Early cow-calf separation followed by individual housing of calves is standard practice on dairy farms. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that as awareness grows the public will oppose these practices, which could compromise the dairy industry's social license. Despite disagreement among different stakeholders over weighting and evaluations of effects of early separation (e.g., distress response, disease risk), recent systematic reviews indicate that there is little scientific evidence supporting this practice. The acceptability of alternative cow-calf management systems is unknown. We used a mixed methods survey with a convenience sample of 307 Canadians plus a representative sample of 1,487 Americans to investigate perceptions of these systems, examining the effects of providing social or foster cow contact following early separation or not separating cow-calf pairs. Attitudes and perceptions of animal welfare were more positive (on a 7-point scale where 1 is most negative, 7 is most positive, and 4 is a neutral midpoint) toward the system where calves were not separated from the cow (mean ± SE; 5.8 ± 0.07; 5.7 ± 0.07), compared with systems in which the calf was separated and individually housed (3.6 ± 0.07; 3.4 ± 0.07), separated and group housed (3.7 ± 0.07; 3.4 ± 0.07), or separated and kept with a foster cow (3.8 ± 0.07; 3.6 ± 0.07). Participants were consistent in their attitudes toward and perceptions of animal welfare within the system, suggesting that participants took a holistic and value-oriented approach to cow-calf management regarding separation. These results, in combination with many participants' concern for the importance of the mother cow-calf relationship and perceptions that severing of this bond was a breach of standard of care, suggest that there may be low acceptance of any cow-calf management system involving early separation as such systems are unlikely to resonate with underlying values.

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.

Genetic engineering of animals has been proposed to address societal problems, but public acceptance of the use of this technology is unclear. Previous work has shown that the source of information proposing the technology (e.g. companies, universities), the term used to describe the technology (e.g. genome editing, genetic modification), and the genetic engineering application (e.g. different food products) affects technology acceptance. We conducted three mixed-method surveys and used a causal trust-acceptability model to understand social acceptance of genetic engineering (GE) by investigating 1) the source of information proposing the technology, 2) the term used to describe the technology, and 3) the GE application for farm animals proposed. Further, participants expressed their understanding of technology using a range of terms interchangeably, all describing technology used to change an organism’s DNA. We used structural equation modelling and confirmed model fit for each survey. In each survey, perceptions of benefit had the greatest effect on acceptance. Following our hypothesized model, social trust had an indirect influence on acceptance through similar effects of perceived benefit and perceived risk. Additional quantitative analysis showed that the source of information and technology term had little to no effect on acceptance. Applications involving animals were perceived as less beneficial than a plant application, and an application for increased cattle muscle growth was perceived as more risky than a plant application. When assessing the acceptability of applications participants considered impacts on plants, animals, and people, trust in actors and technologies, and weighed benefits and drawbacks of GE. Future work should consider how to best measure acceptability of GE for animals, consider contextual factors and consider the use of inductive frameworks.

No abstract