Livestock Science 193 (2016) 95–102

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Livestock Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/livsci

Veterinary perspectives on cattle welfare challenges and solutions

⁎
crossmark
B.A. Ventura, D.M. Weary, A.S. Giovanetti, M.A.G. von Keyserlingk
Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, 2357 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: Livestock veterinarians have important roles in advancing animal welfare on farms. In the present study, focus
Engagement groups were used to engage dairy and beef cattle veterinarians and veterinary researchers based primarily in
Consultation Europe. Discussions were structured to elicit perceptions of welfare issues on cattle farms, as well as the
Sustainability challenges and desired solutions for change. Discussions were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim and
Farming
content analysis was used to identify participants’ views on animal welfare challenges and solutions.
Dairy cow
Beef cattle
Participants held multi-dimensional conceptions of animal welfare that included animal health, pain and
distress, and behaviour. When asked to discuss animal welfare challenges, participants focused on five primary
themes: animal welfare definition and assessment, economic barriers, and farmer, veterinarian, and researcher-
related challenges. Participants envisioned the following overarching solutions: 1) research to develop better
animal welfare assessment, 2) motivating increased adherence to standards via either voluntary incentives or
mandatory regulations, and 3) increased communication linkages between stakeholders, primarily in the form
of education to farmers and veterinarians.

progresses (Kielland et al., 2009), veterinarians show a stronger

“If we, the ones who know things, won’t do it, who will?”-Cattle
Veterinarian and Participant
1. Introduction
The rearing conditions provided to farm animals have become a
common topic in discussions on the ethical challenges faced by modern
society. The past two decades have seen a series of studies that have
focused on the perceptions, attitudes and values regarding animal
welfare held by the public, both as citizens and as consumers (Boogaard
et al., 2011, 2008, 2006; Harper and Makatouni, 2002; Kjaernes et al.,
2007; Lassen et al., 2006; Prickett et al., 2010; Vanhonacker et al.,
2008). Also important are the various actors who work with the
livestock industries, as it is these individuals who hold much of the
power over the lives of farm animals and are most affected by policy
changes. In particular, livestock veterinarians are in a unique position
to provide leadership on animal welfare, as farmers generally value
their opinions (Kauppinen et al., 2010; Lam et al., 2007).
The veterinary profession has a long tradition of caring for ill and
injured animals, and veterinarians play a central role in mitigating pain
in animals (Hewson et al., 2007). Despite some evidence of desensi-
tization towards a range of known painful conditions (e.g. mastitis,
laminitis, dehorning, distal limb fracture) as veterinary training
sensitivity to animal pain than other important stakeholders like
farmers (Fredriksen and Nafstad, 2006). However, concerns regarding
the welfare of farm animals extend beyond the prevention of negative
affective states like pain and include issues like the animal's ability to
live a reasonably natural life (Fraser et al., 1997). Unfortunately, little
is known about veterinarian attitudes towards these other aspects of
animal welfare. In addition, the duties of veterinarians to both the
animal patient and human client can create a conflict of interest
(Morgan and McDonald, 2007), but little is known about how livestock
veterinarians experience this conflict and address it in their workplace.
The goal of the present study was to use a qualitative approach to
explore European cattle veterinarians’ and researchers’ perspectives on
these issues. The specific aim was to describe their perceived challenges
to resolving animal welfare issues and to identify their desired
solutions to such problems.
2. Methods
2.1. Focus group description
Six focus groups were held directly before the 7th Boehringer
Ingelheim Expert Forum on Farm Animal Well-Being in Madrid, Spain
in June 2014. The groups were composed of cattle veterinary practi-
tioners (dairy, beef, and mixed practice that included cattle) and

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nina@mail.ubc.ca (M.A.G. von Keyserlingk).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2016.10.004
Received 13 July 2015; Received in revised form 20 June 2016; Accepted 3 October 2016
1871-1413/ © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
B.A. Ventura et al. Livestock Science 193 (2016) 95–102

veterinary researchers based predominantly in Europe. Focus groups Table 2

were used to generate dynamic group interaction and elicit information Demographics of the participant sample (n=50) in the veterinary stakeholder focus
groups in Madrid, Spain.
grounded in experience (Carey and Smith, 1994). As veterinary
practitioners operate within complex social webs in farming commu- Variable Label n Percent (%)
nities, providing opportunities to discuss cattle welfare with peers was
hoped to elicit rich, in depth perspectives on these topics (Albrecht Stakeholder Veterinarian 33 66.7
Veterinary researcher 17 33.3
et al., 1993).
Trained facilitators prompted participants to discuss a series of Sex Female 15 30.0
questions over a period of 75 min. Three main questions, adapted from Male 35 70.0
Ventura et al. (2015), were presented to the participants (see Table 1
for script and order of questions). Our experiences with past focus Nationality France 7 14.0
Netherlands 7 14.0
groups (Ventura et al., 2015) indicated that individuals with close ties
Belgium 5 10.0
to the livestock industries tend to focus on technical aspects related to UK+Ireland 5 10.0
welfare issues, a phenomenon documented by others (Te Velde et al., Turkey 5 10.0
2002). To focus the discussions while still providing context, we first Germany 4 8.0
Spain 4 8.0
asked participants to describe their priority welfare concerns via an
Italy 3 6.0
online survey circulated to participants two weeks before the con- Canada 2 4.0
ference. Their answers were compiled and displayed during the focus USA 2 4.0
groups as a starting point for the live discussions. Argentina 1 2.0
New Zealand 1 2.0
Portugal 1 2.0
2.2. Participants Sweden 1 2.0
Unspecified 2 2.0
We used a convenience sample drawn from conference attendees.
As such, we did not intend the results of this study to generalize to
five pages of text. Welfare concerns from these responses were coded
broader populations of European cattle veterinarians and researchers.
into themes and sub-themes using content analysis (Coffey and
Rather, we aimed to gain an understanding of the challenges faced, and
Atkinson, 1994) and using the qualitative data management program
the solutions desired, by members of these groups. Conference
NVivo (QSY International Pty. Ltd. Version 10, 2014). Content analysis
organizers emailed focus group invitations to all conference registrants,
was likewise used for the focus group data to identify participants’
who then contacted the researchers if they wanted to participate. The
perceptions of challenges to cattle welfare and potential solutions. Two
majority of conference attendees (n=50) participated in the pre-
of the authors (B. Ventura and A. Giovanetti) independently read the
conference online questionnaire. Upon arrival at the conference each
transcripts multiple times, making notes on emerging patterns in
of these participants was assigned to one of six focus groups, each
participants’ comments and assigning themes and sub-themes to
consisting of 7–10 people. The sample was predominantly European
related sections of text. Once transcripts were coded, the two coders
(84%) and male (70%; see Table 2 for participant demographics).
compared their respective theme lists to evaluate consistency. As initial
Focus groups were largely homogeneous with respect to stakeholder
consistency was very high, coders discussed their interpretations until a
role: four of the groups were composed of veterinarians (and of those,
mutually consistent scheme was reached. Ultimately, we developed a
73% specified during the introductions that they practiced or had a
set of themes and sub-themes for both challenges and solutions, with
history of practice with dairy or beef cattle).
stakeholder roles embedded throughout the discussion of both.
In addition to the critical support roles that practicing veterinarians
Participant quotations are used below to illustrate themes and to
play for the livestock industries, people holding academic positions in
ensure transparency of the research process.
the veterinary and animal sciences frequently work closely with farm-
This research was approved by the University of British Columbia
ers and veterinarians in various supportive roles (e.g. extension,
Research Ethics Board under certificate H12-02429.
education of new veterinarians, research). Therefore, two additional
focus groups were included in the study: one composed predominantly
of veterinary researchers and the other consisting of animal scientists
working with dairy and beef cattle. 3. Results and discussion

2.3. Analyses 3.1. Perceived challenges to animal welfare

Focus group discussions were recorded and transcribed, generating Five primary challenges emerged from the discussions (see
130 pages of text. Data were transcribed by a professional transcription Table 3): animal welfare definition and assessment, economics, and
service. Content from the online questionnaire yielded an additional farmer-, veterinarian-, and researcher-related challenges.

Table 1
Script and question purpose for focus groups of cattle veterinarians and veterinary researchers.

Question Purpose of question (s)

Q1 (Main) You’ve all had a chance to take the online survey about your main cattle welfare concerns. We’ve put them up on the Lead-in and context
board, so let's keep them in mind as we move through the discussion today.
(Prompt) Is there any issue that should be added (or deleted!) or that you’d like to comment on?

Q2 (Main) How do you see your role as an industry professional in addressing these issues? Solutions (current successes and desired
(Prompts) What are you currently doing to address these issues? What would you like to be doing but currently are not? actions)

Q3 (Main) What other stakeholders do you need more support from in order to meet these goals (and how so)? Solutions and challenges
(Prompt) Are there any other challenges to meeting your role that haven’t been mentioned?

96
B.A. Ventura et al. Livestock Science 193 (2016) 95–102

Table 3
Themes discussed by participants in the context of challenges to animal welfare (AW) and the proportion of focus groups (n=6) in which each theme emerged.

Challenges to AW Theme description Proportion of groups where theme discussed

Definition & assessment Lack of consensus on meaning of AW; complexity of AW; difficulties in AW evaluation 6/6
Economic Low incoming cash flow; market instability; complex relationship between AW and production 5/6
Farmer 6/6
Knowledge/awareness Deficits in farmer knowledge or awareness of AW issues and solutions 4/6
Attitudes Cultural and psychological impediments that contributed to farmer unwillingness to address AW 6/6
Management Reactive management; low self-efficacy 6/6
Veterinarian 6/6
Knowledge Deficits in veterinarian knowledge about AW issues; inadequate AW education in curriculum 2/6
Attitudes Dismissal or avoidance of AW issues 4/6
Self-efficacy Conflict of interest between client and animal leads to constraints against veterinary action 4/6
Researcher Questionable relevance of research to reality; conflict between practical solutions and AW 2/6

3.1.1. Defining and assessing animal welfare
Each group described difficulties with defining and assessing
animal welfare on farms. For instance, one participant stated that,
“One of the big things that stands in the way for us with welfare…a lot
of it is definition. How you define animal welfare.” Others noted that
they were often too narrow in their own definition of animal welfare,
which they argued hindered progress: “As veterinarians, I’m certainly
guilty of looking at…health and production as…a proxy for welfare…
and they’re not really a very good measure of welfare holistically.”
Some participants also argued that the lack of agreement surrounding
the definition of animal welfare contributed to inconsistent messaging
to farmers: “I think the farmer sees a lot of consultants…I would wish
that all those guys come to the same point regarding the welfare
because I know that some economical consultants also recommend
overstocking about 10%…it's people like that I would like to come to
the same point.”
Many participants expressed sentiments along the lines of “we’re
still looking for good tools to measure the welfare problems.” The lack
of validated measures was felt to hinder efforts to improve welfare. For
example, many stated that the lack of tools to measure pain prevented
them from helping farmers detect painful conditions like lameness.
Some also criticized approaches such as the reliance on environmental
versus animal-based indicators. Others commented that some existing
technologies could be used to assess welfare but that others were
insufficient or prone to malfunction.
Participants’ confusion regarding the definition and assessment of
welfare reflects variation in the definitions of welfare in the literature.
For example, the multi-pronged concept proposed by Fraser et al.
(1997), and adapted for dairy cattle by von Keyserlingk et al. (2009),
includes biological functioning, affective state and natural living
concerns. Others have argued for more simple measures; for instance,
Duncan (1993) placed emphasis on affective state (e.g. emotions) and
Curtis (2007) argued that welfare assessment should be limited to
biological health and production outcomes.
3.1.2. Economics
All but one group viewed economic challenges as a barrier
preventing improvements in cattle welfare. Participants expressed
concern with low income, associated with low prices for animal
products (e.g. milk and meat) and difficulties in securing loans from
banks to invest in high welfare infrastructure changes. For example,
one participant argued, “Once again the problem…is that it's very hard
to convince the farmer…[to avoid shortcuts]…when the price of milk is
so low…” Some participants suggested that consumer demand for low
cost/high welfare products was problematic, commenting that con-
sumer willingness to pay for high quality products must rise. One
participant echoed this through his frustration with supermarkets
selling milk as a “loss leader”, i.e. using cheap milk to entice consumers
to enter the supermarket with the hope that they would buy other
products.
Others argued that highly competitive markets discouraged indivi-
dual farmers from experimenting with higher welfare systems and
advocating for high welfare with their peers. Other concerns included
the differences in economic security across countries as a result of
variable animal welfare legislation, the high costs of meeting certain
standards and the lack of funds for inspection of standards.
The question of economics is one that frequently surfaces when
discussing farm animal welfare with farmers and other stakeholders
linked to the livestock industries (de Lauwere et al., 2015; Frewer et al.,
2005; Hubbard et al., 2007; Kauppinen et al., 2010; Skarstad et al.,
2007; Spooner et al., 2014). Participant comments in the present study
revealed a paradoxical view of the relationship between animal welfare
and economics. Some believed the relationship between welfare and
economics to be positive, e.g. “better welfare is linear with more
production.” This belief, documented also among Dutch dairy farmers
and their advisors (de Lauwere et al., 2015), as well as members of the
general public in the U.S. (Cardoso et al., 2016), is likely rooted in
values that emphasize biological health and functioning as an impor-
tant determinant of animal welfare (Broom, 1991; McGlone, 1993;
Moberg, 1985). Participants likewise argued that bad welfare was bad
for business, particularly in cases of abuse by “bad apple” farmers that
harmed the reputation of the industry. However, many of these same
participants also appeared to believe in an inverse relationship between
welfare and economics, evident through comments that high welfare
provisions often required costly investments in infrastructure and/or
management changes, e.g. “and of course increasing the management,
increasing the welfare of the animals, increasing the prevention—
cost[s] them [the farmer] money.”
De Jonge and van Trijp (2013) describe an inherent conflict
between the belief that current production methods are necessary to
remain competitive and the desire to ensure a good life for animals
(and avoid conflict with social concerns). Some of our participants
clearly experienced this same conflict and seemed to believe that
modifications to improve animal welfare could be both economically
risky and advantageous. For others, this matter appeared to be context-
dependent such that changes were beneficial for some issues but risky
for others. Still others seemed to reconcile the conflict through beliefs
that costly short-term investments (e.g. deeper bedding) could trans-
late to long-term economic benefits (e.g. higher cow comfort, lower
lameness and hock injuries, leading to improved cow longevity and
milk production).
3.1.3. The role of the farmer
As has been noted by others (Driessen, 2012), the farmer was
widely perceived as the most critical stakeholder. Every focus group
considered farmer-related issues to affect animal welfare, including low
awareness and knowledge, attitudes and tradition, and management
skills.
Overall there was consensus that many farmers and farm workers
lacked awareness of certain welfare problems, which is in line with
work with Dutch dairy farmers’ perceived limitations (de Lauwere
et al., 2015). Some referenced the limited conceptions of animal

97
B.A. Ventura et al.
welfare held by farmers, as well as a lack of awareness of refinements in
pain management, handling and disease detection, e.g. “I would say
that a lot of farmers still don’t see that there is a welfare problem
when cows are sick.” These gaps in knowledge and understanding were
generally attributed to a lack of training.
Participants often focused on farmers’ attitudes to pain in cattle,
widely finding them to be deficient in some way. These perspectives
aligned quite closely with research demonstrating that farmers tend to
approach pain according to context and issue, such that chronically
painful conditions are prioritized (e.g. lameness, Leach et al., 2010a,
2010b) while shorter-term painful experiences (e.g. dehorning or
castration) are given less emphasis (Phillips et al., 2009; Spooner
et al., 2012; Tuyttens et al., 2012; Vanhonacker et al., 2008).
Farmer acceptance of the status quo was also believed to contribute
to welfare problems, as evidenced, for example, by perceived accep-
tance of high rates of calf mortality and morbidity as the norm on some
farms. Some participants also believed that long-standing traditions
translated into inaction by some farmers. One veterinarian described it
thus: “I found that the farmers love their cows, but they’re not aware
about these welfare issues…Because everything has been done the
same way for hundreds of years, and why suddenly are we talking
about welfare and pain? ” Many veterinarians spoke of the difficulty of
broaching the subject of welfare with their clients, noting that farmers
were often reluctant to acknowledge welfare problems on their farm: “I
will have discussions with producers and they say ‘I don’t want you to
write that [problem] down’.”
Participants also linked poor knowledge, resistance to change, and
poor management. Some felt, for example, that farmers’ management
strategies were the result of reacting to problems rather than planning
for success. Others commented that farmers failed to implement
effective solutions even in cases where they were aware of the problem.
Yet others considered that farmers’ actions were limited by circum-
stances beyond their control, for example when farmers are required to
adhere to too many standards (e.g. “And sometimes it's very hard for
the farmer to understand all the rules”).
3.1.4. The role of the veterinarian
Previous research has shown that veterinarians are recognized as
important advisors to farmers (de Lauwere et al., 2015; Jansen et al.,
2010b; Lam et al., 2007), but the veterinarians participating in the
focus groups described many challenges (including poor knowledge,
attitudes and self-efficacy) in fulfilling this role.
Some groups argued that veterinarians lacked knowledge on key
topics like animal behaviour and pain, which in turn compromised
their ability to help. Many attributed the lack of knowledge to
inadequate animal welfare education in the veterinary curriculum, a
finding that aligns with studies on veterinarian attitudes about pain in
North America (Dohoo and Dohoo, 1996; Hellyer et al., 1999) and in
Europe (Capner et al., 1999; Raekallio et al., 2003).
Participants also criticized the ‘traditional’ thinking of some older
professionals that allowed welfare issues such as pain to be dismissed.
For example, one person stated that, “At the time we started as
practitioners, it was a long time ago and pain management [was]
never talked about, [the] cow never had pain…I think there has to be a
mentality change.” This culture of avoidance and denial clearly affected
some of the participants, who noted that they often had difficulty
speaking up when they encountered welfare problems on the farm:
One of the major problems is getting vets to want to talk about
welfare.
I think we often ignore stuff…choose not to mention it…That's a
weakness. I think we’re allowing too much of this to go on, whether
it be animals being taken to the slaughterhouse in inappropriate
trucks or down. You know, we’ve all seen those situations, and
sometimes we turn a blind eye.
Central to this issue is the conflict of interest experienced by many
98
Livestock Science 193 (2016) 95–102
participants, described by one individual as, “It's a difficult thing to—
when you’re part of the thing—to take it forward.” The need to protect
the economic health of their client (the farmer) at the occasional
expense of the animal was viewed as a constraint by these veterinar-
ians:
The biggest challenge in this issue is that they are our clients, so we
depend on them for our income…It's easy if you have a sick cow
and you heal it…but if you give advice about animal welfare…
As veterinarians, sometimes we are a bit restricted because it's a
client of ours. We can’t say that it's not good at all, what you are
doing, otherwise we’ll lose a client.
Morgan and McDonald (2007) refer to the balance between client
and patient interests as “the fundamental question in veterinary
medical ethics” (pp. 165) and explain that, “choices are hard to make
because of contextual factors, such as potential negative responses
from clients or loss of income. These situations are not moral
dilemmas in a strict sense, because an ethically correct solution is
apparent but is difficult to enact,” (pp. 166). These so-called ‘practical
dilemmas’ were clearly felt by the veterinarian participants in the
present study.
Others have observed that livestock veterinarians strongly value the
relationship between themselves and the farmer, and want their clients
to prosper (de Lauwere et al., 2015). This desire to maintain a good
relationship with the client may manifest in a focus on the monetary
aspects of animal care – observed across veterinary professions (Coe
et al., 2007; de Lauwere et al., 2015) – and may explain why
veterinarians feel so caught between their patients’ and clients’ needs.
3.1.5. The role of the researcher
Although the role of researchers was generally discussed in the
context of solutions, two groups identified specific challenges related to
researchers. Those who discussed the issue tended to agree that
researchers, like veterinarians, struggled to connect with farmers.
Often as a result of scant on-farm research, many felt that it was
difficult to translate research findings to the reality of working farms.
This problem may be seen as two-fold (as discussed by Norton and
Mumford (1993) on the topic of pest management, with similar
challenges for researcher-farmer interaction): first, researchers may
face a design problem by asking the wrong questions, and secondly,
researchers may be asking the right questions but fail to effectively
translate findings to farmers. Thus, “if researchers are to design
appropriate improvements…they must understand why farmers do
the things they do” (p. 1, Escalada and Heong, 1997). Of course, one of
the most direct ways to correct this deficit is to integrate social science
approaches (e.g. farmer interviews, focus groups, surveys, etc.) into
animal science research agendas to obtain grounded information from
which to design research programs.
Like veterinarians, some researchers also experienced a conflict of
interest. These participants felt that it was important to develop a
strong rapport with farmers to increase receptivity to the research
findings. As one researcher described: “I think if you don’t sort of go
native…if they don’t buy in, the research is sort of moot,
right?” However, building rapport might also require more compro-
mise on the direction of research, in which case, “the concern is that
then actually the research is driven by them [the farmer]…It shouldn’t
be how it works because sometimes we’re going to have to address
things that they don’t really want to address.” Compromising on
research objectivity could then lead to a loss in credibility, as one
participant witnessed: “I…had some particular experiences with
colleagues…where they’ve been really…criticized for being too close
to the industry…sort of gone native and have taken over the view of
the producer rather than there being some distance there…” At issue
here is a perceived loss of objectivity (or compromised research goals),
particularly for researchers charged with finding solutions to animal
health or welfare problems, which could hinder potential discovery of
B.A. Ventura et al. Livestock Science 193 (2016) 95–102

solutions. If you could provide incentives — you get more money or you get a
better contract or something — that's probably a better way of
3.2. Desired solutions getting farmers to buy into welfare.
This need to cultivate industry stakeholders’ overall agreement was
A number of key themes emerged on participants’ desired solutions
a unifying theme (we use the term ‘industry stakeholder’ here to
to these challenges (see Table 4). Themes were identified as follows:
indicate any actor working within the livestock production chain, as
better research to address the lack of objective measures for welfare
well as those whose work contributes to it. Under this definition,
and to develop quantifiable standards, motivating adherence to these
farmers, industry representatives, veterinarians, relevant academics,
standards via either voluntary inspections or mandatory audits, and
and service providers would all have a stake in cattle production).
increasing linkages among stakeholders, particularly in the form of
Participants’ desire for ownership over the industry's welfare chal-
education.
lenges was further reflected by the widespread belief that force for
change must originate from within the industry, perhaps best captured
3.2.1. Research
by the comment, “If we, the ones who know things, won’t do it, who
Of those who discussed research as a solution, most agreed that
will do it? ”
practical objective welfare measures were needed (e.g. “I think in the
Despite widespread support, some participants expressed concerns
future, the research is important, but it's important this data is easy to
about relying on voluntary mechanisms. Some concerns related to
collect”). Many also felt that researchers had a pivotal role in “devel-
product differentiation, with participants commenting that the bonus
oping science-based standard operating procedures” that could be
system may perpetuate the gap between niche and conventional farms.
used on farms and for policy guidance.
Other concerns were practical. For example, traceability could be a
Participants also expressed the desire for researchers to become
major challenge with pooling of milk from different farms and with
more involved with farmers, primarily through increased extension.
movements of animals between farms throughout the production cycle.
Suggested changes included minor adjustments in communication (e.g.
Mandatory regulations. Participants also debated the potential of
couching recommendations in language more familiar to farmers) as
government and industry-driven regulations for which compliance was
well as more on-farm research to help engage farmers. Underscoring
mandatory under threat of penalties (often through fines or market
recommendations to better engage farmers was the desire for research-
loss, e.g. milk buyers refusing to buy milk from noncompliant farms).
ers to serve as a bridge between stakeholders within and external to the
Those advocating for mandatory regulation felt that the cattle
cattle industries. For example, participating researchers spoke of
industries required greater external oversight through legislation.
wanting to liaise with policy makers and industry to advocate for
Some participants believed simply that external regulation was neces-
change, e.g. “researchers also have a role to play…of bringing new
sary to enforce change: “…in my opinion, the only way of changing a
issues to the fore.”
farmer is by penalties.” Others supported a system of external
regulations because it was needed to increase transparency and societal
3.2.2. Motivating adherence to standards
accountability. Such participants believed that self-governance by the
Participants recognized the need for increased adherence to stan-
industry was insufficient or ineffective. One participant felt that
dards if the cattle industries are to progress in improving animal
regulation trumped the need to give individual farmers total freedom
welfare. Much of this discussion related to the relative merits of
to manage their farms: “The question is, simply because the producer
voluntary programs built on incentives versus mandatory regulations.
is doing a sub-optimal job…is that a good reason to actually
Voluntary incentives. Participants in approximately half of the
compromise [by allowing the farmer to regulate himself]…Is that
focus groups explicitly discussed monetary incentives (often termed
justification to compromise on animal welfare? ” From this perspec-
“bonuses” by participants) as a method to motivate welfare improve-
tive, submitting to regulation from external sources was a matter of
ment. Dairy industry organizations and milk companies were the most
achieving legitimacy for the cattle industries, i.e. a way to conform to a
commonly suggested groups to compensate farmers for adhering to
set of social norms and expectations (see Bradley and MacRae (2011)
good practice, at least in the shorter term. Some suggested increasing
for a thorough discussion of the relationship between legitimacy and
the price to consumers to cover these costs.
animal welfare standards).
Those advocating for bonuses believed them to be necessary to
Though it may be difficult to reconcile this support for legislation
offset farmers’ costs of adhering to standards and that more punitive
with the negative attitudes toward punitive approaches in general,
approaches would compromise farmers’ economic viability. Bonuses
participants’ support of legislation makes more sense when considering
were also seen to be a good alternative to circumvent concerns about
that this was seen to confer protective benefits for complying farmers
lack of enforcement with legislated standards. Most prominent was the
by preventing free-riding from “bad apple” farmers. In other words,
belief that a reward-based system would be more palatable and thus
unless all farmers within an industry are held to similar standards (and
engender greater uptake by farmers:
thus bear the costs of adherence equitably), the free-riding problem
You want to take people with you…get them to see what they’re threatens the social license of all farmers to produce these animal
doing rather than tell them. I can see the penalty side of things… products (Croney and Botheras, 2010). In this context, it makes sense
but I think it's very dangerous. that participants in the current study appeared more likely to support

Table 4
Themes discussed by participants in the context of desired solutions for animal welfare (AW) challenges, and the proportion of focus groups (n=6) in which each theme emerged.

AW solutions Theme description Proportion of groups where theme

discussed

Research Development of objective measurements for AW; increased relevance of research to farm 4/6
Motivating standards adherence Industry must conform to higher standards and be transparent
Bonuses Reward-based approaches to motivate compliance 3/6
Regulations Punishment-based approaches to force compliance 2/6
Increased linkages Improved communication and education to farmers, farm workers, veterinarians, and future 6/6
external stakeholders

99
B.A. Ventura et al.
legislation to create minimum standards.
However, not all participants viewed mandatory regulation, parti-
cularly from sources external to the industry (e.g. government) as
positive. Many worried about the potential lack of farmer participation
in the development of standards, which was perceived to contribute to
excessively burdensome or unrealistic regulatory environments.
Contributing to this problem was the perception that regulations were
often overseen by people with low knowledge of the reality of farming,
e.g. “…what is the knowledge of [farming] from the person [doing] the
regulation? I think that in France it's close to zero, because the person
who does the regulation probably never went onto a farm.”
Thus, regardless of their stance on external versus internal regula-
tion of welfare standards, the participants who commented generally
perceived industry input, especially from farmers, to be essential in the
process. Bradley and MacRae (2011) explain that “whether stake-
holders will participate in the process or adopt voluntary commit-
ments depends on whether they consider the regulatory body or
network developing the rules to be authoritative, to use right process,
to be adding value—in other words, to be legitimate,” (p. 22). Others
(von Keyserlingk and Hötzel, 2015) have proposed similar industry-led
initiatives as a way forward to improve animal welfare; though the
efficacy of such initiatives remains to be seen, the higher perceived
“input legitimacy” (Skogstad, 2003) of such an approach may prove
effective.
3.2.3. Increased linkages
Within every group, participants discussed the need for greater
linkages among industry stakeholders and between industry stake-
holders and society. For example, participants spoke of the need for
veterinarians to liaise with service providers (e.g. taking a more active
role in advising in barn design); for researchers to communicate more
directly to veterinarians; for multiple stakeholders (veterinarians,
researchers, dairy organizations, and farmers) to be more connected
to societal concerns about animal welfare; and most prominently, for
veterinarians, researchers, and other service providers to strengthen
their communication with farmers. Many also advocated for improved
consultation with farmers, both as a way to improve education (by
eliciting input on how they want to receive information; see de Lauwere
et al., 2015; Jansen et al., 2010a, 2010b for examples) and also to
increase farmers’ agency (by involving them in standards development
and larger industry decisions).
Education. Although all groups discussed the need to engage both
farmers and veterinarians through improved education, farmers were
generally perceived as those in most need of attention. Farmer
education was generally felt to be a collective responsibility, with
veterinarians, researchers, extension agents, and industry organiza-
tions all offered as the best people to take leadership in this regard.
Participants envisioned many goals for farmer education, including
but not limited to the following: increased awareness of animal welfare
principles; improved management skills like handling and practical
assessment skills like disease and lameness detection; reorientation of
philosophy to place greater emphasis on the cow; and improved
proactivity (elements of which included active and sustained contact
with veterinarians and other advisors and having an established herd
health plan).
To reach these goals, participants offered many suggestions, among
them that educators must consider farmers’ motivations and tailor
their approach accordingly, a suggestion that aligns with other research
on segmentation among farmers with respect to their motivations and
trust in external information sources (Jansen et al., 2010a, 2010b). In
the present study, farmers were perceived to have differing motiva-
tions. As one veterinarian commented, “I think one of the key things is
that you need to understand the farmer…some farmers are money
driven. Some farmers are [pride] driven, so they’d like to think their
cows look better than the neighbours’…Depending on what farmers
you’re talking about, you need to press the right buttons.”
100
Livestock Science 193 (2016) 95–102
Participants also stressed the need to emphasize consequences of
pro-welfare management changes and to equip farmers with the
practical evidence of changes wherever possible, e.g. “Practical evi-
dence. For a farmer, that can convince him.” Specifically, it was
important to use data from the farmer's own farm to chart changes over
time, as one veterinarian shared: “When you measure something, if
you had a tool to measure, it will improve…you’re having a discussion
with the farmer and say look, you’re 3 out of 5 here, but you could be a
4…” Another participant's suggestion to pursue benchmarking aligns
closely with this suggestion. Benchmarking, which entails “the sys-
tematic comparison on elements of performance in a company
against those best practices of relevant companies,” (Lau et al.,
2005) has been used successfully in the past to improve performance
and welfare indicators by fostering knowledge exchange among live-
stock farmers (Chapinal et al., 2014; Khade and Metlen, 1996;
Manning et al., 2008; von Keyserlingk et al., 2012).
Many participants emphasized that successful education must
include messaging to connect welfare to production and economic
benefits. This was a common suggestion among veterinarians, e.g. “We
need to try to convince them that if he will ensure the welfare of his
animals, he will have more money in his bank account.” This theme
was also repeated across groups. As a veterinarian in another group
reiterated, “Our work is to say…you will lose money if you don’t do
that.” Emphasizing the economic benefits of welfare changes was
suggested to be a factor in prompting farmers to take a more
progressive view of welfare: “Pick the low hanging fruit where animal
welfare actually goes very well together with productivity.”
Participants discussed both hands-off and interpersonal approaches
to education, the former including articles in agriculture magazines,
online articles (noted to have the advantage of cost effectiveness and
quick delivery), and extension manuals. Dutch dairy farmers surveyed
by de Lauwere et al. (2015) appeared to prefer these more traditional
methods of information delivery to routes like workshops, even though
other research suggests that these routes are less effective in promoting
behaviour change compared to methods that involve some interperso-
nal interaction (Gielen et al., 2003). In contrast, our participants
typically spent more time discussing face-to-face education routes.
Some veterinarians shared success stories of organizing training
workshops for farmers, though others did not see this approach as
feasible due to time constraints. More agreed that veterinarians could
take a more proactive role in speaking up when they encountered poor
management on farm, and in so doing participate in a level of informal
education. Modelling good practice while on farm was thus suggested
as a simple way for veterinarians to change management habits, for
example, by providing pain medication when dehorning or castrating
calves.
A popular suggestion was for veterinarians and others to facilitate
peer-peer networks among farmers to increase farmers’ ability to
connect with and learn from each other. This approach was seen as a
positive way to improve farmer uptake of information, as participants
believed that farmers would listen to each other. This belief was evident
in participants’ recommendations to incorporate farmer stories of
success into messaging and in their advocacy for the creation of
peer-peer education strategies like farmer-led workshops, a concept
reminiscent of the farmer field schools used to foster mutual learning,
empowerment, and goal-meeting among dairy farmers (Vaarst et al.,
2007): “One thing that does help is telling a success story to another
farmer…because the farmer will believe another farmer before he
believes anyone else.”
In addition to the farmer, participants suggested that other people
should be targeted with education. One interesting suggestion in
multiple groups was to direct training efforts specifically at women
on the farm. For example, one veterinarian commented that he had
found success organizing workshops for farmers’ wives, whom he found
to be “…one of the biggest stakeholders in…pain relief.” The idea here
was that women were perceived as naturally tending to take on more
B.A. Ventura et al.
caregiving roles on the farm (particularly with regards to calf care).
While most research on the subject has indeed indicated a higher level
of pro-animal welfare attitudes and behaviour among women com-
pared to men (see Herzog, 2007 for a review; Herzog et al., 1991) it is
also important to note that variation within the sexes tends to be higher
than between them (Herzog, 2007).
Enhanced training of other farm workers was also perceived to be a
critical step in improving animal welfare. Others have found this
approach to be effective in modifying worker behaviour as well as
welfare and production indicators. For example, Hemsworth et al.
(2002) showed that cognitive behavioural therapy improved dairy
stockpersons’ beliefs and behaviour toward dairy cows, which trans-
lated into reductions in cow flight distance to humans and improve-
ments in milk yield.
Finally, there were suggestions to reach out to other stakeholders
who required education on the realities of farming: “We need to
interact with those that are going to be establishing our laws…
They’re coming from that a lot of times out of ignorance and can be
easily swayed by perception and not listening to our voice [as] animal
scientists and veterinarians.” However, education about farming is not
likely to fully resolve public concerns about farm animal welfare:
Ventura et al. (2016) showed that increasing knowledge about the dairy
industry has a variable effect on confidence in animal welfare, with
some people becoming more critical after they learn more about
farming practices. Similarly, Ryan et al. (2015) showed that learning
more about housing systems for gestating sows actually made people
more critical of the standard gestation crates.
4. Concluding remarks
Our primary objective was to elicit perspectives from veterinarians
and veterinary researchers within the cattle industries on the chal-
lenges they face, and the solutions they desire, regarding animal
welfare issues. Overall, we found considerable support for positive
approaches to change, seen in participants’ affinity for reward-based
approaches to motivate adherence to standards, their desire for
proactivity over reactivity at both the farm level (in management
strategies) and industry level (in terms of industries taking ownership
over challenges and initiating solutions), and in their support for
education (including peer-to-peer methods) to motivate and inform
changes. More broadly, this study shows how engaging stakeholders
with expertise in livestock agriculture (in this case, veterinarians and
veterinary researchers) can help identify strategies to improve animal
welfare on farms.
The predominant themes raised by our participants suggest that
greater support is required to equip veterinarians with strong commu-
nication and welfare assessment skills throughout the veterinary
curricula and in continuing education activities. Good communication
skills are required, for example, to understand and address the
financial and practical limitations of clients (Coe et al., 2007).
Although the participants in this study showed strong empathy with
farmers’ economic limitations they felt that further work is likely
required to build more open and communicative relationships with
their clients. Ultimately, equipping practicing veterinarians with these
types of skills is likely to be crucial in helping them overcome the
knowledge deficits identified in this study.
Conflict of interest statement
None declared.
Acknowledgements
We also extend our appreciation to our participants for sharing
their time and thoughts so openly with us. We also thank Boehringer
Ingelheim (Ingelheim, Germany) and the organizers of the Madrid
101
Livestock Science 193 (2016) 95–102
conference, including Drs. Elke Abbeloos and Laurent Goby. Finally,
we thank Drs. D. Fraser and H. Wittman, and C. Sumner for feedback
on earlier versions of this manuscript. B.A. Ventura was supported
through the University of British Columbia's Doctoral Fellowship
Program.
References
Albrecht, T.L., Johnson, G.M., Walther, J.B., 1993. Understanding communication
processes in focus groups. In: Morgan, D.L. (Ed.), Successful Focus Groups:
Advancing the State of the Art. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 51–64.
Boogaard, B.K., Oosting, S.J., Bock, B.B., 2006. Elements of societal perception of farm
animal welfare: a quantitative study in The Netherlands. Livest. Sci. 104, 13–22.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.02.010.
Boogaard, B.K., Oosting, S.J., Bock, B.B., 2008. Defining sustainability as a socio-cultural
concept: citizen panels visiting dairy farms in the Netherlands. Livest. Sci. 117,
24–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.11.004.
Boogaard, B.K., Boekhorst, L.J.S., Oosting, S.J., Sørensen, J.T., 2011. Socio-cultural
sustainability of pig production: citizen perceptions in the Netherlands and
Denmark. Livest. Sci. 140, 189–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.03.028.
Bradley, A., MacRae, R., 2011. Legitimacy and Canadian farm animal welfare standards
development: the case of the National Farm Animal Care Council. J. Agric. Environ.
Ethics 24, 19–47.
Broom, D.M., 1991. Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. J. Anim. Sci. 69,
4167–4175.
Capner, C.A., Lascelles, B.D.X., Waterman-Pearson, A.E., 1999. Current British
veterinary attitudes to perioperative analgesia for dogs. Vet. Rec. 145, 95–99.
Cardoso, C.S., Hötzel, M.J., Weary, D.M., Robbins, J.A., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., 2016.
Imagining the ideal dairy farm. J. Dairy Sci. 99, 1663–1671. http://dx.doi.org/
10.3168/jds.2015-9925.
Carey, M. a, Smith, M.W., 1994. Capturing the group effect in focus groups: a special
concern in analysis. Qual. Health Res. 4, 123–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
104973239400400108.
Chapinal, N., Weary, D.M., Collings, L., Keyserlingk, von, a. G, M., 2014. Lameness and
hock injuries improve on farms participating in an assessment program. Vet. J. 202,
646–648. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.09.018.
Coe, J.B., Adams, C.L., Bonnett, B.N., 2007. A focus group study of veterinarians' and pet
owners' perceptions of the monetary aspects of veterinary care. J. Am. Vet. Med.
Assoc. 231, 1510–1518.
Coffey, A., Atkinson, P., 1994. Concepts and coding. In: Coffey, A., Atkinson, P. (Eds.),
Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Complementary Research Strategies. Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA, 26–53.
Croney, C.C., Botheras, N.A., 2010. Animal Welfare, Ethics and the U.S. Dairy Industry:
Maintaining a Social License to Operate, in: Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference.
pp. 51–55.
Curtis, S.E., 2007. Commentary: performance indicates. Animal state of being: a
Cinderella axiom? Prof. Anim. Sci. 23, 573–583.
De Jonge, J., van Trijp, H.C.M., 2013. Meeting heterogeneity in consumer demand for
animal welfare: a reflection on existing knowledge and implications for the meat
sector. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806-012-9426-7.
De Lauwere, C., Beldman, A.C.G., Reijs, J.W., Doornerwaard, G.J., van den Ham, A.,
Hoes, A.C., Philipsen, A.P., 2015. Towards a sustainable dairy chain in the
Netherlands–the opinion of dairy farmers and their advisors. In: Dumitras, D.E.,
Jitea, I.M., Aerts, S. (Eds.), Know Your Food: Food Ethics and Innovation. 12th
Cong. Eur. Soc. Agric. Food Ethics (Eursafe), Cluj Napoca, Romania, 114–119.
Dohoo, S.E., Dohoo, I.R., 1996. Postoperative use of analgesics in dogs and cats by
Canadian veterinarians. Can. Vet. J. 37, 546–551.
Driessen, C., 2012. Farmers engaged in deliberative practices; An ethnographic
exploration of the mosaic of concerns in livestock agriculture. J. Agric. Environ.
Ethics 25, 163–179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9293-z.
Duncan, I.J.H., 1993. Welfare is to do with what animals feel. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 6,
29–35.
Escalada, M.M., Heong, K.L., 1997. Methods for research on farmers' knowledge,
attitudes, and practices in pest management. In: Heong, K.I., Escalada, M.M. (Eds.),
Pest Management of Rice Farmers in Asia. International Rice Research Institute,
Manila, Phillipines, 1–34.
Fraser, D., Weary, D.M., Pajor, E.A., Milligan, B.N., 1997. A scientific conception of
animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Anim. Welf. 6, 187–205.
Fredriksen, B., Nafstad, O., 2006. Surveyed attitudes, perceptions and practices in
Norway regarding the use of local anaesthesia in piglet castration. Res. Vet. Sci. 81,
293–295.
Frewer, L.J., Kole, a, van de Kroon, S.M., de Lauwere, C., 2005. Consumer attitudes
towards the development of animal-friendly husbandry systems. J. Agric. Environ.
Ethics 18, 345–367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-1489-2.
Gielen, P.M., Hoever, A., Nieuwenhuis, L.F.M., 2003. Learning entrepreneurs: learning
and innovation in small companies. Eur. Educ. Res. J. 2, 90–106.
Harper, G.C., Makatouni, A., 2002. Consumer perception of organic food production and
farm animal welfare. Br. Food J. 104, 287–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
00070700210425723.
Hellyer, P.W., Frederick, C., Lacy, M., Salmon, M.D., Wagner, A.E., 1999. Attitudes of
veterinary medical students, house officers, clinical faculty, and staff toward pain
management in animals. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 214, 238–244.
Hemsworth, P.H., Coleman, G.J., Barnett, J.L., Borg, S., Dowling, S., 2002. The effects of
B.A. Ventura et al.
cognitive behavioral intervention on the attitude and behavior of stockpersons and
the behavior and productivity of commercial dairy cows. The online version of this
article, along with updated information and services, is located on the. J. Anim. Sci.
80, 68–78.
Herzog, H.A., 2007. Gender differences in human-animal interactions: a review.
Anthrozoos 20, 7–21.
Herzog, H.A., Betchart, N.S., Pittman, R.B., 1991. Gender, sex role orientation, and
attitudes toward animals. Anthrozoos 4, 184–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/
089279391787057170.
Hewson, C.J., Dohoo, I.R., Lemke, K.A., Barkema, H.W., 2007. Factors affecting
Canadian veterinarians' use of analgesics when dehorning beef and dairy calves. Can.
Vet. J. 48, 1129–1136.
Hubbard, C., Bourlakis, M., Garrod, G., 2007. Pig in the middle: farmers and the delivery
of farm animal welfare standards. Br. Food J. 109, 919–930. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/00070700710835723.
Jansen, J., Renes, R.J., Lam, T.J.G.M., 2010a. Evaluation of two communication
strategies to improve udder health management. J. Dairy Sci. 93, 604–612. http://
dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2531.
Jansen, J., Steuten, C.D.M., Renes, R.J., Aarts, N., Lam, T.J.G.M., 2010b. Debunking the
myth of the hard-to-reach farmer: effective communication on udder health. J. Dairy
Sci. 93, 1296–1306. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2794.
Kauppinen, T., Vainio, a, Valros, a, Rita, H., Vesala, K.M., 2010. Improving animal
welfare: qualitative and quantitative methodology in the study of farmers' attitudes.
Anim. Welf. 19, 523–536.
Khade, A.S., Metlen, S.K., 1996. An application of benchmarking in the dairy industry.
Benchmark. Qual. Manag. Technol. 3, 34–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
14635779610153354.
Kielland, C., Skjerve, E., Zanella, A.J., 2009. Attitudes of veterinary students to pain in
cattle. Vet. Rec. 165, 254–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.165.9.254.
Kjaernes, U., Miele, M., Roex, J., 2007. Attitudes of Consumers, Retailers and Producers
to Farm Animal Welfare: Welfare Quality Reports No. 2. Cardiff.
Lam, T.J.G.M., Jansen, J., Borne, B. Van Den, Veersen, J. Van, 2007. A structural
approach of udder health improvement via private practitiners: ups and downs.
NMC Annu. Meet. Proc., 142–151.
Lassen, J., Sandøe, P., Forkman, B., 2006. Happy pigs are dirty! - conflicting perspectives
on animal welfare. Livest. Sci. 103, 221–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.livsci.2006.05.008.
Lau, H.C.W., Lau, P.K.H., Fung, R.Y.K., Chan, F.T.S., Ip, R.W.L., 2005. A virtual case
benchmarking scheme for vendors' performance assessment. Benchmark. Int. J. 12,
61–80.
Leach, K.A., Whay, H.R., Maggs, C.M., Barker, Z.E., Paul, E.S., Bell, A.K., Main, D.C.J.,
2010a. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 1. Understanding barriers to
lameness control on dairy farms. Res. Vet. Sci. 89, 311–317. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rvsc.2010.02.014.
Leach, K.A., Whay, H.R., Maggs, C.M., Barker, Z.E., Paul, E.S., Bell, A.K., Main, D.C.J.,
2010b. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy
farmers' motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89, 318–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rvsc.2010.02.017.
Manning, L., Baines, R., Chadd, S., 2008. Benchmarking the poultry meat supply chain.
Benchmark. Int. J. 15, 148–165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635770810864866.
McGlone, J.J., 1993. What is animal welfare? J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 6, 26–36.
Moberg, G.P., 1985. Biological response to stress: key to assessment of animal well-
being? In: Moberg, G.P. (Ed.), Animal Stress. American Physiological Society,
Bethesda, USA, 27–49.
Morgan, C.A., McDonald, M., 2007. Ethical dilemmas in veterinary medicine. Vet. Clin.
N. Am. - Small Anim. Pr. 37, 165–179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
102
Livestock Science 193 (2016) 95–102
j.cvsm.2006.09.008.
Norton, G.A., Mumford, J.D., 1993. Decision Tools for Pest Management. CAB
International, Wallingford, UK.
Phillips, C.J.C., Wojciechowska, J., Meng, J., Cross, N., 2009. Perceptions of the
importance of different welfare issues in livestock production. Animal 3, 1152.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731109004479.
Prickett, R.W., Norwood, F.B., Lusk, J.L., 2010. Consumer preferences for farm animal
welfare: results from a telephone survey of US households. Anim. Welf. 19, 335–347.
Raekallio, M., Heinonen, K.M., Kuussaari, J., Vainio, O., 2003. Pain alleviation in
animals: attitudes and practices of Finnish veterinarians. Vet. J. 165, 131–135.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1090-0233(02)00186-7.
Ryan, E.B., Fraser, D., Weary, D.M., 2015. Public attitudes to housing systems for
pregnant pigs. PLoS ONE. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141878.
Skarstad, G.A., Terragni, L., Torjusen, H., 2007. Animal welfare according to Norwegian
consumers and producers: definitions and implications. Int. J. Sociol. Food Agric 15,
74–90.
Skogstad, G., 2003. Who governs? Who should govern? Political authority and legitimacy
in Canada in the twenty-first century. Can. J. Polit. Sci. 36, 955–973.
Spooner, J.M., Schuppli, C.A., Fraser, D., 2012. Attitudes of Canadian beef producers
toward animal welfare. Anim. Welf. 21, 273–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/
09627286.21.2.273.
Spooner, J.M., Schuppli, C.A., Fraser, D., 2014. Attitudes of canadian pig producers
toward animal welfare. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 27, 569–589. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s10806-013-9477-4.
Te Velde, H., Aarts, N., Van Woerkum, C., 2002. Dealing with ambivalence: farmers' and
consumers' perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. J. Agric. Environ.
Ethics 15, 203–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015012403331.
Tuyttens, F. a M., Vanhonacker, F., Verhille, B., De Brabander, D., Verbeke, W., 2012. Pig
producer attitude towards surgical castration of piglets without anaesthesia versus
alternative strategies. Res. Vet. Sci. 92, 524–530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rvsc.2011.02.017.
Vaarst, M., Nissen, T.B., Østergaard, S., Klaas, I.C., Bennedsgaard, T.W., Christensen, J.,
2007. Danish stable schools for experiential common learning in groups of organic
dairy farmers. J. Dairy Sci. 90, 2543–2554. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-
607.
Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., Tuyttens, F.A.M., 2008. Do citizens and
farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livest. Sci. 116,
126–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.017.
Ventura, B.A., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Weary, D.M., 2015. Animal welfare concerns and
values of stakeholders within the dairy industry. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 28,
109–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9523-x.
Ventura, B.A., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Wittman, H., Weary, D.M., 2016. What
difference does a visit make? Changes in animal welfare perceptions after interested
citizens tour a dairy farm. PLoS One. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0154733.
von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Rushen, J., de Passillé, M., Weary, D.M., 2009. Invited Review:
The welfare of dairy cattle–Key concepts and the role of science. J. Dairy Sci. 92,
4101–4111. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2326.
von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Hötzel, M.J., 2015. The ticking clock: addressing farm animal
welfare in emerging countries. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 28, 179–195. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9518-7.
von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Barrientos, A., Ito, K., Galo, E., Weary, D.M., 2012.
Benchmarking cow comfort on North American freestall dairies: lameness, leg
injuries, lying time, facility design, and management for high-producing Holstein
dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 95, 7399–7408. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-5807.