Abstract
Temperature variability resulting from climate change poses challenges around the world for livestock production and the welfare of the animals in these systems. As animal industries attempt to combat these challenges, it is vital to understand how potential changes implemented by farmers resonate with societal values. The aims of this study were to determine how different proposed changes to mitigate heat stress in dairy cattle influence public perceptions toward Australian dairy farm systems, including perceptions of (1) cow welfare, (2) confidence in the industry, and (3) trust in farmers. Participants were presented with 1 of 4 treatments representing a potential solution to mitigate heat stress in dairy cattle: (1) indoor system (a fully indoor barn), (2) choice system (cows have agency to choose to be indoors or outdoors), (3) gene edition + pasture (cows are genetically modified to become more resilient to heat stress), and (4) pasture (outdoor system that is currently used in Australia, but the farmer plants more trees). Participants were then asked to respond to questions on a 7-point Likert scale. Questions were about cow welfare (3 questions), confidence in dairy industry (4 questions), and trust in farmers (9 questions), with each section followed by an open-ended question for participants to explain their answers. Participants perceived cow welfare to be the lowest in the indoor system (2.80 ± 0.10), followed by gene edition + pasture (4.48 ± 0.11), with choice and pasture systems being the highest but not different from each other (5.41 ± 0.11 and 5.32 ± 0.11, respectively). Confidence in the dairy industry was lower among participants in the indoor (4.78 ± 0.08) compared with participants assigned to the choice (5.28 ± 0.08) or pasture (5.25 ± 0.08) systems. Confidence was also lower among participants in the gene edition (4.95 ± 0.08) compared with the choice system. Trust in farmers was similar across all treatments. Our results provide the first evidence that the Australian public may be reluctant to accept heat stress mitigation strategies that either do not allow cows to have access to pasture or those that include gene-editing technologies.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 5893-5908 |
| Number of pages | 16 |
| Journal | Journal of Dairy Science |
| Volume | 105 |
| Issue number | 7 |
| Early online date | 4 May 2022 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jul 2022 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:The costs associated with recruitment of the representative panel of Australian participants were funded by Dairy Australia. Funding for this project was also provided, in part, by the Hans Sigrist Research Prize awarded to MvK (Bern, Switzerland) and through a Genome Canada grant (AWD-016758: GENOMECA 2020). We thank all the participants in this study for sharing their views. The authors have not stated any conflicts of interest.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 American Dairy Science Association