scholarly journals Public attitudes toward dairy farm practices and technology related to milk production

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. e0250850
Author(s):  
Lexis H. Ly ◽  
Erin B. Ryan ◽  
Daniel M. Weary
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Milk Production ◽  
Genetic Modification ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Public Attitudes ◽  
Dairy Farm ◽  
The United States ◽  
Animal Products ◽  
Farm Systems ◽  
Qualitative Responses

Dairy farm systems have intensified to meet growing demands for animal products, but public opposition to this intensification has also grown due, in part, to concerns about animal welfare. One approach to addressing challenges in agricultural systems has been through the addition of new technologies, including genetic modification. Previous studies have reported some public resistance towards the use of these technologies in agriculture, but this research has assessed public attitudes toward individual practices and technologies and few studies have examined a range of practices on dairy farms. In the present study, we presented participants with four scenarios describing dairy practices (cow-calf separation, the fate of excess dairy calves, pasture access and disbudding). Citizens from Canada and the United States (n = 650) indicated their support (on a 7-point scale) toward five approaches (maintaining standard farm practice, using a naturalistic approach, using a technological approach, or switching to plant-based or yeast-based milk production) aimed at addressing the welfare issues associated with the four dairy practices. Respondents also provided a text-based rationale for their responses and answered a series of demographic questions including age, gender, and diet. Participant diet affected attitudes toward milk alternatives, with vegetarians and vegans showing more support for the plant-based and yeast-based milk production. Regardless of diet, most participants opposed genetic modification technologies and supported more naturalistic practices. Qualitative responses provided insight into participants’ values and concerns, and illustrated a variety of perceived benefits and concerns related to the options presented. Common themes included animal welfare, ethics of animal use, and opposition toward technology. We conclude that Canadian and US citizens consider multiple aspects of farm systems when contemplating animal welfare concerns, and tend to favor naturalistic approaches over technological solutions, especially when the latter are based on genetic modification.

scholarly journals Chinese Public Attitudes towards, and Knowledge of, Animal Welfare

Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 855
Author(s):  
Francesca Carnovale ◽  
Xiao Jin ◽  
David Arney ◽  
Kris Descovich ◽  
Wenliang Guo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Public Attitudes ◽  
Animal Suffering ◽  
Chinese Consumers ◽  
Animal Products ◽  
Stage Of Development ◽  
Chinese Consumer ◽  
Consumer Interests ◽  
Transportation Times

Food-producing animals make up the majority of animals that humans manage globally, and China has been a major producer and exporter of animal products since the late 1990s. The opinions of the population in China regarding animal welfare are not as well understood as those in Europe. In China, animal welfare as a societal concern is still at an early stage of development. This survey of Chinese attitudes aimed to understand consumer knowledge of and behaviour towards animal welfare, and to determine whether harnessing consumer interests may be a potential future influence on the development of high-welfare agricultural production. Most participants were not aware of the meaning of animal welfare, but the number of those that were aware was higher than reported previously. The welfare of wild animals was rated particularly important compared to other animals. The links between welfare and the taste and/or safety of food were considered to be important, and Chinese consumers reported a willingness to pay more for food from animals produced in good welfare conditions, although the quality of the food was considered more important than the animal suffering. A large majority of the respondents reported that there should be legislation protecting animals and certification of welfare on farms, that animals on farms should be provided with enjoyable experiences and that transportation times should be minimised. Furthermore, most respondents reported that animals should be stunned before slaughter. We conclude that animal welfare is of importance to the Chinese consumer, in particular because of its connection to food quality.

scholarly journals Systematic Nutrient (im) Balances in Dairy Farm Systems of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Regions of the United States

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Quirine M. Ketterings ◽  
Karl J. Czymmek ◽  
Douglas B. Beegle ◽  
Larry E. Chase ◽  
Caroline N. Rasmussen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dairy Farm ◽  
The United States ◽  
Farm Systems

Public attitudes to animal welfare and landholder resource limitations: implications for total grazing pressure management in the southern rangelands of Australia

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 477 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Sinclair ◽  
A. L. Curtis ◽  
T. Atkinson ◽  
R. B. Hacker
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Public Attitudes ◽  
Commodity Price ◽  
Grazing Pressure ◽  
Feral Pigs ◽  
Control Programs ◽  
Primary Responsibility ◽  
Significant Burden ◽  
Domestic Livestock

Sustainable grazing in the nationally iconic southern rangelands of Australia requires landholders to actively manage the grazing pressure from both domestic livestock and non-domestic herbivores. Landholders have primary responsibility for controlling the non-domestic herbivores. In doing so, they must meet the Australian public’s expectations for resource conservation (mainly a public good) and animal welfare. Governments are also involved in the management of non-domestic herbivores via native and feral animal legislation and control programs. The Australian public will not accept cruelty to animals, perceived or otherwise. In this paper we explore the challenges faced by landholders in their attempts to manage the grazing pressure from native herbivores, particularly kangaroos, feral goats and feral pigs, while meeting the Australian public’s expectations for animal welfare. Landholders typically live on extensive properties and their capacity to manage these is influenced by high climate variability, low labour availability, commodity price fluctuations and limited capital available for investment in new technologies. The additional requirement to reduce the grazing pressure from kangaroos, feral goats and feral pigs is a significant burden on already time-poor landholders. Hence, there is a critical disparity between landholders’ capacity and their responsibility to effectively manage the non-domestic herbivores on their properties. We suggest that current expectations of landholders to deliver public benefits by publicly acceptable practices are unreasonable. Further, we suggest that governments should accept more responsibility for managing non-domestic grazing pressure. The concept of duty of care to land management provides a means by which a more appropriate division of responsibilities between landholders and government could be achieved to ensure that valued attributes of this iconic Australian landscape are retained.

scholarly journals An overview of organic, grassfed dairy farm management and factors related to higher milk production

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Miriam A. Snider ◽  
Sara E. Ziegler ◽  
Heather M. Darby ◽  
Kathy J. Soder ◽  
André F. Brito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Milk Production ◽  
Social Factors ◽  
Dairy Farm ◽  
Mail Survey ◽  
The United States ◽  
Performance Comparison ◽  
Government Programs ◽  
Current Production ◽  
Production Practices ◽  
Feed Costs

Abstract Organic, grassfed (OGF) dairy, which requires higher pasture and forage dry matter intake compared with standard organic dairy practices, is unique both in its management needs and in production challenges. The OGF dairy sector is rapidly growing, with the expansion of this industry outpacing other dairy sectors. There is a lack of research outlining OGF dairy production practices, producer-identified research needs or social factors that affect OGF systems. The objectives of this study were to, with a group of OGF dairy producers, (1) assess information regarding current production practices and producer knowledge, and (2) identify agronomic and social factors that may influence milk production on OGF farms across the United States. A mail survey, focused on demographics, forage and animal management, knowledge, and satisfaction of their farm, was developed and distributed in 2019, with 167 responses (47% response rate). The majority of producers indicated they belonged to the plain, or Amish-Mennonite, community. Milk production was greater on farms that had Holstein cattle, as compared to farms with Jerseys and mixed breeds, and employed intensive pasture rotation. Furthermore, most producers reported the use of supplements such as molasses and kelp meal, which can improve milk production, but also increase feed costs. Producers who indicated that they were at least satisfied with their milk production also reported high levels of knowledge of grazing management and cow reproductive performance. Comparison of response data from plain/non-plain respondents revealed that those that did not identify as plain were more likely to utilize certain government programs, had different priorities and utilized technology more frequently. Based on these results, more research exploring financial and production benchmarks, effective communication strategies to reach OGF producers and methods to improve cattle production through improved forage quality is needed.

Sources and uses of information on a West Coast dairy farm

2002 ◽  
pp. 31-32
Author(s):  
C. Van der Geest
Keyword(s):  
Milk Production ◽  
Time Pressure ◽  
Data Gathering ◽  
Technical Information ◽  
Dairy Farm ◽  
Farming System ◽  
Herd Size ◽  
Financial Benefit ◽  
Nitrogen Response ◽  
Directional Information

I am a 30-year-old sharemilker on my parent's 600 cow developing farm near Blackball on the western side of the Grey Valley. Earlier this year I competed in the National Young Farmer of the Year competition and finished a close third. So what is information? There are two types of information that I use. There is data gathered from my farm to help fine tune the running of the day to day operations on the farm And directional information This is the information that arrives in papers and directs the long-term direction and plans of the farm and farming businesses. Due to the variability in weather on the Coast there is a greater need to monitor and adjust the farming system compared to an area like Canterbury. This was shown last year (2001/02) when the farm was undergoing a rapid period of development and I was under time restraints from increasing the herd size, building a new shed as well as developing the farm. The results of the time pressure was that day to day information gathering was lower resulting in per cow production falling by 11% or around $182 per cow. So what information was lacking that caused this large drop in profit. • Pasture growth rates • Cow condition • Nitrogen requirements • Paddock performance • Milk production • Pre-mating heat detection As scientists and advisers I hear you say that it is the farmer's responsibility to gather and analyse this information. You have the bigger topics to research and discover, gene marking, improving pasture species, sexing of sperm and ideas that I have not even contemplated yet. This is indeed very valuable research. Where would farming be without the invention of electric fences, artificial breeding and nitrogen research? But my problem is to take a farm with below average production to the top 10% in production with the existing technology and farming principles. I have all the technical information I need at the end of a phone. I can and do ring my consultant, fertiliser rep, vet, neighbour and due to the size and openness of New Zealand science, at present if they do not know I can ring an expert in agronomy, nutrition, soils and receive the answer that I require. I hope that this openness remains as in a time of privatisation and cost cutting it is a true advantage. I feel that for myself the next leap in information is not in the growing of grass or production of milk but in the tools to collect, store and utilise that information. This being tied to a financial benefit to the farming business is the real reason that I farm. Think of the benefits of being able to read pasture cover on a motorbike instantly downloaded, overlaying cow intake with milk production, changes in cow weight, daily soil temperature and predicted nitrogen response. Telling me low producing cows and poor producing paddocks, any potential feed deficits or surpluses. This would be a powerful information tool to use. The majority of this information is already available but until the restraints of time and cost are removed from data gathering and storage, this will not happen.

Measuring the cost of environmental compliance for Waikato dairy farmers - a survey approach

2015 ◽  
Vol 77 ◽  
pp. 159-166
Author(s):  
T.O.R. Macdonald ◽  
J.S. Rowarth ◽  
F.G. Scrimgeour
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Management Practice ◽  
Dairy Farm ◽  
Environmental Compliance ◽  
Dairy Farmers ◽  
The Past ◽  
Farm Systems ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Farm System ◽  
Survey Approach

The link between dairy farm systems and cost of environmental compliance is not always clear. A survey of Waikato dairy farmers was conducted to establish the real (non-modelled) cost of compliance with environmental regulation in the region. Quantitative and qualitative data were gathered to improve understanding of compliance costs and implementation issues for a range of Waikato farm systems. The average oneoff capital cost of compliance determined through a survey approach was $1.02 per kg milksolids, $1490 per hectare and $403 per cow. Costs experienced by Waikato farmers have exceeded average economic farm surplus for the region in the past 5 years. As regulation increases there are efficiencies to be gained through implementing farm infrastructure and farm management practice to best match farm system intensity. Keywords: Dairy, compliance, farm systems, nitrogen, Waikato

Epidemiology of Technology Use and Mental Health in the United States

2020 ◽  
pp. 41-56
Author(s):  
Seth W. Whiting ◽  
Rani A. Hoff
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Technology Use ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Role Playing ◽  
The United States ◽  
Mass Scale ◽  
Online Gambling ◽  
Health Issues ◽  
Mental Health Issues

Advancements in technologies and their mass-scale adoption throughout the United States create rapid changes in how people interact with the environment and each other and how they live and work. As technologies become commonplace in society through increased availability and affordability, several problems may emerge, including disparate use among groups, which creates divides in attainment of the beneficial aspects of a technology’s use and coinciding mental health issues. This chapter briefly overviews new technologies and associated emerging applications in information communication technologies, social media networks, video games and massively multiplayer online role-playing games, and online gambling, then examines the prevalence of use among the general population and its subgroups and further discusses potential links between mental health issues associated with each technology and implications of overuse.

scholarly journals Another Story: What Public Opinion Data Tell Us about Refugee and Humanitarian Policy

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 379-400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brad Blitz
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Public Attitudes ◽  
The United States ◽  
European Social Survey ◽  
Humanitarian Assistance ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Media Campaigns ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
Muslim Communities

The global reaction to US President Donald Trump's executive order, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” of January 27, 2017,1 revealed great public sympathy for the fate of refugees and the principle of refugee protection. In the case of Europe, such sympathy has, however, been dismissed by politicians who have read concerns regarding security and integration as reason for introducing restrictive policies on asylum and humanitarian assistance. These policies are at odds with public sentiment. Drawing upon public opinion surveys conducted by Amnesty International, the European Social Survey (ESS), and Pew Global Attitudes Survey across the European Union and neighboring states, this article records a marked divide between public attitudes towards the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers and official policies regarding asylum and humanitarian assistance, and seeks to understand why this is the case. The article suggests that post-9/11 there has been a reconfiguration of refugee policy and a reconnecting of humanitarian and security interests which has enabled a discourse antithetical to the universal right to asylum. It offers five possible explanations for this trend: i) fears over cultural antagonism in host countries; ii) the conflation of refugees and immigrants, both those deemed economically advantageous as well as those labelled as “illegal”; iii) dominance of human capital thinking; iv) foreign policy justification; and v) the normalization of border controls. The main conclusion is that in a post-post-Cold War era characterized in part by the reconnecting of security and humanitarian policy, European governments have developed restrictive policies despite public sympathy. Support for the admission of refugees is not, however, unqualified, and most states and European populations prefer skilled populations that can be easily assimilated. In order to achieve greater protection and more open policies, this article recommends human rights actors work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its partners to challenge the above discourse through media campaigns and grassroots messaging. Further recommendations include: • Challenging efforts to normalize and drawing attention to the extreme and unprecedented activities of illegal and inhumane practices, e.g., detention, offshore processing, and the separation of families through the courts as part of a coordinated information campaign to present a counter moral argument. • Identifying how restrictive asylum policies fail to advance foreign policy interests and are contrary to international law. • Evidencing persecution by sharing information with the press and government agencies on the nature of claims by those currently considered ineligible for refugee protection as part of a wider campaign of information and inclusion. • Engaging with minority, and in particular Muslim, communities to redress public concerns regarding the possibility of cultural integration in the host country. • Clarifying the rights of refugees and migrants in line with the UNHCR and International Organization for Migration (IOM) guidelines and European and national law in order to hold governments to account and to ensure that all — irrespective of their skills, status, nationality or religion — are given the opportunity to seek asylum. • Identifying and promoting leadership among states and regional bodies to advance the rights of refugees.

scholarly journals Estimating mouse and rat use in American laboratories by extrapolation from Animal Welfare Act-regulated species

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry Carbone
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
The United States ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Government Agencies ◽  
Laboratory Rats ◽  
Tier System ◽  
Western Nations ◽  
Rats And Mice ◽  
Usage Data

AbstractAlone among Western nations, the United States has a two-tier system for welfare protections for vertebrate animals in research. Because its Animal Welfare Act (AWA) excludes laboratory rats and mice (RM), government veterinarians do not inspect RM laboratories and RM numbers are only partially reported to government agencies1. Without transparent statistics, it is impossible to track efforts to reduce or replace these sentient animals’ use or to project government resources needed if AWA coverage were expanded to include them. I obtained annual RM usage data from 16 large American institutions and compared RM numbers to institutions’ legally-required reports of their AWA-covered mammals. RM comprised approximately 99.3% of mammals at these representative institutions. Extrapolating from 780,070 AWA-covered mammals in 2017–18, I estimate that 111.5 million rats and mice were used per year in this period. If the same proportion of RM undergo painful procedures as are publicly reported for AWA-covered animals, then some 44.5 million mice and rats underwent potentially painful experiments. These data inform the questions of whether the AWA needs an update to cover RM, or whether the NIH should increase transparency of funded animal research. These figures can benchmark progress in reducing animal numbers in general and more specifically, in painful experiments. This estimate is higher than any others available, reflecting the challenges of obtaining statistics without consistent and transparent institutional reports.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document