Dairy Animal Welfare

From a Producer, Consumer & Industry Perspective

By Jenny Hanson, Communications Manager

How do consumers and non-farming citizens think about animal welfare? What do companies expect from producers who supply their milk? How can farmers address these expectations? GENEX delegates and alternates attending the cooperative’s annual meeting learned about the science of animal welfare from Jennifer Van Os, Assistant Professor & Extension Specialist-Animal Welfare, Department of Dairy Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison. She made great points worth sharing with all GENEX members and customers.

Animal Welfare – What is it?

Animal welfare describes the state of the animal ranging from poor welfare to good welfare. It’s based on outcomes and is facility-type and farm-size neutral.

There are two main disciplines in the study of animal welfare. As Jennifer Van Os shares, “One is the biological science, which I’m trained in. This means understanding what’s important from the animal’s perspective using techniques such as looking at the animal’s physiology, behavior, etc. The other approach is to use social science, which is about understanding people and what motivates their attitudes, values and how they think.”

Jennifer divides the biological science of animal welfare (understanding the cow) into three categories.

1. Body. This category looks at an animal’s bodily health or biological function. It’s about health and performance and includes many measurable points like growth, productivity, body condition, reproduction, lameness, hygiene, etc.

2. Mind. This category focuses on the animal’s psychological well-being. It’s not about the complex human emotions; it’s about if the animal is in a negative state of well-being (experiencing pain, fear, stress, hunger, thirst) or a positive state (experiencing contentment, pleasure).

3. Nature. This means meeting the animal’s behavioral needs or having a lack of abnormal behavior. For instance, for dairy cows a behavioral characteristic is lying time. Spending time lying down is normal behavior.

These categories are not mutually exclusive. Instead, there is overlap. Jennifer also explains the purpose of the three-category framework is to help “better understand how different stakeholders prioritize these aspects of animal welfare. It also illustrates that each aspect has ways to scientifically evaluate what’s important to the animal.”

Transparency … Critical, Yet Insufficient

In recent years, it seems more producers have strived to tell their farm story and educate others about how they care for their animals. However, Jennifer shares that while telling the story and educating people does accomplish something, it’s not necessarily enough. Why?

First, transparency, being open and having the conversation is critical. She remarks, “Some research has shown that when people think producers have something to hide, it reduces their trust. This is regardless of the demographics.”

She goes on to say that being open, however, is just the first step, and the facts aren’t the only thing that matter.

She explained this concept further by sharing the results of a study conducted in British Columbia. 1 The study analyzed the knowledge level and attitudes, concerns and values of 1,000 people visiting a working dairy farm. Before the dairy tour, the visitors took a quiz to assess how much they knew about dairy production and a survey to gauge their attitudes and values concerning dairy production. After the tour, they took a post-quiz to see how their knowledge level changed and also a survey to determine if their attitude or values had changed and why. This study focused on the social science (understanding people) discipline of animal welfare.

The results showed improved quiz scores; the visitors became more knowledgeable about dairy production practices. However, even though their knowledge level improved, not everyone’s perception improved: 24% had improved perceptions of animal welfare; 32% became more critical; and 44% experienced no change. This shows education does not always improve attitudes.

“This difference didn’t have anything to do with demographics,” explains Jennifer. “It had to do with how these visitors prioritized their values around animal welfare.”

Understanding Cows and People

Applying both disciplines of animal welfare to this study (biological and social) provides valuable insight to producers.

Consider the Body category of biological science. The 24% of visitors to the dairy whose perceptions improved after learning more about dairy production found their values related to a cow’s biological function were supported. They, like the producers, value things like animal care, nutrition and hygiene. While producers and some consumers share similar views on biological function, it’s important for producers to continue looking for ways to improve. Jennifer suggests future goals should look to decrease rates of lameness, transition cow disease and calf morbidity.

Try to “understand people’s concerns, which don’t just come from an explanation of why you do things but by recognizing their emotion and values behind those concerns.”

On topics such as pain experienced by the animal – a part of the Mind category – different stakeholder groups share some values. Jennifer explained how different stakeholder groups in general view pain management: corporate buyers in the dairy chain value minimizing pain (think about lameness, injuries, dehorning, etc.); producers prioritize reducing chronically painful conditions like lameness, and some producers use pain control for dehorning calves; and non-ag citizens feel farm animals should be protected from feeling pain, even during brief routine procedures. Her suggestion to cattle producers in attendance at the annual meeting was pain control is an area that producers can make small changes in their routine to help improve public perception and mitigate the value differences between stakeholder groups.

Considering the Nature category, which focuses on animals’ freedom to express normal behaviors, Jennifer explains that research shows producers don’t always place this area (daylight, outdoor access, social interaction, etc.) as their highest priority. In contrast, she notes consumers often do prioritize these concerns. For the 32% of farm visitors whose perceptions became more critical after the tour, their existing concerns were confirmed, or they discovered new concerns because they place high priority on the animals’ freedom to express normal behaviors. Yet, she says there is opportunity to find common ground. “The goal would be to try to help close this gap by providing opportunity for more space per animal, movement, a wider range of behavior or for more social contact, particularly for calves.”

In her conclusion, Jennifer’s takeaway for annual meeting attendees was there is opportunity for producers on the topic of animal welfare. Consider reframing conversations by thinking about consumers’ values. Try to “understand people’s concerns, which don’t just come from an explanation of why you do things but by recognizing their emotion and values behind those concerns.”

(1) Ventura BA, von Keyserlingk MAG, Wittman H, Weary DM (2016) What Difference Does a Visit Make? Changes in Animal Welfare Perceptions after Interested Citizens Tour a Dairy Farm. PLoS ONE 11(5): e0154733. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154733