Simple SummaryThe inclusion of societal input is needed for food animal production industries to retain their “social license to operate”. Little is known about the knowledge and attitudes of Brazilian citizens regarding food animal production systems. The aim of this study was to explore the beliefs and attitudes of Brazilians not associated with livestock production towards farm animal production systems. Overall, our participants expressed a preference for free-range, cage-free, and more “natural” production systems. They also expressed concerns with livestock production systems that limited the movement or expression of natural behaviours, particularly those that they associated with animal suffering or distress. They recognized farm animals as deserving respect and dignity beyond the provision of basic needs. Our findings indicate that Brazil’s current farm animal housing practices that are associated with restriction of movement may not align with societal expectations.AbstractThe inclusion of societal input is needed for food animal production industries to retain their “social license to operate”; failure to engage with the public on this topic risks the long-term sustainability of these industries. The primary aim of this study was to explore the beliefs and attitudes of Brazilians citizens not associated with livestock production towards farm animal production. A related secondary aim was to identify the specific beliefs and attitudes towards systems that are associated with restriction of movement. Each participant was shown pictures representing two of five possible major food animal industries (laying hens, beef cattle, pregnant sows, lactating sows, and poultry meat). Participants were presented a six pages survey that included demographic questions plus two sets of two pictures and a series of questions pertaining to the pictures. Each set of pictures represented a particular industry where one picture represented a housing type that is associated with behavioural restrictions and the other picture represented a system that allowed for a greater degree of movement. Participants were asked their perceptions on the prevalence of each system in Brazil, then their preference of one picture vs. the other, and the reasons justifying their preference. Immediately following, the participant repeated the same exercise with the second set of two pictures representing another industry followed by the same series of questions as described above. Quantitative data were analysed with mixed effects logistic regression, and qualitative responses were coded into themes. The proportion of participants that believed animals are reared in confinement varied by animal production type: 23% (beef cattle), 82% (poultry), 81% (laying hens), and 60% (swine). A large majority (79%) stated that farm animals are not well-treated in Brazil. Overall, participants preferred systems that were not associated with behavioural restriction. The preference for free-range or cage-free systems was justified based on the following reasons...

Male piglets are commonly castrated to eliminate the risk of boar taint. Surgical castration is the commonly used procedure and is known to induce pain. Gene modification targeted at eliminating boar taint in male pigs has been proposed as a possible alternative to surgical castration. The aims of this study were to explore public acceptability of this biotechnology using a mixed methods approach. Quantitative data to assess acceptability of 570 participants from southern Brazil were analysed with multinomial logistic regression models and Spearman correlations; qualitative responses of the reasons provided in support of their position were coded into themes. Just over half of the participants (56%) considered gene modification of male pigs acceptable. Acceptability was lower among participants who grew up in an agricultural environment (ρ = 0.02), but was not influenced by sex, age, religion, urban or rural living, or level of education. Acceptability of gene modification of male pigs as an alternative to surgical castration was positively related to the perception of benefits (r = -0.56, ρ<0.0001) and negatively related to the participant’s perception of risks (r = -0.35, ρ<0.0001). Acceptability was not related to knowledge of basic concepts of genetic biotechnologies (r = 0.06, ρ<0.14), or to awareness of issues related to pig castration or boar taint (r = 0.03, ρ<0.44), both of which were low among participants. Participants that considered gene modification of pigs acceptable justified their position using arguments that it improved animal welfare. In contrast, those that were not in favour were generally opposed to genetic modification. Unforeseen downstream consequences of using genetic modification in this manner was a major concern raised by over 80% of participants. Our findings suggest that perceived animal welfare may encourage public support of gene editing of food animals. However, potential risks of the technology need to be addressed and conveyed to the public, as many participants requested clarification of such risks as a condition for support.

Integrating technology into agricultural systems has gained considerable traction, particularly over the last half century. Agricultural systems that incorporate the public’s concerns regarding farm animal welfare are more likely to be socially accepted in the long term, a key but often forgotten component of sustainability. Gene editing is a tool that has received considerable attention in the last five years, given its potential capacity to improve farm animal health, welfare, and production efficiency. This study aimed to explore the attitudes of Brazilian citizens regarding the applications of gene editing in cattle that generate offspring without horns; are more resistant to heat; and have increased muscle tissue. Using a mixed-methods approach, we surveyed participants via face-to-face, using in-depth interviews (Study 1) and an online questionnaire containing closed-ended questions (Study 2). Overall, the acceptability of gene editing was low and in cases where support was given it was highly dependent on the type and purpose of the application proposed. Using gene editing to improve muscle tissue growth was viewed as less acceptable compared to using gene editing to reduce heat stress or to produce hornless cattle. Support declined when the application was perceived to harm animal welfare, to be profit motivated or to reinforce the status quo of intensive livestock systems. The acceptability of gene editing was reduced when perceptions of risks and benefits were viewed as unevenly or unfairly distributed among consumers, corporations, different types of farmers, and the animals. Interviewees did not consider gene editing a “natural” process, citing dissenting reasons such as the high degree of human interference and the acceleration of natural processes. Our findings raised several issues that may need to be addressed for gene editing to comply with the social pillar of sustainable agriculture.

RESUMO -Neste estudo, foi testada a hipótese de que o medo de seres humanos é duradouro e pode prejudicar a produção leiteira de vacas da raça Holandesa. Um tratador aversivo realizou duas sessões diárias de um tratamento hostil (duas palmadas na região posterior e um grito forte), durante 21 dias, e um tratador neutro ordenhou as vacas, durante o mesmo período, não oferecendo nenhuma ameaça. A distância de fuga na presença do tratador aversivo e do neutro foi medida antes e 14 e 180 dias após o início do tratamento. As produções total e residual de leite (após aplicação i.v. de ocitocina na veia caudal) foram medidas a partir da ordenha realizada pelo tratador aversivo ou ou pelo neutro, entre os dias 14 e 24 do experimento. Todas as vacas (n=13) participaram dos dois tratamentos, constituindo um delineamento experimental do tipo "cross-over". Com exceção do período anterior ao experimento, as vacas mantiveram maior distância de fuga do tratador aversivo que do neutro, mesmo 180 dias após o último contato com os tratadores. Entretanto, não houve efeito do tratamento sobre a produção total ou residual de leite. Os resultados corroboram outros estudos que comprovaram que vacas discriminam tratadores aversivos de neutros. Entretanto, o tratamento aqui aplicado não afetou as produções total ou residual de leite.Palavras-chave: bem-estar animal, bovino, etologia, medo, relação humano-animal An Aversive Milker Causes Fear, But Does Not Influence Milk Yield of Holstein CowsABSTRACT -In the present study the hypothesis that fear of humans is long-lasting and may influence milk production in Holstein cows was tested. One person (the aversive handler) carried out two daily sessions of an aversive treatment during 21 days, where each cow received two slaps on the rump and a strong yell. The control handler walked around the cows not menacing the cows. Flight distance from both handlers was measured before the treatments were imposed and 14 and 180 days later. Total and residual milk (measured after an i.v. oxytocin injection in the caudal vein) were measured when either the aversive or the neutral handler carried out the milking, between days 14 and 24 of the experiment. All the cows were used in both treatments in a cross-over design. Except for the day before treatments started, the cows kept a larger distance from the aversive than from the neutral handler, even after 180 days without contact with these handlers. Nevertheless, there was no effect of treatment on total milk yield or residual milk. The results corroborate others that show that cows can discriminate between aversive and neutral individuals. Under the conditions of the present study, the fact that milking was done by the aversive individual did not influence total milk yield and residual milk. IntroduçãoAs relações entre o homem e os animais podem ter grande impacto sobre o bem-estar de animais de fazenda, constituindo-se um aspecto da criação animal em que, com educação, é possível alcançar boas mudanças sem grandes custos, melhorando os níveis do bem-es...

We explored the attitudes of Brazilians towards different methods to deal with boar taint in pork (surgical castration without pain control, SC; surgical castration with pain control, SC+PC; immunocastration, IC; raising entire males, EM). Two surveys (Sv1, n = 441 and Sv2, n = 768) containing closed and open questions were conducted. Nearly 70% of Sv1 and Sv2 participants were unaware that meat of entire males may have boar taint and that SC is widely used in pig production in Brazil. In Sv1, acceptability of SC+PC (63%) and IC (53%) was greater than of SC (15%). In Sv2, acceptability of IC (55%) and EM (52%) was greater than of SC (18%). Open-ended responses indicated that participants objected to inflicting pain to pigs to attain a production goal, and were concerned with organoleptic traits and risks of exogenous residues in pork. Participants’ views regarding the potential increases in the cost of meat due to adoption of alternative methods varied; some argued that avoiding pain justifies an increase in the price of pork and others that this would impact especially lower income citizens. Our findings indicate that participants opposed surgical castration without pain control, and supported alternative methods. However, the concern with potential risks of presence of residues in meat, expressed by a few participants, may need to be addressed among consumers.

Lebanon is facing an increasing water supply deficit due to the increasing demand for freshwater, decreasing surface and groundwater resources and malfunctioning water governance structures. Technological and policy changes are needed to alleviate the impact of water scarcity and secure water in the future. This paper investigates farmers' preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) in a choice experiment for a series of water saving measures at plot and irrigation district level, including more timely information of water delivery. These measures are expected to strengthen water security and use water more efficiently. Farmers are willing to pay higher water prices of $0.32/m and $0.22/m to support the implementation of water saving measures at plot level and the installation of water metering devices across the irrigation district, respectively. They are not willing to pay extra for obtaining information related to their water delivery earlier in time if this means that they will also have to pay earlier in the year for the water. Farmers with higher income and education levels who decide on their cropping pattern based on expected rainfall data are more interested in taking action than farmers whose cropping decisions are primarily based on last year's sales prices. The study shows that when aiming to design more effective sustainable water management strategies, accounting for farmers' needs and preferences, their age also has to be considered: younger farmers (<40 years) are on average more interested in and willing to pay more for new water saving measures than older farmers (>40 years).

Gestation stall housing for pregnant sows (Sus scrofa) has been, or is being, phased out in many parts of the world in response to public criticism. However, in Brazil, one of the largest global producers and exporters of pork, gestation stall housing is still common. The objective of this study was to explore the views of Brazilians, including participants associated (ALP) or not with livestock production (NotALP), on gestation stall housing. Participants were provided the option of accessing a short text describing the housing system and a video of pregnant sows housed in either individual or group housing. Participants (ALP; n = 176, NotALP; n = 173) were asked to state their position on housing pregnant sows in individual stalls and to provide the reason(s) justifying their position. More NotALP (87%) participants than ALP (69%) participants rejected individual stalls. More participants (85%) that accessed the optional information rejected the stalls than those (71%) that did not. Qualitative analyses revealed that animal welfare, most often in reference to animal sentience, freedom of movement and ethics, was the main justification given for rejecting gestation stalls. Those in favour of individual stalls justified their position with statements such as improved production, handling and animal health, and reduced aggression. This qualitative, exploratory study, based on a convenience sample of participants, does not represent the views of Brazilian society; however, it identified some shared values between participants associated with livestock production and those that are not. Our findings highlight that opposition to gestation stalls for sows reflects an ethical position regarding the treatment of livestock and should not be interpreted as support for group housing in confined systems.

No abstract