,  R.  M.  2005.  Exploring  attitudes:  The  case  for  Q  methodology.  Health  Educ.  Res.  20(2):206-­‐13.      Danielson,  P.  2010.  Designing  a  machine  to  learn  about  the  ethics  of  robotics:  the  N-­‐reasons  platform.  Ethics.  Inf.  Technol.  12(3):251-­‐261.    De  Bakker,  E.,  and  H.  Dagevos.  2012.  Reducing  meat  consumption  in  today’s  consumer  society:  questioning  the  citizen-­‐consumer  gap.  J.  Agric.  Environ.  Ethics.  25(6):877-­‐894.    de  Greef,  K.,  F.  Stafleu,  and  C.  de  Lauwere.  2006.  A  simple  value-­‐distinction  approach  aids  transparency  in  farm  animal  welfare  debate.  J.  Agric.  Environ.  Ethics.  19(1):57-­‐66.      de  Jonge,  J.,  and  H.  C.  M.  van  Trijp.  2013.  Meeting  heterogeneity  in  consumer  demand  for  animal  welfare:  a  reflection  on  existing  knowledge  and  implications  for  the  meat  sector.  J.  Agric.  Environ.  Ethics.  26:629-­‐661.    de  Lauwere,  C.  C.,  A.  C.  G.  Beldman,  J.  W.  Reijs,  G.  J.  Doornewaard,  A.  van  den  Ham,  A.  C.  Hoes,  and  A.  P.  Philipsen.  2015.  Towards  a  sustainable  dairy  chain  in  the  Netherlands—the  opinion  of  dairy  farmers  and  their  advisors.  Pages  114-­‐119  in  Know  your  food:  Food  ethics  and  innovation.  D.E.  Dumitras,  I.M.  Jitea,  and  S.  Aerts,  eds.  12th  Cong.  Eur.  Soc.  Agric.  Food  Ethics  (Eursafe),  Cluj  Napoca,  Romania.    De  Paula  Vieira,  A.,  M.  A.  G.  von  Keyserlingk,  and  D.  M.  Weary.  2010.  Effects  of  pair  versus  single  housing  on  performance  and  behaviour  of  dairy  calves  before  and  after  weaning  from  milk.  J.  Dairy  Sci.  93:3079-­‐3085.    De  Paula  Vieira,  A.,  M.  A.  G.  von  Keyserlingk,  and  D.  M.  Weary.  2012.  Presence  of  an  older  weaned  companion  influences  feeding  behaviour  and  improves  performance  of  dairy  calves  before  and  after  weaning  from  milk.  J.  Dairy  Sci.  95:3218-­‐3224.    Dohoo,  S.  E.,  and  I.  R.  Dohoo.  1996.  Postoperative  use  of  analgesics  in  dogs  and  cats  by  Canadian  veterinarians.  Can.  Vet.  J.  37:546-­‐551.  Driessen,  C.  2012.  Farmers  engaged  in  deliberative  practices:  An  ethnographic  exploration  of  the  mosaic  of  concerns  in  livestock  agriculture.  J.  Agric.  Environ.  Ethics.  25(2):163-­‐179.    Driscoll,  J.  W.  1992.  Attitudes  toward  animal  use.  Anthrozoos.  5:32-­‐39.    Duncan,  I.  J.  H.  1993.  Welfare  is  to  do  with  what  animals  feel.  J.  Agric  Environ.  Ethics  6(Suppl  2):8-­‐14.         186  Dupuis,  E.  M.  2002.  Nature’s  Perfect  Food:  How  Milk  Became  America’s  Drink.  New  York  University  Press,  New  York  and  London.    Eicher,  S.  D.,  J.  L.  Morrow-­‐Tesch,  J.  L.  Albright,  and  R.  E.    Williams.  2001.  Tail-­‐docking  alters  fly  numbers,  fly-­‐avoidance  behaviours,  and  cleanliness,  but  not  physiological  measures.  J.  Dairy  Sci.  84:1822-­‐1828.    Einsiedel,  E.  F.  2000.  Understanding  ‘publics’  in  the  public  understanding  of  science.  Pages  205-­‐216  in  Between  understanding  and  trust.  The  public,  science  and  technology.  In  M.  Dierkes  and  C.  v.  Grote,  eds.  Harwood  Academic  Publishers,  Amsterdam.      Ellett,  J.  2011.  Being  transparent  to  revitalize  a  brand-­‐The  Domino’s  story.  Forbes.  Accessed  July  21,  2015.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnellett/2011/08/25/being-­‐transparent-­‐to-­‐revitalize-­‐a-­‐brand-­‐the-­‐dominos-­‐story/    Ellis,  K.,  K.  Billington,  B.  McNeil,  and  D.  McKeegan.  2009.  Public  opinion  on  UK  milk  marketing  and  dairy  cow  welfare.  Anim.  Welf.  18:267-­‐282.    Engster,  D.  2006.  Care  ethics  and  animal  welfare.  J.  Soc.  Phil.  37:521-­‐536.    Eurobarometer.  2005.  Attitudes  of  consumers  towards  the  welfare  of  farmed  animals.  European  Commission.  Accessed  Jan  16,  2014.  http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/  welfare/euro_barometer25  _en.pdf      Eurobarometer.  2007.  Attitudes  of  EU  citizens  toward  Animal  Welfare.  European  Commission.  Accessed  Jan.  13,  2014.  http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives  /ebs/ebs_270_en.pdf.      EFSA.  2006.  The  risks  of  poor  welfare  in  intensive  calf  farming  systems.  An  update  of  the  Scientific  Veterinary  Committee  Report  on  the  Welfare  of  Calves.  EFSA-­‐Q-­‐2005-­‐014.  European  Food  Safety  Authority,  Parma,  Italy.      FAO.  2014.  Live  animals.  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  of  the  United  Nations  (FAO).  Accessed  Mar.  24,  2014.  http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-­‐gateway/go/to/  browse/Q/QA/E.      FAWC.  1997.  Report  on  the  Welfare  of  Dairy  Cattle.  Farm  Animal  Welfare  Council  (FAWC),  Surbiton,  UK.      Feola,  G.,  and  C.  R.  Binder.  2010.  Towards  an  improved  understanding  of  farmers'  behaviour:  The  integrative  agent-­‐centred  (IAC)  framework.  Ecol.  Econ.  69(12):2323-­‐2333.      Fishbein,  M.,  and  I.  Ajzen.  1975.  Belief,  Attitude,  Intention,  and  Behaviour:  An  Introduction  to  Theory  and  Research.  Addison-­‐Wesley,  Reading,  MA.       187  Fishbein,  M.,  and  M.  Yzer.  2003.  Using  theory  to  design  effective  health  behaviour  interventions.  Comm.  Theory.  13:164-­‐183.    Flower,  F.  C.,  and  D.  M.  Weary.  2001.  Effects  of  early  separation  on  the  dairy  cow  and  calf.  II:  Separation  at  1  day  and  2  weeks  after  birth.  Appl.  Anim.  Behav.  Sci.  70:275-­‐284.    Flower,  F.  C.,  and  D.  M.  Weary.  2003.  The  effects  of  early  separation  on  the  dairy  cow  and  calf.  Anim.  Welfare.  12:339-­‐348.    Frank,  N.  A.,  and  J.  N.  Kaneene.  1993.  Management  risk  factors  associated  with  calf  diarrhea  in  Michigan  dairy  herds.  J.  Dairy.  Sci.  76:1313-­‐1323.    Fraser,  D.  2001.  Farm  animal  production:  Changing  agriculture  in  a  changing  culture.  J.  Appl.  Anim.  Welf.  Sci.  4(3):175-­‐190.    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.  6:187–205.    Fraser,  D.  2008a.  Animal  Welfare  and  the  Intensification  of  Animal  Production.  Pages  167-­‐189  in  The  Ethics  of  Intensification.  P.B.  Thompson,  ed.  Springer,  New  York.    Fraser,  D.  2008b.  Understanding  Animal  Welfare:  The  Science  in  its  Cultural  Context.  Wiley-­‐Blackwell,  Oxford.    Fredriksen,  B.,  and  O.  Nafstad,  2006.  Surveyed  attitudes,  perceptions  and  practices  in  Norway  regarding  the  use  of  local  anaesthesia  in  piglet  castration.  Res.  Vet.  Sci.  81:293-­‐295.    Frewer,  J.,  A.  Kole,  S.  M.  A.  V.  D.  Kroon,  and  C.  de  Lauwere.  2005.  Consumer  attitudes  towards  the  development  of  animal-­‐friendly  husbandry  systems.  J.  Agric.    Environ.  Ethics.  18(4):345-­‐367.      Fulponi,  L.  2006.  Private  voluntary  standards  in  the  food  system:  The  perspective  of  major  food  retailers  in  OECD  countries.  Food  Policy.  31:1-­‐13.      Fulwider,  W.  K.,  T.  Grandin,  B.  E.  Rollin,  T.  E.  Engle,  N.  L.  Dalsted,  and  W.  D.  Lamm.  2008.  Survey  of  dairy  management  practices  on  one  hundred  thirteen  North  Central  and  Northeastern  United  States  dairies.  J.  Dairy  Sci.  91:1686-­‐1692.    Gielen,  P.  M.,  A.  Hoeve,  and  L.  F.  M.  Nieuwenhuis.  2003.  Learning  entrepreneurs:  Learning  and  innovation  in  small  companies.  Eur.  Educ.  Res.  J.  2:90–106.    Gliona,  J.  M.  2013.  Cow  tail,  cow  pie:  Fury  in  Colorado  over  possible  ‘docking’  ban.  Los  Angeles  Times.  Accessed  Feb.  5,  2014.  http://articles.latimes.com/print/2013/  mar/07/nation/la-­‐na-­‐nn-­‐colorado-­‐cow-­‐tail-­‐docking-­‐20130307.     188    Gosling,  S.  D.,  S.  Vazire,  S.  Srivastava,  and  O.  P.  John.  2004.  Should  we  trust  web-­‐based  studies?  A  comparative  analysis  of  six  preconceptions  about  internet  questionnaires.  Am.  Psychol.  59:93-­‐104.      Grimshaw,  K.,  R.  K.  Miller,  M.  A.  Palma,  and  C.  R.  Kerth.  2014.  Consumer  perception  of  beef,  pork,  lamb,  chicken  and  fish.  Meat  Sci.  96(1):443-­‐444.    Groger,  L.,  P.  S.  Mayberry,  and  J.  K.  Straker.  1999.  What  we  didn’t  learn  because  of  who  would  not  talk  to  us.  Qual.  Health.  Res.  9(6):829-­‐835.      Guehlstorf,  N.  P.  2008.  Understanding  the  scope  of  farmer  perceptions  of  risk:  Considering  farmer  opinions  on  the  use  of  genetically  modified  (GM)  crops  as  a  stakeholder  voice  in  policy.  J.  Ag.  Environ.  Ethics.  21(6):541-­‐558.      Hänninen,  L.,  H.  Hepola,  J.  Rushen,  A.  M.  de  Passillé,  P.  Pursiainen,  V.  -­‐M.  Tuure,  L.  Syrjälä-­‐Qvist,  M.  Pyykkönen,  and  H.  Saloniemi.  2003.  Resting  behaviour,  growth  and  diarrhoea  incidence  rate  of  young  dairy  calves  housed  individually  or  in  groups  in  warm  or  cold  buildings.  Acta  Agric.  Scand.  A  Anim.  Sci.  53:21-­‐28.      Hansen,  J.,  L.  Holm,  L.  Frewer,  P.  Robinson,  and  P.  Sandøe.  (2003).  Beyond  the  knowledge  deficit:  Recent  research  into  lay  and  expert  attitudes  to  food  risks.  Appetite.  41(2):111-­‐121.      Hansson,  H.,  and  C.  Lagerkvist.  2014.  Defining  and  measuring  farmers'  attitudes  to  farm  animal  welfare.  Anim.  Welf.  23:47-­‐56.    Harper,  G.,  and  S.  Henson.  2001.  Consumer  concerns  about  animal  welfare  and  the  impact  on  food  choice.  EU  Fair  CT98-­‐3678  Final  Report.  Accessed  Jan.  16,  2013.    http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/animal/welfare/eu_fair_project_en.pdf.    Harper,  G.  C.  and  A.  Makatouni.  2002.  Consumer  perception  of  organic  food  production  and  farm  animal  welfare.  Brit.  Food  J.  104(3):287–299.    Heleski,  C.,  A.  Mertig,  and  A.  Zanella.  2004.  Assessing  attitudes  toward  farm  animal  welfare:  A  national  survey  of  animal  science  faculty  members.  J.  Anim.  Sci.  82:2806-­‐2814.    Heleski,  C.,  A.  Mertig,  and  A.  Zanella.  2005.  Results  of  a  national  survey  of  US  veterinary  college  faculty  regarding  attitudes  toward  farm  animal  welfare.  J.  Am.  Vet.  Med.  Assoc.  226:1538-­‐1546.    Heleski,  C.,  A.  Mertig,  and  A.  Zanella.  2006.  Stakeholder  attitudes  toward  farm  animal  welfare.  Anthrozoos.  19(4):290-­‐307.       189  Heleski,  C.,  and  A.  Zanella.  2006.  Animal  science  student  attitudes  to  farm  animal  welfare.  Anthrozoos.  19(1):3-­‐16.    Hellyer,  P.  W.,  C.  Frederick,  M.  Lacy,  M.  D.  Salmon,  and  A.  E.  Wagner.  1999.  Attitudes  of  veterinary  medical  students,  house  officers,  clinical  faculty,  and  staff  toward  pain  management  in  animals.  J.  Am.  Vet.  Med.  Assoc.  214:238-­‐244.      Hemsworth,  P.  H.  2003.  Human–animal  interactions  in  livestock  production.  Appl.  Anim.  Behav.  Sci.  81:185–198    Hemsworth,  P.,  G.  Coleman,  J.  Barnett,  and  S.  Borg.  2000.  Relationships  between  human-­‐animal  interactions  and  productivity  of  commercial  dairy  cows.  J.  Anim.  Sci.  78:2821-­‐2831.    Hemsworth,  P.,  G.  Coleman,  J.  Barnett,  S.  Borg,  and  S.  Dowling.  2002.  The  effects  of  cognitive  behavioural  intervention  on  the  attitude  and  behaviour  of  stockpersons  and  the  behaviour  and  productivity  of  commercial  dairy  cows.  J.  Anim.  Sci.  80:68-­‐78.    Henrich,  J.,  and  F.  J.  Gil  White.  2001.  The  evolution  of  prestige  –  Freely  conferred  deference  as  a  mechanism  for  enhancing  the  benefits  of  cultural  transmission.  Evol.  Hum.  Behav.  22:165-­‐196.      Hewson,  C.,  I.  Dohoo,  K.  Lemke,  and  H.  Barkema.  2007.  Factors  affecting  Canadian  veterinarians'  use  of  analgesics  when  dehorning  beef  and  dairy  calves.  Can.  Vet.  J.  48:1129-­‐1136.    Hoard’s  Dairyman.  2012.  Fewer  dairy  farms  left  in  the  business.  Hoard’s  Dairyman.  Accessed  Dec.  6,  2013.  http://www.hoards.com/12mar10-­‐2011-­‐dairy-­‐herd-­‐numbers.      Hodges,  J.  2006.  Culture,  values  and  ethics  of  animal  scientists.  Livest.  Sci.  103:263–269.    Holechek,  L.  J.,  R.  A.  Cole,  J.  T.  Fisher,  and  R.  Valdez.  2003.  Natural  Resources:  Ecology,  Economics,  and  Policy.  2nd  ed.  Prentice  Hall,  New  Jersey.    Howery,  L.  D.,  F.  D.  Provenza,  R.  E.  Banner,  and  C.  B.  Scott.  1997.  Social  and  environmental  factors  influence  cattle  distribution  on  rangeland.  Appl.  Anim.  Behav.  Sci.  55:231-­‐244.    Hubbard,  C.,  M.  Bourlakis,  and  G.  Garrod.  2007.  Pig  in  the  middle:  Farmers  and  the  delivery  of  farm  animal  welfare  standards.  Brit.  Food  J.  109(11):919-­‐930.      Hubbard,  C.,  and  K.  Scott.  2011.  Do  farmers  and  scientists  differ  in  their  understanding  and  assessment  of  farm  animal  welfare?  Anim  Welf,  20:79-­‐87.       190  Huffington  Post.  2013.  Ryan  Gosling  Fights  Cow  ‘Dehorning’  in  Letter  Shared  By  PETA.  Huff  Post  Green.  Accessed  April  2013.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/  ryan-­‐gosling-­‐-­‐cow-­‐dehorning-­‐letter-­‐peta_n_3010066.html?view=screen.    Huibregtse,  A.  2013.  Dehorning  is  necessary,  but  so  are  solutions  to  make  it  less  painful.  Hoard’s  Dairyman.  Accessed  April  2013.  http://www.hoards.com/blog_dehorning  calves.      IGD.  2011.  Shopper  attitudes  to  animal  welfare.  A  report  for  Freedom  Food  by  Institute  of  Grocery  Distribution  (IGD),  July  2011.  Hertfordshire,  UK.    Jansen,  J.,  R.  J.  Renes,  and  T.  J.  G.  M.  Lam.  2010a.  Evaluation  of  two  communication  strategies  to  improve  udder  health  management.  J.  Dairy  Sci.  93:604-­‐612.    Jansen,  J.,  C.  D.  M.  Steuten,  R.  J.  Renes,  N.  Aarts,  and  T.  J.  G.  M.  Lam.  2010b.  Debunking  the  myth  of  the  hard-­‐to-­‐reach  farmer:  Effective  communication  on  udder  health.  J.  Dairy.  Sci.  93:1296-­‐1306.    Janzen,  H.  H.  2011.  What  place  for  livestock  on  a  re-­‐greening  earth?  Anim.  Feed  Sci.  Technol.  166-­‐167:783-­‐796.    Kahan,  D.  M.,  and  P.  Slovic.  2006.  Cultural  evaluations  of  risk:  “Values”  or  “Blunders”?  Harv.  L.  Rev.  F.  119:166.    Kahan,  D.  M.  2012.  Why  we  are  poles  apart  on  climate  change.  Nature.  488:255.    Kalof,  L.,  A.  Dan,  and  T.  Dietz.  2008.  Essentials  of  Social  Research.  Open  University  Press,  Berkshire,  England.      Kauppinen,  T.,  A.  Vainio,  A.  Valros,  H.  Rita,  and  K.  Vesala.  2010.  Improving  animal  welfare:  Qualitative  and  quantitative  methodology  in  the  study  of  farmers'  attitudes.  Anim.  Welf.  19:523-­‐536.    Kauppinen,  T.,  K.  M.  Vesala,  and  A.  Valros.  2012.  Farmer  attitude  toward  improvement  of  animal  welfare  is  correlated  with  piglet  production  parameters.  Livest.  Sci.  143:142-­‐150.    Kendall,  H.,  L.  Lobao,  and  J.  Sharp.  2006.  Public  concern  with  animal  well-­‐being:  Place,  social  structural  location,  and  individual  experience.  Rural  Soc.  71(3):399-­‐428.    Kielland,  C.,  E.  Skjerve,  and  A.  J.  Zanella.  2009.  Attitudes  of  veterinary  students  to  pain  in  cattle.  Vet.  Rec.  165:254-­‐258.    Kielland,  C.,  E.  Skjerve,  O.  Osterås,  and  A.J.  Zanella.  2010.  Dairy  farmer  attitudes  and  empathy  toward  animals  are  associated  with  animal  welfare  indicators.  J.  Dairy  Sci.  93(7):  2998-­‐3006.       191  Kilgour,  R.,  and  C.  Dalton.  1984.  Livestock  Behaviour:  A  Practical  Guide.  Granada  Publishing  Ltd.,  London,  UK.    Kjaernes,  U.,  R.  Lavik,  and  I.  Kjoerstad.  2005.  Animal  friendliness  and  food  consumption  practices.  Preliminary  results  from  population  surveys  in  7  countries.  Welfare  Quality  Conference,  Science  and  Society  Improving  Animal  Welfare.  Brussels,  Nov  2005.      Kjaernes,  U.,  and  R.  Lavik.  2007.  Farm  animal  welfare  and  food  consumption  practices:  results  from  surveys  in  seven  countries.  Pages  1-­‐29  in  Attitudes  of  consumers,  retailers  and  producers  to  farm  animal  welfare.  U.  Kjaernes,  M.  Miele,  and  J.  Roex,  eds.  Cardiff  University,  Wales.      Kjaernes,  U.,  M.  Miele,  and  J.  Roex.  2007.  Attitudes  of  consumers,  retailers  and  producers  to  farm  animal  welfare.  Welfare  Quality  Reports  No.  2.  Cardiff:  Cardiff  University.    Kjærnes,  U.,  and  R.  Lavik.  2008.  Opinions  on  animal  welfare  and  food  consumption  in  seven  European  countries.  In:  Consumption,  distribution  and  production  of  farm  animal  welfare.  Welfare  quality  reports  No.  7.  U.  Kjærnes,  B.  B.  Bock,  E.  Roe,  and  J.  Roex,  eds.  Cardiff,  Cardiff  University.    Kneen,  B.  1995.  From  Land  to  Mouth:  Understanding  the  Food  System.  2nd  Ed.  NC  Press  Limited,  Toronto.    Knight,  S.,  K.  Nunkoosing,  A.  Vrij,  and  J.  Cherryman.  2003.  Using  Grounded  Theory  to  examine  people’s  attitudes  toward  how  animals  are  used.  Soc.  Anim.  11:307-­‐327.    Knight,  S.,  and  L.  Barnett.  2008.  Justifying  attitudes  toward  animal  use:  A  qualitative  study  of  people's  views  and  beliefs.  Anthrozoos.  21:31-­‐42.    Krippendorff,  K.  2004.  Reliability  in  content  analysis:  Some  common  misconceptions  and  recommendations.  Human  Commun.  Res.  30(3):411-­‐433.    Kristensen,  E.,  and  C.  Enevoldsen.  2008.  A  mixed  methods  inquiry:  How  dairy  farmers  perceive  the  value(s)  of  their  involvement  in  an  intensive  dairy  herd  health  management  program.  Acta  Vet.  Scand.  50:50-­‐61.    Kristensen,  E.,  and  E.  B.  Jakobsen.  2011.  Challenging  the  myth  of  the  irrational  dairy  farmer;  understanding  decision-­‐making  related  to  herd  health.  New  Zeal.  Vet.  J.  59(1):1-­‐7.      Krohn,  C.,  B.  Jonasen,  and  L.  Munksgaard.  1990.  Cow–calf  relations.  2:  The  effect  of  0  vs.  5  days  suckling  on  behaviour,  milk  production  and  udder  health  of  cows  in  different  stabling.  Report  No.  678.  National  Institute  of  Animal  Science,  Foulum,  Denmark.       192  Krohn,  C.,  J.  Foldager,  and  L.  Mogensen.  1999.  Long-­‐term  effect  of  colostrum  feeding  methods  on  behaviour  in  female  dairy  calves.  Acta  Agric.  Scand.  49:57-­‐64.    Krohn,  C.  C.  2001.  Effects  of  different  suckling  systems  on  milk  production,  udder  health,  reproduction,  calf  growth  and  some  behavioural  aspects  in  high  producing  dairy  cows  –  a  review.  Appl.  Anim.  Behav.  Sci.  72:271-­‐280.    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.  126:46–56.    Lam,  T.  J.  G.  M.,  J.  Jansen,  B.  H.  P.  Van  den  Borne,  and  J.  Van  Veersen,  2007.  A  structural  approach  of  udder  health  improvement  via  private  practitioners:  ups  and  downs.  Pages  142-­‐151  in  NMC  Annual  Meeting,  San  Antonio  TX.      Lassen,  J.,  P.  Sandøe,  and  B.  Forkman.  2006.  Happy  pigs  are  dirty!  —  Conflicting  perspectives  on  animal  welfare.  Livest.  Sci.  103:221–230.    Leach,  K.  A.,  H.  R.  Whay,  C.  M.  Maggs,  Z.  E.  Barker,  E.  S.  Paul,  A.  K.  Bell,  and  D.  C.  Main.  2010a.  Working  towards  a  reduction  in  cattle  lameness:  1.  Understanding  barriers  to  lameness  control  on  dairy  farms.  Res.  Vet.  Sci.  89(2):311-­‐7.      Leach,  K.  A.,  H.  R.  Whay,  C.  M.  Maggs,  Z.  E.  Barker,  E.  S.  Paul,  A.  K.  Bell,  and  D.  C.  Main.  2010b.  Working  towards  a  reduction  in  cattle  lameness:  2.  Understanding  dairy  farmers'  motivations.  Res.  Vet.  Sci.  89(2):318-­‐23.      Leeb,  C.  2011.  The  concept  of  animal  welfare  at  the  interface  between  producers  and  scientists:  The  example  of  organic  pig  farming.  Acta  Biotheor.  59(2):173-­‐83.      Levine,  E.  D.,  D.  S.  Mills,  and  K.  A.  Houpt.  2005.  Attitudes  of  veterinary  students  at  one  US  college  toward  factors  relating  to  farm  animal  welfare.  J.  Vet.  Med.  Ed.  32(4):481-­‐490.    Lombard,  J.  E.,  C.  B.  Tucker,  M.  A.  G.  von  Keyserlingk,  C.  A.  Kopral,  and  D.  M.  Weary.  2010.  Associations  between  cow  hygiene,  hock  injuries,  and  free  stall  usage  on  US  dairy  farms.  J.  Dairy  Sci.  93:4668-­‐4676.    Losinger,  W.  C.,  and  A.  J.  Heinrichs.  1997.  Management  practices  associated  with  high  mortality  among  preweaned  dairy  heifers.  J.  Dairy  Res.  64:1-­‐11.      Lund,  V.  2006.  Natural  living—a  precondition  for  animal  welfare  in  organic  farming.  Livest.  Sci.  100:71-­‐83.    Lund,  V.,  S.  Hemlin,  and  W.  Lockeretz.  2002.  Organic  livestock  production  as  viewed  by  Swedish  farmers  and  organic  initiators.  Agric.  Human  Values.  19:255–268.       193  Lund,  V.,  S.  Hemlin,  and  J.  White.  2004.  Natural  behaviour,  animal  rights,  or  making  money—A  study  of  Swedish  organic  farmers’  view  of  animal  issues.  J.  Agric.  Environ.  Ethics.  17:157-­‐179.    Lusk,  J.  L.,  and  F.  B.  Norwood.  2008.  Public  opinion  about  the  ethics  and  governance  of    farm  animal  welfare.  J.  Am.  Vet.  Med.  Assoc.  233:1121-­‐1126.    Maday,  J.  2013.  We  all  agree.  Sort  of.  Bovine  Veterinarian.  Accessed  May  13,  2013.  http://www.bovinevetonline.com/news/We-­‐all-­‐agree-­‐Sort-­‐of-­‐206029411.html.      Maniaci,  M.  R.,  and  R.  D.  Rogge.  2014.  Conducting  research  on  the  internet.  Pages  443-­‐470  in  Handbook  of  Research  Methods  in  Social  and  Personality  Psychology.  H.  T.  Reis  and  C.  M.  Judd,  eds.  Cambridge  University  Press,  Cambridge.    Marcé,  C.,  P.  Ezanno,  H.  Seegers,  D.  U.  Pfeiffer,  and  C.  Fourichon.  2011.  Within-­‐herd  contact  structure  and  transmission  of  Mycobacterium  avium  subspecies  paratuberculosis  in  a  persistently  infected  dairy  cattle  herd.  Prev.  Vet.  Med.  100:116-­‐125.    Maria,  G.  A.  2006.  Public  perception  of  farm  animal  welfare  in  Spain.  Livest.  Sci.  103:250-­‐256.    McGlone,  J.  J.  1993.  What  is  animal  welfare?  J.  Agric.  Environ.  Ethics.  6,  Suppl.  2:26-­‐36.    Mench,  J.  A.  2008.  Farm  animal  welfare  in  the  U.S.A.:  Farming  practices,  research,  education,  regulation,  and  assurance  programs.  Appl.  Anim.  Behav.  Sci.  113(4):298-­‐312.      Mess,  C.  2013.  Dear  Mr.  Gosling.  The  Adventures  of  Dairy  Carrie  (blog).  Accessed  April  2013.  http://dairycarrie.com/2013/04/05/dear-­‐mr-­‐gosling/.      Metz,  J.  1987.  Productivity  aspects  of  keeping  dairy  cow  and  calf  together  in  the  post-­‐partum  period.  Livest.  Prod.  Sci.  16:385-­‐394.    Metz,  J.,  and  J.  Metz.  1986.  Maternal  influence  on  defecation  and  urination  in  the  newborn  calf.  Appl.  Anim.  Behav.  Sci.  16:325-­‐333.    Miele,  M.  (n.d.).  Report  concerning  consumer  perceptions  and  attitudes  towards  farm  animal  welfare.  Expert  report  related  to  Task  1.3  of  Welfare  Quality  ®  Project.    Milne,  M.  H.,  A.  M.  Nolan,  P.  J.  Cripps,  and  J.  L.  Fitzpatrick.  2003.  Assessment  and  alleviation  of  pain  in  dairy  cows  with  clinical  mastitis.  Cattle  Prac.  11:289-­‐293.  Abstr.      Miranda-­‐de  la  Lama,  G.  C.,  W.  S.  Sepúlveda,  M.  Villarroel,  and  G.  A.  María.  2013.  Attitudes  of  meat  retailers  to  animal  welfare  in  Spain.  Meat  Sci.  95(3):569-­‐75.         194  Misch,  L.  J.,  T.  F.  Duffield,  S.  T.  Millman,  and  K.  D.  Lissemore.  2007.  An  investigation  into  the  practices  of  dairy  producers  and  veterinarians  in  dehorning  dairy  calves  in  Ontario.  Can.  Vet.  J.  48:1249-­‐1254.    Moberg,  G.P.  1985.  Biological  response  to  stress:  key  to  assessment  of  animal  well-­‐being?  Pages  27-­‐49  in:  Animal  Stress.  G.  P.  Moberg,  ed.  American  Physiological  Society,  Bethesda,  USA.    Molloy,  C.  2011.  Popular  Media  and  Animals.  Palgrave  Macmillan,  Basingstoke.      Morgan,  C.  A.,  and  M.  McDonald.  2007.  Ethical  dilemmas  in  veterinary  medicine.  Vet.  Clin.  Small.  Anim.  37:165-­‐179.    Morgan-­‐Davies,  C.,  A.  Waterhouse,  C.  E.  Milne,  and  A.  W.  Stott.  2006.  Farmers’  opinions  on  welfare,  health  and  production  practices  in  extensive  hill  sheep  flocks  in  Great  Britain.  Livest.  Sci.  104:268-­‐277.    Morrissey,  T.  2014.  Dairy  Cow  Tail-­‐docking  Called  ‘Inhumane  Mutilation.’  Public  News  Service.  Accessed  Feb.  5  2014.  http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2014-­‐01-­‐08/animal-­‐welfare/dairy-­‐cow-­‐tail-­‐docking-­‐called-­‐inhumane-­‐mutilation/a36708-­‐1.    NAHMS.  2007.  Dairy  2007  Part  IV:  Reference  of  dairy  cattle  health  and  management  practices  in  the  United  States,  2007.  USDA,  Anim.  Plant  Health  Inspect.  Serv.  (APHIS),  Fort  Collins,  CO.    NALC.  2014.  States’  Farm  Animal  Confinement  Statutes.  National  Agricultural  Law  Center  (NALC).  Accessed  Feb.  2014.  http://nationalaglawcenter.org/state-­‐compilations/farm-­‐animal-­‐welfare.    NASS.  2013.  Cattle  Inventory.  National  Agricultural  Statistics  Service  (NASS),  Agricultural  Statistics  Board,  and  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  (USDA).  Accessed  Dec  2013.  http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Catt/2010s/2013/  Catt-­‐02-­‐01-­‐2013.pdf.    NFACC.  2009.  Code  of  practice  for  the  care  and  handling  of  dairy  cattle.  Ottawa,  Ontario,  Canada:  National  Farm  Animal  Care  Council  (NFACC).    NMPF.  2014.  Animal  Care:  NMPF  board  of  directors  approves  resolution  specific  to  tail  docking.  National  Milk  Producers  Federation  (NMPF).  Accessed  June  4,  2014.  http://www.nmpf.org/content/animal-­‐care.    Norwood,  B.  F.  2010.  Presentation  for  the  ADSA-­‐PSA-­‐AMPA-­‐CSAS-­‐WSASAS-­‐ASAS  Joint  Annual  Meeting.  Denver,  CO.  Accessed  Feb  3,  2014.  http://asp.okstate.edu/  baileynorwood/survey4/files/ADSAblahblahblah%20Presentation%20All.pdf.       195  O’Callaghan,  K.  A.,  P.  J.  Cripps,  D.  Y.  Downham,  and  R.  D.  Murray.  2003.  Subjective  and  objective  assessment  of  pain  and  discomfort  due  to  lameness  in  dairy  cattle.  Page605  in  Proc.  2nd  Int.  Workshop  on  the  Assessment  of  Animal  Welfare  at  Farm  and  Group  Level,  University  of  Bristol,  UK.  Univ.  Fed.  Anim.  Welf.,  Herts.,  UK.    OIE.  2008.  A  new  definition  for  the  Terrestrial  Animal  Health  Code:  ‘animal  welfare’.  World  Organization  for  Animal  Health.  Accessed  July  14,  2015.  http://www.oie.int/doc/ged/D5517.PDF.    Ollinger,  M.,  J.  McDonald,  and  M.  Madison.  2000.  Structural  changes  in  US  chicken  and  turkey  slaughter.  USDA  Economic  Research  Service  Agricultural  Economic  Report  No.  787.  USDA,  Washington  DC.  http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer787/aer787.pdf.    Peters,  H.  P.  2000.  From  information  to  attitudes?  Thoughts  on  the  relationship  between  knowledge  about  science  and  technology  and  attitudes  toward  technologies.  Pages  265-­‐286  in  Between  understanding  and  trust.  The  public,  science  and  technology.  M.  Dierkes,  &  C.  v.  Grote,  eds.  Harwood  Academic  Publishers,  Amsterdam.    Phillips,  C.  J.,  J.  Wojciechowska,  J.  Meng,  and  N.  Cross.  2009.  Perceptions  of  the  importance  of  different  welfare  issues  in  livestock  production.  Anim:  Int.  J.  Animal  Biosci.  3(8):1152-­‐66.      Phillips,  C.,  S.  Izmirli,  J.  Aldavood,  M.  Alonso,  B.  Choe,  A.  Hanlon,  A.  Handziska,  G.  Illmann,  L.  Keeling,  M.  Kennedy,  G.  Lee,  V.  Lund,  C.  Mejdell,  V.  Pelagic,  and  T.  Rehn.  2012.  Students’  attitudes  to  animal  welfare  and  rights  in  Europe  and  Asia.  Animal  Welf.  21:87-­‐100.    Pirog,  R.  2004.  Consumer  perceptions  of  pasture-­‐raised  beef  and  dairy  products:  An  Internet  consumer  study.  Leopold  Center  for  Sustainable  Agriculture.  Ames,  Iowa.    Pivetti,  P.  2007.  Natural  and  unnatural:  activists’  representations  of  animal  biotechnology.  New  Genetics  and  Society.  26(2):137-­‐157.    Pollard-­‐Williams,  S.,  R.  E.  Doyle,  and  R.  Freire.  2014.  The  influence  of  workplace  learning  on  attitudes  toward  animal  welfare  in  veterinary  students.  J.  Vet.  Med.  Ed.  41:  253-­‐257.    Preece,  R.,  and  D.  Fraser.  2000.  The  status  of  animals  in  Biblical  and  Christian  thought:  A  study  of  colliding  values.  Soc.  Anim.  8:245-­‐263.    Prickett,  R.  W.,  F.  B.  Norwood,  and  J.  L.  Lusk.  2010.  Consumer  preferences  for  farm  animal  welfare:  Results  from  a  telephone  survey  of  US  households.  Anim.  Welf.  19:335–347.    Raekallio,  M.,  K.  M.  Heinonen,  J.  Kuussaari,  and  O.  Vainio.  2003.  Pain  alleviation  in  animals:  attitudes  and  practices  of  Finnish  veterinarians.  Vet.  J.  165:131-­‐135.     196  Rajala,  P.,  and  H.  Castrén.  1995.  Serum  immunoglobulin  concentrations  and  health  of  dairy  calves  in  two  management  systems  from  birth  to  12  weeks  of  age.  J.  Dairy.  Sci.  78:2737-­‐2744.    Rauch,  A.,  and  J.  S.  Sharp.  2005.  Ohioan’s  Attitudes  about  Animal  Welfare.  A  topical  report  from  the  2004  Ohio  Survey  of  Food,  Agricultural  and  Environmental  Issues.  Department  of  Human  and  Community  Resource  Development,  The  Ohio  State  University,  Columbus.    Robbins,  J.  A.,  D.  M.  Weary,  C.  A.  Schuppli,  and  M.  A.  G.  von  Keyserlingk.  In  press.  Stakeholder  views  on  treating  pain  due  to  dehorning  dairy  calves.  Animal  Welf.    Rokeach,  M.  1973.  The  Nature  of  Human  Values.  Free  Press,  New  York.    Rollin,  B.  E.  1993.  Animal  welfare,  science  and  value.  J.  Agric  Environ.  Ethics.  6(Suppl  2):44-­‐50.    Rollin,  B.  E.  2010.  Why  is  agricultural  animal  welfare  important?  The  social  and  ethical  context.  In:  Improving  animal  welfare:  a  practical  approach.  T.  Grandin,  ed.  CAB  International,  Cambridge,  MA.      Rowe,  G.,  and  L.  J.  Frewer.  2005.  A  typology  of  public  engagement  mechanisms.  Sci.  Technol.  Hum.  Val.  30:251-­‐290.    Rushen,  J.,  A.  M.  de  Passillé,  M.  A.  G.  von  Keyserlingk,  and  D.  M.  Weary.  2008.  The  Welfare  of  Cattle.  Springer,  Dordrecht,  the  Netherlands.    Rutgers,  2003.  New  Jerseyans’  opinions  on  humane  standards  for  treatment  of  livestock.  Conducted  for  Farm  Sanctuary.  Eagleton  Institute  of  Politics  Center  for  Public  Interest  Polling,  Rutgers,  NJ.      Ryan,  E.  2013.  Public  attitudes  towards  housing  systems  for  pregnant  pigs.  MSc  Thesis.  Univ.  British  Columbia,  Vancouver,  Canada.    Saputo.  2015.  Saputo  établit  une  politique  progressive  et  mondiale  en  matière  de  bien-­‐être  animal  (Saputo  establishes  a  progressive  global  policy  concerning  animal  welfare).  Press  release.  Accessed  July  27,  2015.  http://www.saputo.com/uploadedFiles/Saputo/  investors-­‐and-­‐medias/press-­‐releases/2015/2015-­‐06-­‐01_ANIMALWEFARE_  PRESSRELEASE_FR_FINAL.pdf    Schön,  D.  A.,  and  M.  Rein.  1994.  Frame  Reflection:  Toward  the  Resolution  of  Intractable  Policy  Controversies:  Basic  Books.    Schreiner,  D.  A.,  and  P.  L.  Ruegg.  2002.  Effects  of  tail  docking  on  milk  quality  and  cow  cleanliness.  J.  Dairy  Sci.  85:2503-­‐2511.       197  Schuppli,  C.  A.,  M.  A.  G.  von  Keyserlingk,  and  D.  M.  Weary.  2014.  Access  to  pasture  for  dairy  cows:  Responses  from  an  on-­‐line  engagement.  J.  Anim.  Sci.  92(11):5185-­‐5192.    Schwartz,  S.  H.  1994.  Are  there  universal  aspects  in  the  structure  and  contents  of  human  values?  J.  Soc.  Issues.  50:19-­‐45.    Schwartz,  S.  H.  1999.  A  theory  of  cultural  values  and  some  implications  for  work.  Appl.  Psychol.  48:23-­‐47.      Schweikhardt,  D.  B.,  and  W.  P.  Browne.  2001.  Politics  by  other  means:  The  emergence  of  a  new  politic  of  food  in  the  United  States.  Rev.  Ag.  Econ.  23:302-­‐318.    Seabrook,  M.  F.,  and  J.  M.  Wilkinson.  2000.  Stockpersons’  attitudes  to  the  husbandry  of  dairy  cows.  Vet.  Rec.  147:157-­‐160.    Seligman,  C.,  J.  M.  Olson,  and  M.  P.  Zanna,  eds.  1996.  The  Psychology  of  Values:  The  Ontario  Symposium,  Vol.  8.  The  Ontario  Symposium  on  Personality  and  Social  Psychology.  Erlbaum,  Mahwah,  NJ.    Selman,  M.,  A.  McEwan,  and  E.  Fisher.  1970.  Studies  on  natural  suckling  in  cattle  during  the  first  eight  hours  post  partum.  I.  Behavioural  studies  (dams).  Anim.  Behav.  18:276-­‐289.    Sherman,  M.  2002.  Activists  Decry  ‘Happy  Cows’  Ads.  LA  Times.  Accessed  July  30,  2015.  http://articles.latimes.com/2002/dec/13/business/fi-­‐cows13.    Silva,  S.,  M.  Magalhaes-­‐Sant’Ana,  J.  Borlido  Santos,  and  I.  A.  S.  Olsson.  2013.  Comfort,  health  and  production:  Portuguese  dairy  farmers  talk  about  animal  welfare.  Pages  209-­‐214  in  The  Ethics  of  Consumption:  The  citizen,  the  market  and  the  law.  H.  Rocklinsberg  and  P.  Sandin,  eds.  11th  Cong.  Eur.  Soc.  Agric.  Food  Ethics  (Eursafe),  Uppsala,  Sweden.      Skarstad,  G.,  and  S.  O.  Borgen.  2007.  Norwegian  cattle  farmers’  view  on  animal  welfare.  Welfare  Quality  Report  No.  2007-­‐2.  Norwegian  Agricultural  Economics  Research  Institute.    Skarstad,  G.,  L.  Terragni,  and  H.  Torjusen.  2007.  Animal  welfare  according  to  Norwegian  consumers  and  producers:  Definitions  and  implications.  Int.  J.  Soc.  Food  Agric.  15(3):ISSN:0798-­‐1759.    Spooner,  J.  M.,  C.  A.  Schuppli,  and  D.  Fraser.  2012.  Attitudes  of  Canadian  beef  producers  toward  animal  welfare.  Anim.  Welf.  21(2):273-­‐283.      Spooner,  J.  M.,  C.  A.  Schuppli,  and  D.  Fraser.  2014a.  Attitudes  of  Canadian  citizens  toward  farm  animal  welfare:  A  qualitative  study.  Livest.  Sci.  163:150-­‐158.       198  Spooner,  J.  M.,  C.  A.  Schuppli,  and  D.  Fraser.  2014b.  Attitudes  of  Canadian  pig  producers  toward  animal  welfare.  J.  Agric.  Environ.  Ethics.  27:569-­‐589.    Sutherland,  M.  A.,  and  C.  B.  Tucker.  2011.  The  long  and  short  of  it:  A  review  of  tail  docking  in  farm  animals.  Appl.  Anim.  Behav.  Sci.  135:179-­‐191.    Svensson,  C.,  K.  Lundborg,  U.  Emanuelson,  and  S.  O.  Olsson.  2003.  Morbidity  in  Swedish  dairy  calves  from  birth  to  90  days  of  age  and  individual  calf-­‐level  risk  factors  for  infectious  diseases.  Prev.  Vet.  Med.  58:179–197.    Te  Velde,  H.,  N.  Aarts,  and  C.  van  Workum.  2002.  Dealing  with  ambivalence:  farmers’  and  consumers’  perceptions  of  animal  welfare  in  livestock  breeding.  J.  Agric.  Environ.  Ethics  15:203–219.    Thompson,  P.  B.  1992.  The  varieties  of  sustainability.  Agric.  Human  Values  9:11-­‐19.    Thompson,  P.  B.  1998.  Agricultural  ethics—research,  teaching  and  public  policy.  Iowa  State  University  Press,  Ames.    Thompson,  P.  B.,  M.  Appleby,  L.  Busch,  L.  Kalof,  M.  Miele,  B.F.  Norwood,  and  E.  Pajor.  2011.  Values  and  public  acceptability  dimensions  of  sustainable  egg  production.  Poult.  Sci.  90:2097-­‐2109.    Thurstone,  L.  L.  1931.  The  measurement  of  attitudes.  J.  Abnorm.  Soc.  Psychol.  26:249-­‐269.      Tucker,  C.  B.,  D.  Fraser,  and  D.  M.  Weary.  2001.  Tail  docking  dairy  cattle:  Effects  on  cow  cleanliness  and  udder  health.  J.  Dairy  Sci.  84:84-­‐87.    Tuyttens,  F.  A.  M.,  F.  Vanhonacker,  B.  Verhille,  D.  De  Brabander,  and  W.  Verbeke.  2012.  Pig  producer  attitude  towards  surgical  castration  of  piglets  without  anaesthesia  versus  alternative  strategies.  Res.  Vet.  Sci.  92(3):524-­‐530.    Uzea,  A.  D.,  J.  E.  Hobbs  and  J.  Zhang.  2011.  Activists  and  animal  welfare:  Quality  verifications  in  the  Canadian  pork  sector.  J.  Ag.  Econ.  62:281-­‐304.    Vaarst,  M.,  T.  B.  Nissen,  S.  Østergaard,  I.  C.  Klaas,  T.  W.  Bennedsgaard,  and  J.  Christensen.  2007.  Danish  stable  schools  for  experiential  common  learning  in  groups  of  organic  dairy  farmers.  J.  Dairy  Sci.  90:2543-­‐2554.    Vaarst,  M.,  and  J.  T.  Sørensen.  2009.  Danish  dairy  farmers'  perceptions  and  attitudes  related  to  calf-­‐management  in  situations  of  high  versus  no  calf  mortality.  Prev.  Vet.  Med.  89(1-­‐2):128-­‐33.         199  Vanhonacker,  F.,  W.  Verbeke,  E.  Van  Poucke,  and  F.  A.  Tuyttens.  2007.  Segmentation  based  on  consumers'  perceived  importance  and  attitude  toward  farm  animal  welfare.  Int.  J.  Soc.  Food  Agric.,  15(3):ISSN:0798-­‐1759.      Vanhonacker,  F.,  W.  Verbeke,  E.  Van  Poucke,  and  F.  A.  Tuyttens.  2008.  Do  citizens  and  farmers  interpret  the  concept  of  farm  animal  welfare  differently?  Livest.  Sci.  116(1-­‐3):126-­‐136.      Vanhonacker,  F.,  E.  Van  Poucke,  F.  Tuyttens,  and  W.  Verbeke.  2010.  Citizens’  views  on  farm  animal  welfare  and  related  information  provisions:  exploratory  insights  from  Flanders,  Belgium.  J.  Agric.  Environ.  Ethics.  23:551-­‐569.    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;1307-­‐1316.      Verbeke,  W.  2009.  Stakeholder,  citizen  and  consumer  interests  in  farm  animal  welfare.  Anim.  Welf.  18:325-­‐333.    Verbeke,  W.,  and  J.  Viaene.  1999.  Consumer  attitude  to  beef  quality  labeling  and  associations  with  beef  quality  labels.  J.  Int.  Food  Agribus.  Marketing.  10(3):45-­‐65.      Vetouli,  T.,  V.  Lund,  and  B.  Kaufmann.  2012.  Farmers’  attitude  towards  animal  welfare  aspects  and  their  practice  in  organic  dairy  calf  rearing:  A  case  study  in  selected  Nordic  farms.  J.  Agric.  Environ.  Ethics.  25(3):349-­‐364.      Vitale,  A.  F.,  M.  Tenucci,  M.  Papino,  and  S.  Lovari.  1986.  Social  behaviour  of  the  calves  of  semi-­‐wild  Maremma  cattle,  Bos  primigenious  taurus.  Appl.  Anim.  Behav.  Sci.  16:217-­‐231.    von  Keyserlingk,  M.  A.  G.,  and  D.  M.  Weary.  2007.  Maternal  behaviour  in  cattle.  Horm.  Behav.  52:106-­‐113.    von  Keyserlingk,  M.  A.  G.,  J.  Rushen,  A.  M.  de  Passillé,  and  D.  M.  Weary.  2009.  Invited  review:  The  welfare  of  dairy  cattle-­‐key  concepts  and  the  role  of  science.  J.  Dairy  Sci.  92(9):  4101-­‐11.      von  Keyserlingk,  M.  A.  G.,  A.  Barrientos,  K.  Ito,  E.  Galo,  and  D.  M.  Weary.  2012.  Benchmarking  cow  comfort  on  North  American  freestall  dairies:  Lameness,  leg  injuries,  lying  time,  facility  design,  and  management  for  high-­‐producing  Holstein  dairy  cows.  J.  Dairy  Sci.  95,  7399-­‐7408.    von  Keyserlingk,  M.  A.  G.,  N.  P.  Martin,  E.  Kebreab,  K.  F.  Knowlton,  R.  J.  Grant,  M.  Stephenson,  C.  J.  Sniffen,  J.  P.  Harner,  III,  A.  D.  Wright,  and  S.  I.  Smith.  2013.  Invited  review:  Sustainability  of  the  US  dairy  industry.  J.  Dairy  Sci.  96(9):5405-­‐25.       200  von  Keyserlingk,  M.  A.  G.,  and  M.  J.  Hötzel.  2015.  The  ticking  clock:  addressing  farm  animal  welfare  in  emerging  countries.  J.  Agric.  Environ.  Ethics.  28:179-­‐195.    Waiblinger,  S.,  U.  Knierem,  and  C.  Winkler.  2001.  The  development  of  an  epidemiologically  based  on-­‐farm  welfare  assessment  system  for  use  with  dairy  cows.  Acta  Agric.  Scan.  A:  Anim.  Sci.  Suppl.  30:73–77.    Waiblinger,  S.,  C.  Menke,  and  G.  Coleman.  2002.  The  relationship  between  attitudes,  personal  characteristics  and  behaviour  of  stockpeople  and  subsequent  behaviour  and  production  of  dairy  cows.  Appl.  Anim.  Behav.  Sci.  79:195-­‐219.    Waiblinger,  S.,  X.  Boivin,  V.  Pedersen,  M.  –V.  Tosi,  A.  M.  Janczak,  E.  K.  Visser,  and  R.  B.  Jones.  2006.  Assessing  the  human–animal  relationship  in  farmed  species:  A  critical  review.  Appl.  Anim.  Behav.  Sci.  101(3-­‐4):185-­‐242.      Walker,  K.,  and  F.  Wan.  2012.  The  harm  of  symbolic  actions  and  green-­‐washing:  Corporate  actions  and  communications  on  environmental  performance  and  their  financial  implications.  J.  Bus.  Ethics.  109:227-­‐242.    Weary,  D.  M.,  and  B.  Chua.  2000.  Effects  of  early  separation  on  the  dairy  cow  and  calf.  1:  Separation  at  6h,  1  day  and  4  days  after  birth.  Appl.  Anim.  Behav.  Sci.  69:177-­‐188.    Weary,  D.  M.,  C.  A.  Schuppli,  and  M.  A.  G.  von  Keyserlingk.  2011.  Tail  docking  dairy  cattle:  Responses  from  an  online  engagement.  J.  Anim.  Sci.  89:3831-­‐3837.    Weary,  D.  M.,  C.  A.  Schuppli,  B.  A.  Ventura,  and  M.  A.  G.  von  Keyserlingk.  2012.  Attitudes  to  contentious  practices  in  dairy  farming.  Adv.  Dairy  Tech.  24:371-­‐382.      Webster,  A.  J.  F.,  C.  Saville,  B.  M.  Church,  A.  Gnanasakthy,  and  R.  Moss.  1985.  Some  effects  of  different  rearing  systems  on  health,  cleanliness  and  injury  in  calves.  141(5):472-­‐483.    Wesselink,  R.,  K.  J.  Stafford,  D.  J.  Mellor,  S.  Todd,  and  N.  G.  Gregory.  1999.  Colostrum  intake  by  dairy  calves.  New  Zeal.  Vet.  J.  47:31-­‐34.    Wikman,  I.,  A.  H.  Hokkanen,  M.    Pastell,  T.  Kauppinen,  A.  Valros,  and  L.  Hänninen.  2013.  Dairy  producer  attitudes  to  pain  in  cattle  in  relation  to  disbudding  calves.  J.    Dairy  Sci.  96(11):6894-­‐903.      Willock,  J.,  I.  Deary,  M.  McGregor,  A.  Sutherland,  G.  Edwards-­‐Jones,  O.  Morgan,  .  .  .  and  E.  Austin.  1999.  Farmers'  attitudes,  objectives,  behaviours,  and  personality  traits:  The  Edinburgh  study  of  decision  making  on  farms.  J.  Vocat.  Behav:54:5-­‐36.    Wilson,  D.,  M.  Urban,  M.  Graves,  and  D.  Morrison.  2003.  Beyond  the  economic:  Farmer  practices  and  identities  in  central  Illinois,  USA.  The  Great  Lakes  Geographer,  10(1):21-­‐33.       201  Witte,  K.  1994.  Fear  control  and  danger  control:  A  test  of  the  extended  parallel  process  model  (EPPM).  Comm.  Monogr.  61:113-­‐134.    Wynne,  B.,  and  A.  Irwin.  1996.  Misunderstanding  science?  The  public  reconstruction  of  science  and  technology.  Cambridge  University  Press,  Cambridge.         202  Appendices    Appendix  A:  Focus  group  interview  guide—Guelph      CEE-­‐Ethics:  Dairy  Industry  Views  Focus  Groups      GUELPH  FOCUS  GROUP  SCRIPT    (Moderator  script  in  italics.  Main  questions  and  follow-­‐ups  are  in  bold.)    Introduction:  Moderator  says:  • Welcome!  Thank  you  all  for  agreeing  to  participate  in  this  focus  group.  We  know  you  are  all  very  busy  this  week  so  we  really  appreciate  your  time.    • These  focus  groups  are  being  conducted  as  part  of  our  research  at  UBC.  The  aim  is  to  run  a  guided  discussion  about  the  welfare  of  dairy  cattle  among  folks  connected  to  the  dairy  industry.    • I  am  going  to  ask  you  some  questions  about  dairy  cattle  welfare.  We’d  like  to  hear  your  thoughts  and  have  you  discuss  these  openly  with  each  other.  Keep  in  mind  that  we  want  your  own  opinions,  and  encourage  you  to  share  examples  from  your  own  experiences.    • Quick  rules  of  discussion  –always  be  respectful,  please  try  not  to  talk  over  each  other,  no  side  discussions,  try  not  to  judge  other  peoples  comments,  and  really  listen  to  what  is  being  said  by  other  participants  (even  if  you  don’t  agree!).  We’re  here  to  have  a  conversation  and  are  interested  in  the  range  of  views!  If  someone  has  not  voiced  something  that  you  feel  is  important,  please  do  this  yourself.  Hearing  your  views  contributes  to  the  research.    • If  you  don’t  understand  my  questions,  just  ask  me  to  clarify  at  any  time.    • Before  we  begin,  are  there  any  questions  or  concerns  you  wish  to  discuss  at  this  time?  Also,  feel  free  to  indicate  if  there  are  any  questions  or  topics  that  you  do  not  wish  to  be  discussed  in  this  group    Q1:  What  do  you  think  are  the  most  important  welfare  issues  that  affect  dairy  cattle?    Follow  up  questions:  • Are  there  any  specific  issues  that  you  feel  do  not  get  enough  attention  in  the  dairy  industry?  • Can  you  share  personal  experiences  that  led  you  to  feel  this  way?    • Q2:  What  do  you  think  are  some  of  the  barriers  that  prevent  dairy  welfare  issues  from  being  resolved?    • Q3:  How  do  you  think  welfare  issues  in  the  dairy  industry  should  be  resolved?  Follow  up  question:  Can  anyone  suggest  any  specific  steps  to  overcome  the  barriers  we  discussed  earlier?       203    • Q4:  One  of  the  aims  of  this  exercise  is  to  bring  different  industry  stakeholders  together  in  a  conversation  about  dairy  welfare.  Around  the  table  we  have  a  variety  of  stakeholders:  What  roles  can  these  different  groups  play  in  addressing  these  dairy  welfare  issues?  Follow  up  questions:  -­‐Which  of  these  groups  should  be  taking  leadership?    -­‐Are  there  any  groups  that  have  not  been  mentioned  that  you  think  should  have  a  role  in  addressing  these  issues?    • Q5:  Should  the  public  have  a  role  in  helping  to  address  dairy  welfare  issues?  If  so,  how?        • Q6:  What  do  you  think  are  the  public’s  key  concerns  about  dairy  cattle  welfare,  and  to  what  extent  are  these  concerns  valid?     Guide  point  question:  • Can  you  comment  on  what  you  think  the  public  knows  about  dairy  farming,  and  how  this  affects  what  they  are  concerned  about?         204  Appendix  B:  Focus  group  interview  guide—Madrid    Q1:  So  you  all  had  a  chance  to  take  the  online  survey  about  your  main  cattle                welfare  concerns.  We’ve  put  them  up  on  the  board,  so  let’s  keep  them  in                mind  as  we  move  through  the  discussion  today.    [Walk  participants  through  key  themes  that  came  out  of  the  online  results]    To  start  off,  is  there  anything  here  that  should  be  added  (or  deleted!)  or  that    you’d  like  to  comment  on?    [10  min  max  for  discussion]    Q2.  Moving  on,  how  do  you  see  your  role  as  an  industry  professional  in                addressing  these  issues  that  we’ve  been  discussing?     -­‐If  group  is  silent,  ask  “For  example,  the  vets  in  the  room…what  do  you  think?”       Follow  up:  àWhat  are  you  currently  doing  to  address  these  issues,  and  what                                would  you  like  to  be  doing  but  currently  are  not?          Q3.  What  other  important  stakeholders  [groups]  do  you  need  more  support  from                      in  order  to  meet  these  goals  (and  how  so)?             Follow  up:  àAre  there  any  other  challenges  to  meeting  your  role  that                                                                                                              haven’t  already  been  mentioned?    Q4.  IF  PUBLIC  HAS  NOT  YET  BEEN  MENTIONED:  Should  the  public  have  a  role  in  helping  to  address  cattle  welfare  issues?  If  so,  how?                      IF  PUBLIC  HAS  BEEN  MENTIONED:  (Name  who  brought  it  up)  “Bob  mentioned  the  public,  and  I’d  like  to  explore  this  further:  Can  you  elaborate  on  the  role  that  the  public  should  take?    *they  may  bring  up  the  fact  that  public  is  ignorant  or  needs  to  be  educated  in  this  question,  in  which  case,  you  can  make  a  smooth  transition  to  the  next  question,  i.e.  “Can  you  speak  a  little  more  to…(lead  into  Q5)      Q5.  Thank  you  all  for  your  great  comments  so  far.  This  is  the  last  question  for  this  morning’s  session:    What  do  you  think  are  the  public’s  main  concerns  about  the  welfare  of  cattle,  and  to  what  extent  are  these  concerns  legitimate*?                        *Can  clarify  legitimate  as  “should  the  industry  take  them                      seriously?”  vs.  not  worth  attention.    Final:  Does  anyone  have  any  final  comments  they’d  like  to  make?    That  concludes  the  focus  group.  Thank  you  for  your  participation,  and  we  look  forward  to  discussing  more  this  afternoon!         205  Appendix  C:  Citizen  farm  tour  survey    PRE-­‐TOUR:    Welcome  to  the  UBC  Dairy  Cattle  Survey!  Is  this  your  first  visit  to  the  UBC  Dairy  Education  and  Research  Centre?     Yes     No      Please  tell  us  a  little  about  yourself:  1.  Age  (years)     19-­‐24     25-­‐34     35-­‐44     45-­‐54     55-­‐64     65  or  Above     Prefer  Not  to  Answer      2.  Sex     Male     Female     Prefer  not  to  answer      3.  In  which  country  do  you  currently  reside?     USA     Canada     Other  ______________________     Prefer  not  to  answer    4.  What  best  describes  your  highest  level  of  education?     High  school  graduate     Vocational  or  apprenticeship  degree     Undergraduate  degree     Master's  degree     PhD     Professional  degree  (e.g.  DVM,  MD,  LL.B  or  JD)     Other:  ______________________     Prefer  not  to  answer    5.  Which  best  describes  where  you  have  lived  for  most  of  your  life?     Urban     Suburban     Rural  (not  on  a  farm)     Rural  (on  a  farm)     206     Prefer  not  to  answer      6.  Have  you  ever  been  on  a  commercial  livestock  farm?  If  yes,  please  indicate  which  type(s)  of  farm  in  the  blank.     Yes  ______________________     No     Prefer  not  to  answer.    6b.  Have  you  ever  been  on  any  other  kind  of  farm?  If  yes,  please  indicate  which  type(s)  of  farm  in  the  blank.     Yes  ______________________     No     Prefer  not  to  answer    6c.  Have  you  ever  worked  on  a  farm?  If  yes,  please  indicate  which  type(s)  of  farm  in  the  blank.     Yes  ______________________     No      7.  How  knowledgeable  are  you  about  dairy  farming?     Very  knowledgeable     Somewhat  knowledgeable     Not  knowledgeable     Prefer  not  to  answer    8.  How  many  years  have  you  lived  with  a  household  pet?     I  have  never  lived  with  a  pet     Less  than  a  year     1-­‐5  years     5  or  more  years     Prefer  not  to  answer    9.  Do  you  consume  dairy  products?  If  no,  please  share  why:     Yes     No  ______________________     Prefer  not  to  answer      10.  Write  up  to  five  (5)  words  that  come  to  mind  when  you  think  about  dairy  farming:        11.  In  your  opinion,  what  does  a  dairy  cow  need  in  order  to  have  a  good  life?               207  12.  How  confident  are  you  that  dairy  cows  generally  have  a  good  life?     Very  confident     Confident     Neutral     Not  confident     Not  at  all  confident     Prefer  not  to  answer      12b.  Feel  free  to  comment  on  your  above  answer:      13.  What  (if  any)  concerns  do  you  have  regarding  the  quality  of  life  for  dairy  cattle?  Please  rank  up  to  three  (3)  of  your  top  concerns,  and  indicate  why  they  concern  you:      What’s  your  dairy  cow  know-­‐how?    True  or  False:  Dairy  cows  in  Canada  are  routinely  administered  hormones  to  increase  their  milk  production.     True     False      True  or  False:  A  dairy  cow  needs  to  have  a  calf  to  keep  producing  milk.     True     False      True  or  False:  Dairy  cows  in  British  Columbia  are  routinely  tied  in  their  stall  in  the  barn.     True     False      How  many  days  after  birth  does  the  dairy  calf  typically  stay  with  its  mom?     0  days     1  week     1  month     It  never  leaves  mom      True  or  False:  All  dairy  cows  in  British  Columbia  are  allowed  access  to  pasture.     True     False      Which  best  describes  what  most  adult  cows  are  typically  fed  on  dairy  farms?     Pre-­‐mixed  feed     Grass     Milk18                                                                                                                       208  POST  VISIT    Now  that  you've  visited  the  UBC  Dairy  Education  and  Research  Centre,  we  have  a  few  more  questions...      Please  enter  your  participant  ID  number  to  proceed:      1.  Please  check  off  all  stations  you  visited  during  the  tour:     1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8      2.  Now  that  you've  toured  the  farm,  write  up  to  five  (5)  words  that  come  to  mind  when  you  think  about  dairy  farming:        3.  What,  if  anything,  surprised  you  about  the  way  animals  are  cared  for  on  this  farm?      4.  Do  you  feel  that  animals  on  this  farm  have  a  good  life?    Why  or  why  not?        5.  Fill  in  the  blank:  "In  my  opinion,  the  animals  on  this  farm  seem  to  have    ______________  lives  than  animals  on  other  dairy  farms  in  British  Columbia."     better       about  the  same       worse       unsure      6.  Now  that  you  have  toured  this  farm,  please  share  any  concerns  you  have  about  the  quality  of  life  for  dairy  cattle,  in  general  or  on  this  farm:        7.  To  what  extent  do  you  feel  that  your  concerns  are  shared  by  the  dairy  industry?                 209  Now  that  you've  toured  the  farm,  show  off  your  "dairy  cow  know  how"!    True  or  False:  Dairy  cows  in  Canada  are  routinely  administered  hormones  to  increase  their  milk  production.     True     False      True  or  False:  A  dairy  cow  needs  to  have  a  calf  to  keep  producing  milk.     True     False      True  or  False:  Dairy  cows  in  British  Columbia  are  routinely  tied  in  their  stall  in  the  barn.     True     False      How  many  days  after  birth  does  the  dairy  calf  typically  stay  with  its  mom?     0  days     1  week     1  month     It  never  leaves  mom      True  or  False:  All  dairy  cows  in  British  Columbia  are  allowed  access  to  pasture.     True     False      Which  best  describes  what  most  adult  cows  are  typically  fed  on  dairy  farms?     Pre-­‐mixed  feed     Grass     Milk      Thank  you  so  much  for  your  participation!  Any  feedback  you  have  is  greatly  appreciated.    """@en ; edm:hasType "Thesis/Dissertation"@en ; vivo:dateIssued "2015-11"@en ; edm:isShownAt "10.14288/1.0220738"@en ; dcterms:language "eng"@en ; ns0:degreeDiscipline "Animal Science"@en ; edm:provider "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en ; dcterms:publisher "University of British Columbia"@en ; dcterms:rights "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Canada"@* ; ns0:rightsURI "http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/"@* ; ns0:scholarLevel "Graduate"@en ; dcterms:title "Understanding industry and lay perspectives on dairy cattle welfare"@en ; dcterms:type "Text"@en ; ns0:identifierURI "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/54881"@en .