RESUMEN

Inappropriate cattle handling poses a reputational threat to the dairy industry. To enhance social sustainability, handling practices must resonate with societal values about animal care. However, it has yet to be determined to what extent industry and public stakeholders differ in their perception of common cattle handling situations. We administered an online survey to samples of dairy industry (IND) and public (PUB) stakeholders to examine how they perceive a variety of cow-handling scenarios ranging from positive to negative in terms of effects on animal welfare. Participants were presented with 12 brief videos depicting a range of realistic cow-handling situations and responded to measures designed to assess their attitudes and beliefs about each scenario, their perception of the emotional response of the cows depicted in each scenario, as well as their own personal emotional response. Preexisting beliefs about cow treatment on US dairy farms and demographic data, including self-reported dairy consumption, were also collected and analyzed. Before viewing the videos, 52.9% of PUB (vs. 79.0% of IND) believed cows were treated well while 27.2% (vs. 9.0% of IND) believed cows were treated badly. Within IND, believing cows were treated badly was more common among nonwhites, those with greater formal education, more liberal politics, or from urban or suburban environments. In PUB, female and younger participants were more likely to believe cows were treated badly before viewing the videos. In both samples, participants with more positive preexisting beliefs about dairy cow treatment in the US reported consuming dairy products more frequently. In both PUB and IND, scenarios which were rated more positively for attitudes or for the cows' or respondents' emotional experiences were also perceived as more common. Within a given cow-handling scenario, qualitative attitudes (i.e., a positive, negative, or neutral valence) did not differ between the samples. In both samples, at the participant level, overall attitudes toward cow-handling scenarios were highly correlated with both their personal emotional response to the scenario and their perception of the cows' emotional responses. Although the participants' overall personal emotional responses did not differ between the samples, IND rated cows as experiencing more negative emotions overall. The consensus between industry and public stakeholders around dairy cow-handling practices observed in this study could provide a common starting point for addressing other, more contentious animal welfare issues.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Objectives of this study were to evaluate an equine assisted learning (EAL) curriculum designed for medical students and resident physicians, and to determine impacts of the curriculum on participant perceptions of burnout and well-being. The EAL curriculum incorporated evidence-based skills and concepts to increase happiness and/or resilience. A pre/post intervention design was used, with 18 EAL participants receiving the curriculum within their month-long community based primary care clerkship elective, and 10 control (CTL) participants who did not receive the curriculum within their clerkship elective. Three waves of surveys tested participant responses before, immediately after, and 3 months after the intervention. Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) screened for depression and anxiety, and Maslach Burnout Inventory- Human Services Survey for Medical Personnel (MBI) addressed burnout. Analysis of covariance evaluated differences between EAL and CTL groups. EAL participants rated the curriculum highly (9.2 on a 10-point scale). The evaluations were overwhelmingly positive with participants able to identify key concepts that were most helpful, how they would apply those concepts to patient care and interactions with colleagues, and how the horses added value to their learning experience. Significant positive effects of EAL on burnout were identified in terms of improved MBI personal achievement scores, as well as a trend towards improved well-being scores. There was also a trend (P < .08) towards PHQ-4 depression scores to be lower in EAL group at T3. In conclusion, this study is the first to provide AU: quantitative evidence of positive outcomes associated with an EAL curriculum designed to strengthen well-being in medical students and resident physicians.

RESUMEN

Genetic modification has been used to create dairy cattle without horns and with increased resistance to disease; applications that could be beneficial for animal welfare, farm profits, and worker safety. Our aim was to assess how different stated purposes were associated with public attitudes toward these two applications using a mixed methods approach. Using an online survey, U.S. participants were randomly assigned to one of ten treatments in a 2 (application: hornless or disease-resistant) x 5 (purposes: improved animal welfare, reduced costs, increased worker safety, all three purposes, or no purpose) factorial design. Each participant was asked to read a short description of the assigned treatment (e.g. hornlessness to improve calf welfare) and then respond to a series of questions designed to assess attitude toward the treatment using 7-point Likert scales (1 = most negative; 7 = most positive). Responses of 957 participants were averaged to creative an attitude construct score. Participants were also asked to explain their response to the treatment. Qualitative analysis of these text responses was used to identify themes associated with the participants' reasoning. Participant attitudes were more favorable to disease resistance than to hornlessness (mean ± SE attitude score: 4.5 ± 0.15 vs. 3.7 ± 0.14). In the 'disease-resistance' group participants had more positive attitudes toward genetic modification when the described purpose was animal welfare versus reduction of costs (contrast = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.12-1.88). Attitudes were less favorable to the 'hornless' application if no purpose was provided versus when the stated purpose was either to improve animal welfare (contrast = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.26-1.64) or when all purposes were provided (contrast = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.19-1.58). Similarly, attitudes were less positive when the stated purpose was to reduce costs versus either improving animal welfare (contrast = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.09-1.64) or when all purposes were provided (contrast = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.02-1.56). Quantitative and qualitative analysis indicated that both the specific application and perceived purpose (particularly when related to animal welfare) can affect public attitudes toward genetic modification.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

A number of studies have shown widespread public concern over housing animals in ways that restrict their ability to move freely. Dairy cows housed in tie stall barns are tethered continuously or for part of the day, but no study has assessed public support for this type of housing system. We report two experiments assessing public perceptions of tie stall housing for dairy cattle using a hypothetical referenda format. In Experiment 1, 65% of participants (n = 430) said they would support a ban on tie stalls. The probability of supporting a ban increased as the duration of time that cows were tethered increased. In Experiment 2, information about possible economic consequences was included. Relatively fewer (55%) participants (n = 372) indicated they would support a ban. Supporters of a ban were willing to pay an average dairy product price premium of 68% to see the ban enacted. Indirect measures of support indicated socially desirable responding was greater in Experiment 2 where the economic impacts of voting behavior were made explicit. In both studies, women and liberals were more likely to support a ban. The majority of participants in Experiment 1 (51%) and Experiment 2 (57%) said they had never heard or read anything about tie stalls before participating in our survey. We conclude that current knowledge of the use of tie stalls is low, but if this situation were to change there may be considerable public concern about the use of this housing method.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Genetic modification of farm animals has not been well accepted by the public. Some modifications have the potential to improve animal welfare. One such example is the use of gene editing (i.e. CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats)) to spread the naturally occurring POLLED gene, as these genetically hornless animals would not need to experience the painful procedures used to remove the horns or horn buds. The aim of the current study was to assess public attitudes regarding the use of GM to produce polled cattle. United States (US) citizens (n = 598), recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk, were asked "Do you think genetically modifying cows to be hornless would be…", and responded using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = a very bad thing, 4 = neither good nor bad, 7 = a very good thing). Participants were then asked to indicate if they would be willing to consume products from these modified animals. We excluded 164 of the original 598 participants for not completing the survey, failing any of three attention check questions, or providing no or unintelligible qualitative responses. Respondents were then asked to provide a written statement explaining their answers; these reasons were subjected to qualitative analysis. Comparison of Likert scale ratings between two groups was done using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and comparisons between more than two groups were done using the Kruskal-Wallis rank test. More people responded that the modification would be good (Likert ≥ 5; 65.7%) than bad (Likert ≤ 3; 23.1%), and that they would be willing to consume products from these animals (Likert ≥ 5; 66.0%) versus not consume these products (Likert ≤ 3; 22.6%). Qualitative analysis of the text responses showed that participant reasoning was based on several themes including animal welfare, uncertainty about the technology, and worker well-being. In conclusion, many participants reported positive attitudes towards GM polled cattle; we suggest that people may be more likely to support GM technologies when these are perceived to benefit the animal.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

On many dairy farms cows are kept indoors. Providing outdoor access is often considered desirable, but housing can protect animals from aversive climatic conditions. For example, by providing shade and fans, indoor housing can protect cows from heat stress they might otherwise experience on open pasture. This study tested how public attitudes to cattle rearing varied when participants were experimentally assigned to different scenarios using a 2 x 2 factorial design varying pasture versus indoor housing with or without heat stress. Participants (n = 581) were randomly assigned to a single scenario, and attitudes in response to the scenario were measured using a Likert scale (1 = "strongly disagree" to 5 = "strongly agree"). We also asked open-ended questions allowing participants to explain their responses. Participants responded most positively to the scenario that provided both pasture access and protection from heat stress (Likert 4.1±0.08), and least positively to scenario with indoor housing and heat stress (Likert 2.2±0.08). However, when the different animal welfare attributes were in conflict (i.e. naturalness as provided by pasture, and biological functioning/affective state as associated with protection from heat stress), participants placed priority on the latter: they were more supportive of the scenario providing indoor housing that protected cows from heat stress (Likert 3.5±0.08), than they were of a pasture rearing system that exposed cows to heat stress (Likert 2.4±0.08). Open-ended responses indicated that participants viewed the lack of protection from heat stress as a failure in the farmer's duty of care towards the cow. We conclude that participants valued both access to pasture and protection from heat stress for dairy cows, but prioritized protecting animal from heat stress when these features were in conflict.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Many scientists studying animal welfare appear to hold a hedonistic concept of welfare -whereby welfare is ultimately reducible to an animal's subjective experience. The substantial advances in assessing animal's subjective experience have enabled us to take a step back to consider whether such indicators are all one needs to know if one is interested in the welfare of an individual. To investigate this claim, we randomly assigned participants (n = 502) to read one of four vignettes describing a hypothetical chimpanzee and asked them to make judgments about the animal's welfare. Vignettes were designed to systematically manipulate the descriptive mental states the chimpanzee was described as experiencing: feels good (FG) vs. feels bad (FB); as well as non-subjective features of the animal's life: natural living and physical healthy (NH) vs. unnatural life and physically unhealthy (UU); creating a fully-crossed 2 (subjective experience) X 2 (objective life value) experimental design. Multiple regression analysis showed welfare judgments depended on the objective features of the animal's life more than they did on how the animal was feeling: a chimpanzee living a natural life with negative emotions was rated as having better welfare than a chimpanzee living an unnatural life with positive emotions. We also found that the supposedly more purely psychological concept of happiness was also influenced by normative judgments about the animal's life. For chimpanzees with positive emotions, those living a more natural life were rated as happier than those living an unnatural life. Insofar as analyses of animal welfare are assumed to be reflective of folk intuitions, these findings raise questions about a strict hedonistic account of animal welfare. More generally, this research demonstrates the potential utility of using empirical methods to address conceptual problems in animal welfare and ethics.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The use of animals in research is controversial and often takes place under a veil of secrecy. Lab animal technicians responsible for the care of animals at research institutions are sometimes described as performing 'dirty work' (i.e. professions that are viewed as morally tainted), and may be stigmatized by negative perceptions of their job. This study assessed if transparency affects public perceptions of lab animal technicians and support for animal research. Participants (n = 550) were randomly assigned to one of six scenarios (using a 3x2 design) that described identical research varying only the transparency of the facility (low, high) and the species used (mice, dogs, cows). Participants provided Likert-type and open-ended responses to questions about the personal characteristics (warmth, competence) of a hypothetical lab technician 'Cathy' and their support for the described research. Quantitative analysis showed participants in the low-transparency condition perceived Cathy to be less warm and were less supportive of the research regardless of animal species. Qualitative responses varied greatly, with some participants expressing support for both Cathy and the research. These results suggest that increasing transparency in lab animal institutions could result in a more positive perception of lab animal researchers and the work that they do.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Tail docking and ear cropping are two surgical procedures commonly performed on many dog breeds. These procedures are classified as medically unnecessary surgeries whose purpose is primarily cosmetic. Available attitude research surrounding these controversial practices has been limited to surveys of veterinarians and dog breeders familiar with both practices. The aim of this project was to: 1) assess public awareness of tail docking and ear cropping, 2) determine whether physical alteration of a dog affects how the dog, and 3) owner are perceived. In Experiment 1 awareness was measured using a combination of both explicit and implicit measures. We found that 42% of participants (n = 810) were unable to correctly explain the reason why tail docked and ear cropped dogs had short ears and tails. Similarly, an implicit measure of awareness ('nature vs nurture task'), found that the majority of participants believed short tails and erect ears were a consequence of genetics rather than something the owner or breeder had done. The results obtained in Experiment 2 (n = 392) provide evidence that ear cropped and tail docked dogs are perceived differently than an identical dog in its 'natural' state. Modified dogs were perceived as being more aggressive, more dominant, less playful and less attractive than natural dogs. Experiment 3 (n = 410) is the first evidence that owners of modified dogs are perceived as being more aggressive, more narcissistic, less playful, less talkative and less warm compared to owners of natural dogs. Taken together, these results suggest that although a significant proportion of subjects appear unaware of the practices of tail docking and ear cropping in dogs, these procedures have significant impacts on how modified dogs and their owners are perceived by others.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Practices in agriculture can have negative effects on the environment, rural communities, food safety, and animal welfare. Although disagreements are possible about specific issues and potential solutions, it is widely recognized that public input is needed in the development of socially sustainable agriculture systems. The aim of this study was to assess the views of people not affiliated with the dairy industry on what they perceived to be the ideal dairy farm and their associated reasons. Through an online survey, participants were invited to respond to the following open-ended question: "What do you consider to be an ideal dairy farm and why are these characteristics important to you?" Although participants referenced social, economic, and ecological aspects of dairy farming, animal welfare was the primary issue raised. Concern was expressed directly about the quality of life for the animals, and the indirect effect of animal welfare on milk quality. Thus participants appeared to hold an ethic for dairy farming that included concern for the animal, as well as economic, social, and environmental aspects of the dairy system.

Asunto(s)