Access to pasture for dairy cows: responses from an online engagement.

An online engagement exercise documented the views of Canadian and U.S. participants affiliated and unaffiliated with the dairy industry on the issue of pasture access for dairy cows. A total of 414 people participated in 10 independent web forums. Providing access to more natural living conditions, including pasture, was viewed as important for the large majority of participants, including those affiliated with the dairy industry. This finding is at odds with current practice on the majority of farms in North America that provide little or no access to pasture. Participant comments showed that the perceived value of pasture access for dairy cattle went beyond the benefits of eating grass; participants cited as benefits exposure to fresh air, ability to move freely, ability to live in social groups, improved health, and healthier milk products. To accommodate the challenges of allowing pasture access on farms, some participants argued in favor of hybrid systems that provide a mixture of indoor confinement housing and grazing. Understanding the beliefs and concerns of participants affiliated and unaffiliated with the dairy industry allows for the identification of contentious topics as well as areas of agreement; this is important in efforts to better harmonize industry practices with societal expectations.

[1]  R J Grant,et al.  Invited review: Sustainability of the US dairy industry. , 2013, Journal of dairy science.

[2]  D. Weary,et al.  Views on contentious practices in dairy farming: the case of early cow-calf separation. , 2013, Journal of dairy science.

[3]  D. Weary,et al.  Preference for pasture versus freestall housing by dairy cattle when stall availability indoors is reduced. , 2012, Journal of dairy science.

[4]  D. Blayney.  The Changing Landscape of U.S. Milk Production , 2012 .

[5]  C. Driessen.  Farmers Engaged in Deliberative Practices; An Ethnographic Exploration of the Mosaic of Concerns in Livestock Agriculture , 2012 .

[6]  M. Wallace,et al.  A life cycle assessment of seasonal grass-based and confinement dairy farms , 2012 .

[7]  A. Hoekstra,et al.  A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products , 2012, Ecosystems.

[8]  AJung Moon,et al.  Survey-Based Discussions on Morally Contentious Applications of Interactive Robotics , 2011, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[9]  D. Weary,et al.  Tail docking dairy cattle: responses from an online engagement. , 2011, Journal of animal science.

[10]  Jan Tind Sørensen,et al.  Socio-cultural sustainability of pig production: Citizen perceptions in the Netherlands and Denmark , 2011 .

[11]  B. Boogaard,et al.  Social Acceptance of Dairy Farming: The Ambivalence Between the Two Faces of Modernity , 2011 .

[12]  I. Veissier,et al.  Animal welfare: establishing a dialogue between science and society , 2011, Animal Welfare.

[13]  Michael D. Buhrmester,et al.  Amazon's Mechanical Turk , 2011, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[14]  Peter Danielson,et al.  Designing a machine to learn about the ethics of robotics: the N-reasons platform , 2010, Ethics and Information Technology.

[15]  R. Prickett.  Consumer preferences for farm animal welfare: results from a telephone survey of US households , 2010, Animal Welfare.

[16]  D. Weary,et al.  Overnight access to pasture does not reduce milk production or feed intake in dairy cattle , 2010 .

[17]  K. Grunert,et al.  Attitudes of European citizens towards pig production systems. , 2009 .

[18]  B. McNeil,et al.  Public opinion on UK milk marketing and dairy cow welfare , 2009, Animal Welfare.

[19]  D. Weary,et al.  Preference and usage of pasture versus free-stall housing by lactating dairy cattle. , 2009, Journal of dairy science.

[20]  E. Kristensen,et al.  A mixed methods inquiry: How dairy farmers perceive the value(s) of their involvement in an intensive dairy herd health management program , 2008, Acta veterinaria Scandinavica.

[21]  Simon J. Oosting,et al.  Defining sustainability as a socio-cultural concept: Citizen panels visiting dairy farms in the Netherlands , 2008 .

[22]  Wim Verbeke,et al.  Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently , 2008 .

[23]  G. María,et al.  Public perception of farm animal welfare in Spain , 2006 .

[24]  J. Sharp,et al.  Public Concern with Animal Well-Being: Place, Social Structural Location, and Individual Experience. , 2006 .

[25]  J. Lassen,et al.  Happy pigs are dirty! – conflicting perspectives on animal welfare , 2006 .

[26]  Peter Danielson,et al.  A Web-Based Instrument to Model Social Norms , 2006 .

[27]  J. Noordhuizen,et al.  Quality control on dairy farms with emphasis on public health, food safety, animal health and welfare , 2005 .

[28]  S. Gosling,et al.  Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. , 2004, The American psychologist.

[29]  Noelle Aarts,et al.  Dealing with Ambivalence: Farmers' and Consumers' Perceptions of Animal Welfare in Livestock Breeding , 2002 .

[30]  R. Rosenthal,et al.  “Some Things You Learn Aren't So”: Cohen's Paradox, Asch's Paradigm, and the Interpretation of Interaction , 1995 .

[31]  D. Weary,et al.  Attitudes to Contentious Practices in Dairy Farming , 2012 .

[32]  S. Cuttle.  Impacts of pastoral grazing on soil quality , 2008 .

[33]  N. Denzin,et al.  The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research , 2005 .

[34]  J. T. Green,et al.  Reproduction, mastitis, and body condition of seasonally calved Holstein and Jersey cows in confinement or pasture systems. , 2002, Journal of dairy science.

[35]  F. Brom.  Food, Consumer Concerns, and Trust: Food Ethics for a Globalizing Market , 2000 .