Social Acceptance of Dairy Farming: The Ambivalence Between the Two Faces of Modernity

Abstract

Society's relationship with modern animal farming is an ambivalent one: on the one hand there is rising criticism about modern animal farming; on the other hand people appreciate certain aspects of it, such as increased food safety and low food prices. This ambivalence reflects the two faces of modernity: the negative (exploitation of nature and loss of traditions) and the positive (progress, convenience, and efficiency). This article draws on a national survey carried out in the Netherlands that aimed at gaining a deeper understanding about the acceptance of modern dairy farming in Dutch society. People take two dimensions into account when evaluating different aspects of modern dairy farming: (1) the way living beings are used for production and (2) the way a dairy farm functions as a business. In both these dimensions people appeared to adopt cautious opinions: most people preferred relatively traditional and natural farms and were concerned about the use of nature and treatment of animals in modern production-although this did not imply an outright rejection of modern animal farming. The study also looked for (and sought to explain) differences of opinion between social groups. Besides sociodemographic factors such as age and gender, farming experience and valueorientation (such as socially minded and professional) appeared to be important variables. The values and convictions within modern society can help to explain why some people are greatly concerned about animal welfare while some show less concern. This diversity also helps to explain why general information campaigns are quite ineffective in allaying concerns about modern animal farming.

Public concerns about dairy-cow welfare: how should the industry respond?

“…The lack of relationship makes sense when we consider the broader literature about attitudes and knowledge (Hansen et al 2003); people's views are highly related to their values, and these values are not easily shifted. Moreover, there is also some evidence suggesting that moral values appear to have a greater impact on negative attitudes towards farm-animal welfare than does factual knowledge (Boogaard et al 2011), which may explain why criticisms regarding production practices fail to disappear following an educational intervention. As Ventura et al (2016a) concluded (p. 15), 'livestock industries cannot expect one-way education efforts (even immersive experiences such as a farm tour) to resolve societal concerns about animal welfare'.…”

“…disease transmission) at the expense of another (e.g. freedom of movement, a key issue of key public concern; Boogaard et al 2011;Popescu et al 2013). Examples abound, but a relevant case for dairy is the calf hutch.…”

Moral Values and Attitudes Toward Dutch Sow Husbandry

“…Living conditions People want animals to have natural living conditions in which they can perform natural behaviour (Boogaard 2011a, b). This naturalness plays a role in the assessment of animal welfare (Mepham 2000, Tuyttens 2010, Vanhonacker et al 2008, 2012 Essence meat Meat is seen as a part of humans' diet (Aarts 2001).…”

“…In the context of a specific animal husbandry, moral values have an influence on the general acceptance of this animal practice (Fraser 2008). For example, modern dairy farm practices are more accepted by people who opt for the moral value that humans are superior to animals than by people who opt for the moral value that humans and animals are equivalent (Boogaard et al 2011a). Also the moral value that farm animals are being sentient has an influence on the acceptance of animal husbandry practices (Duncan 2006;Knight et al 2004).…”

Moral “Lock-In” in Responsible Innovation: The Ethical and Social Aspects of Killing Day-Old Chicks and Its Alternatives

“…Another difficulty is that, although people might be willing to pay more, this willingness is not the only factor that determines actual consumer behavior (cf. Boogaard et al 2011a).…”