Week 3 Individual Project 1American Intercontin.docx

Week 3 Individual Project 1
American Intercontinental University
MKT655 – Research Methods in Marketing
Abstract
This is a single paragraph, no indentation is required. The next
page will be an abstract; “a brief, comprehensive summary of
the contents of the article; it allows the readers to survey the
contents of an article quickly” (Publication Manual, 2010). The
length of this abstract should be 35-50 words (2-3 sentences).
NOTE: the abstract must be on page 2 and the body of the paper
will begin on page 3.
Introduction
Remember to always indent the first line of a paragraph (use
the tab key). The introduction should be short (2-3 sentences).
The margins, font size, spacing, and font type (italics or plain)
are set in APA format. While you may change the names of the
headings and subheadings, do not change the font. This paper is
an article critique and may be written in first person using,
words like “I” and “my.”
Bibliographic Entry for the Article in APA format
Article with a DOI:

Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (2000). Title of
article. Title of Periodical, xx,
xxxxx. Retrieved from
https://secure.webfeat.org/cecWFX.asp. doi:xx-xxxxxxxxxx.
Article without a DOI:
Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (2000). Title of
article. Title of Periodical, xx,
xxxxx. Retrieved from
https://secure.webfeat.org/cecWFX.asp.
Summary
Start with a summary of the article. This does not mean copy
word for word or explain every detail. No direct quotes should
be included.
Question being investigated and why the authors think it is
interesting.
Please do not copy word for word or explain every detail. No
direct quotes should be included. Explain the concepts as you
understand them.
Hypothesis being tested.
understand them. Hypothesis being tested, and how it was
operationalized (i.e., methodology: independent and dependent
variables, control conditions, etc.)
The findings.
understand them. Summary of the findings, and how the authors
interpreted them
Author’s conclusions.
understand them. The conclusions presented by the authors.
Discuss the Merits as well as Deficits of the Article
Do you think that they asked the question right, and is it an
interesting question? Is the hypothesis testable, and does the

operationalization make sense? Were the independent and
dependent variables well-chosen? Was the report of the findings
complete and clear? Do you agree with the interpretations? Why
or why not. Was there enough support for the conclusions? If
you see deficits, always clarify what would be a better
approach.
Making Connections
Does the article add to knowledge in the field? Is it well-
balanced or is there bias in the findings? Are there unanswered
questions in your mind? What future research would you
suggest and why?
Conclusion
Add some concluding remarks-can be a sentence or two.
NOTE:
· If you are not at the end of page 7 with content, your paper is
too short (if you used graphs or charts, your paper should be
longer)
· Do not insert extra spaces between paragraphs to make your
paper appear longer.
· If you are beyond page 10 with content, your paper is too
LONG. Do not change the font or margins to make the paper
appear shorter or longer
References
NOTE: The reference list starts on a new page after your
conclusion. Insert the bibliographic entry from page 3 here.
For help with formatting citations and references using rules
outlined in the APA Manual’s 6th Edition, please check out this
site.
1663

J. Dairy Sci. 99 :1663–1671
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3168/jds.2015-9925
© American Dairy Science Association®, 2016 .
ABSTRACT
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 develop-
ment 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 per-
ceived to be the ideal dairy farm and their associated
reasons. Through an online survey, participants were
invited to respond to the following open-ended ques-
tion: “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.
Key words: public aspiration, cow, well-being, citizen
INTRODUCTION
The way animals are raised on farms has changed
greatly over the past century, including a growth in
farm size and increased technology (Fraser, 2008).

Critics argue that more intensive farming practices
can harm the environment, rural communities, worker
safety, food quality, food safety, and animal welfare
(Boogaard et al., 2010; Godfray et al., 2010; Garnett
et al., 2013).
Concerns regarding dairy production include painful
procedures, such as tail docking (Weary et al., 2011),
and practices that are perceived to interfere with im-
portant natural behaviors, such as cow-calf separation
(Ventura et al., 2013) and zero grazing (Schuppli et
al., 2014). These studies provide some evidence that
although different stakeholders may share similar con-
cerns, in other instances they have opposing views.
This disconnect was also observed in a recent study
where farmers strongly believed that urban citizens are
ignorant about agricultural practices, and thus public
perceptions on agriculture should be considered irrel-
evant (Benard and De Cock Buning, 2013). Although
there can be disagreements about the issues and poten-
tial solutions (Vanhonacker et al., 2008; Hötzel, 2014),
it is widely recognized that public input is needed when
developing policy on farm animal welfare standards
(e.g., Groot Koerkamp and Bos, 2008; O’Connor and
Bayvel, 2012).
More broadly, understanding the values of the gen-
eral public may be important in the development of
sustainable food animal agriculture, as the adoption
of animal husbandry practices inconsistent with public
expectations may undermine social sustainability (e.g.,
von Keyserlingk et al., 2013; von Keyserlingk and Höt-
zel, 2015; Weary et al., 2015). To our knowledge, few
attempts have been made to solicit the views of the
general public about their aspirations for specific agri-

culture practices (e.g., Gaymard and Bordarie, 2015).
This type of research may provide valuable insights into
which factors are important to the general public as
well as identify potential areas of concern that, if not
addressed, may hinder the sustainability of the dairy
industry.
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.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participants were invited to respond to a single open-
ended question: “What do you consider to be an ideal
dairy farm and why are these characteristics important
to you?” They were free to express any aspects they
felt were important. Data were collected via an online
Imagining the ideal dairy farm
Clarissa S. Cardoso,*† Maria José Hötzel,† Daniel M. Weary,*
Jesse A. Robbins,*
and Marina A. G. von Keyserlingk*1
*Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems,
The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4,
Canada
†Laboratório de Etologia Aplicada e Bem-Estar Animal,
Departamento de Zootecnia e Desenvolvimento Rural,
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, 88.034-
001, Brazil
Received June 8, 2015.
Accepted November 5, 2015.

1 Corresponding author: [email protected]
1664 CARDOSO ET AL.
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 99 No. 2, 2016
platform (Fluid Surveys, http://fluidsurveys.com/).
To better characterize the participants, they were first
asked several multiple-choice demographic questions
before answering the study question. The survey was
completely anonymous and was approved by the Uni-
versity of British Columbia Behavioral Research Ethics
Board (H13–01466).
Survey Methodology
Participants were recruited online from the United
States via Mechanical Turk (MTurk, www.mturk.com).
Several studies have assessed this tool and concluded
that this approach results in high-quality and reliable
data (e.g., Buhrmester et al., 2011; Saunders et al.,
2013; Rouse, 2015) that is more representative than
many other samples (Mason and Suri, 2012; Rouse,
2015). Participants were given the following informa-
tion before taking the survey: “Take a short survey ask-
ing your opinion of dairy farms. We want to know what
characteristics you think make the ‘ideal’ dairy farm.”
Upon completion of the survey, participants were paid
(US$0.50). This convenience sample was intended to
provide a rich and diverse set of responses achieving
saturation on the topic of what characteristics make
up an ideal dairy farm. These results should not be
considered representative of the US population.

The survey was launched twice, 6 mo apart, once on
June 10, 2014, and again January 29, 2015. The consent
form for the first cohort contained the term “Animal
Welfare Program” as part of the authors’ affiliation,
and we were concerned that this phrase may have
framed some responses. Thus, for the second cohort,
this phrase was not included. The MTurk platform was
set to recruit 250 US respondents in each cohort (e.g.,
June 2014 and January 2015).
Survey Analysis
Demographic data, separated by cohort, are present-
ed on Table 1. Open-ended responses were analyzed us-
ing the NVivo Qualitative Data Management Program
(version 10, 2014; QSR International Pty Ltd., Don-
caster, VIC, Australia). The analysis was based on the
qualitative method described by Huberman and Miles
(1994): data reduction (information is coded finding
themes), data display (organization of the information
allowing for conclusions to be drawn), and conclusion
drawing and verification (noting of patterns and themes
and using confirmatory tactics such as triangulation
between 3 readers). Three trained evaluators blind to
demographic information independently examined 30
randomly selected responses, breaking them down into
phrases, which were then used to identify the primary
themes. The 3 readers compared results and reconciled
any discrepancies. The lead author then undertook the
final analyses.
The thematic analyses of the responses identified
4 primary features of an ideal dairy farm, which par-
ticipants justified using reasons that were coded into 2
distinct themes (Table 2). The main themes therefore

arose from the responses rather than being determined
a priori. Many sentences bridged more than one theme
and were thus coded into multiple themes.
RESULTS
Given that we were primarily interested in the views
of respondents not directly associated with dairy indus-
try, responses from participants that identified them-
selves as farmers (n = 7) were eliminated. In addition,
responses that were so inarticulate that they could not
be coded (n = 25) were deleted. The remaining 468
usable responses (234 from the June 2014 cohort and
234 from the January 2015 cohort) were from 46 US
states and the District of Columbia (no responses were
obtained from Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, or South
Dakota).
The frequencies of themes obtained from the 2 co-
horts were similar, with “cows” arising as the primary
theme accompanied by the main reason “animal wel-
fare and ethics” (Table 2). Given that the prevalence
of these themes did not vary between the 2 cohorts, we
concluded that including the term “Animal Welfare”
in the ethics consent form for cohort 1 did not bias
in these results. Therefore, data from the 2 cohorts
were pooled for the qualitative analysis. Results are
described according to theme, with sub-themes for the
reasons. Themes are listed in order of prevalence.
Features Related to the Cow
The most commented characteristic of the ideal farm
was “cow,” reflecting concerns about cow treatment,
specifically that the farmer or workers should treat
cows well, humanely, or with kindness. For example,

one respondent (Resp.) stated, “An ideal dairy farm
would be one that has no mistreatment of their live-
stock” (Resp. C1 113).
Respondents also mentioned that cows should be al-
lowed space to roam. This was reflected by terms such
as “open space,” “outside,” and “on pasture where the
cow could be free” [“I think a dairy farm that tries to
use all natural feed and allows the cattle plenty of open
space to roam and graze” (Resp. C1 13)]. Reference to
pasture was cited mainly in the context of space allot-
ments, though some respondents did not specify if they
considered pasture important just to roam outside, or
DAIRY INDUSTRY TODAY 1665
to graze [“To let the cows free range on pasture” (Resp.
C1 23); “The cows are all out in the pasture most of
the day and then brought in to be milked and sent back
to the pasture” (Resp. C2 30)]. Others were specific in
their responses that cows should be fed grass: “Cows
have plenty of grass to eat” (Resp. C1 20); “An ideal
dairy farm would feed the cows only grass” (Resp. C1
36); “Ideally, all dairy farms should feed their cows
grass” (Resp. C2 237).
Within the theme “cow,” respondents also made
frequent reference to desiring “naturalness” in dairy
production, often referred to when speaking of space
and pasture, but sometimes also referring to natural
diets. For example, 2 responses were, “A farm where
the animals are raised humanely, outside of cages, in

a natural environment. Also a farm that doesn’t mass
produce unnatural animals using steroids and antibiot-
ics” (Resp. C2 59); “One where the animals are allowed
to roam freely, not confined to pens or cages, are fed an
organic or natural diet” (Resp. C1 4).
Respondents did not approve of cows being injected
with hormones to produce more milk, or antibiotics,
unless necessary:
“They would not be fed any grain or given any
drugs unless absolutely necessary. No hormones”
(Resp. C1 228);
“Also, the cows wouldn’t be given lots of antibiot-
ics or other medicines to make them produce more
milk” (Resp. C1 14);
“Not treated with synthetic hormones or antibiot-
ics—unless absolutely necessary” (Resp. C2 231).
A few comments were specific to the cow-calf bond,
including [“Mothers and calves should have large stalls
Table 1. Participant demographics of the cohorts that
participated in an online survey where they were asked
to respond to the question, “What do you consider to be an ideal
dairy farm and why are these characteristics
important to you?”
Demographics Variable
Cohort 1 (%)
(n = 246)
Cohort 2 (%)

(n = 247)
Age (yr) 18–24 24.0 19.4
25–34 44.7 50.2
35–44 16.7 17.8
45–65 or above 14.6 12.5
Sex Male 53.3 58.3
Female 46.7 41.7
Level of education Some high school 0.8 1.2
High school graduate 13.0 10.9
Trade or vocational degree 1.6 4.1
Some college 28.5 25.1
Associate degree 9.8 10.5
Bachelor’s degree 38.6 39.3
Graduate 7.7 8.9
Area of residence Urban 29.7 21.5
Rural 19.5 25.9
Suburban 50.8 52.6
Familiarity with dairy Very familiar 10.6 6.1
Somewhat familiar 53.7 64.4
Not familiar 35.8 29.6
Involvement in dairy1 Professional or student 3.6 2.4
Animal advocate 6.1 4.5
Not involved 91.5 92.3
Other 1.6 2.0
1Participants were allowed to self-identify in multiple roles, so
the sum of percentages exceeds 100.
Table 2. Emerging themes in response to the question, “What do
you
consider to be an ideal dairy farm and why are these
characteristics
important to you?”
Encoding Main themes

Cohort 1
Cohort 2
n1 %2 n1 %2
Characteristics Cow 208 62 211 57
Business operation 61 18 99 27
Dairy products 59 17 43 12
Environment 11 3 15 4
Total3 339 100 368 100
Reasons Animal welfare and
ethics
91 53 98 58
Milk quality 81 47 71 42
Total3 172 100 169 100
1Number of references codified into each theme.
2Percent relative to number of references in relation to total of
sen-
tences codified.
3Total number references codified.
1666 CARDOSO ET AL.
with fresh bedding each day” (Resp. C1 53); “The ideal
dairy farm puts the well-being of the animals above
other considerations. This means, for example, not sep-
arating a new-born from the mother” (Resp. C2 54)].

Finally, participants showed concern for the health
of cows, stating that cows must be healthy, without
disease, and must receive veterinarian care [“Clean, free
of disease and good medical care” (Resp. C2 169); “An
ideal dairy farm is clean (...) and are also treated medi-
cally when they have problems” (Resp. C1 25)]. This
concept was expanded by some participants to include
comments on the facilities, specifying that they should
be good, safe, and clean for the cows [“I think an ideal
dairy farm would be a safe and clean environment for
cows to live” (Resp. C1 91); “The dens or housing for
the cows should be well kept and clean so the cows are
healthier” (Resp. C2 190)].
Reasons Related to Animal Welfare and Ethics
Reasons presented that were ethical in nature includ-
ed the quality of treatment workers or farmers should
give to animals. Respondents expressed concerns that
animals should be treated with “respect,” “humanely,”
or “fairly,” “kindly,” “with love,” and with “dignity,”
because it is moral or ethical.
“They [the cows] should be treated humanely be-
cause it’s the right and moral thing to do” (Resp.
C1 218);
“This is a humane issue and people should treat
animals with respect. It is just common decency”
(Resp. C2 38).
An ethical perspective was also present in the argu-
ments that animals deserve respect. Some commented
that the animals were not here only for the benefit
of humans: “I do not believe that we should mistreat
animals even though we are the dominant species on

the planet, all life still deserves respect” (Resp. C1 13),
and “The animals that provide the milk are not just
a tool but living beings that give us our milk, so they
deserve respect” (Resp. C2 66).
Referring to the quality of life of the animals was
frequently used to justify the characteristics of the ideal
farm; namely, the characteristics presented were impor-
tant for participants because they were equated with a
better life for the animals:
“I feel that this would allow the cows to have the
best life” (Resp. C2 118);
“This is important to me both for my own health
and the health and quality of life of the cows”
(Resp. C1 44).
Finally, a few participants suggested that the quality
of treatment given to animals at the farm could affect
their consumption of dairy products, “This is impor-
tant to me because I am deeply troubled and affected
by cruel treatment to animals and would not want to
purchase any products derived from such treatment”
(Resp. C2 34), and “I don’t want milk from mistreated
animals” (Resp. C2 170).
Features Related to the Business Operation
The second most frequent characteristic identified
by participants was associated with the business op-
eration. This theme included characteristics about the
farm as a whole, with most references indicating that
the ideal farm should be profitable, productive, and
efficient. Some respondents also stated that the ideal
farm should be organic, small, operated by family farm-

ers, and committed to contributing to their community
(e.g., offering tours or selling their milk products lo-
cally).
“The ideal dairy farm is similar to the one local to
me. It is small to medium sized and has a lot of lo-
cal interest and local interaction. They mostly sell
milk and cheese to local stores but sell ice cream
made on site and sell it locally. (...) They also put
on a lot of community events on the weekends and
are always extremely busy during them. It feels
like part of the community” (Resp. C1 207);
“An ideal dairy farm would be locally owned and
privately managed organically. These are im-
portant characteristics that show character and
inspire confidence in a business” (Resp. C1 117);
“The ideal farmer works hard to produce organic
products. This is important to me because it
shows that we are getting our dairy products from
a reliable place” (Resp. C2 94).
Some respondents connected mistreatment of cows
with the term “factory farm,” and disapproved of this
kind of treatment in an ideal dairy farm [“No factory
farming. A more organic approach” (Resp. C1 122);
“It is important to me because having seen dairy Fac-
tory Farms my heart breaks for the animals who must
endure awful conditions. My hope is for the animals to
be treated humanely” (Resp. C2 169)].

Respondents expressed some concern about the
owners (farmer), stating that they should be efficient,
educated, loving, and competent: “The owner cares
about his animals and takes great pride in ensuring a
great life for them” (Resp. C2 171). Others stated that
the farmer should be honest and responsible: “Lastly,
a dairy farmer has to be honest. Honesty is important
with everyone, especially farmers” (Resp. C1 193).
Other respondents referred to social aspects, about
work conditions and involvement with the community,
[e.g., “A clean safe environment for everyone involved”
(Resp. C1 44); “Paying their employees a good wage
also is important” (Resp. C1 151); “The staff should be
friendly and machines should work nicely” (Resp. C1
244); “I think an ideal farm would be where the milking
is done by machines” (Resp. C1 157); “A farm that re-
spects the community it is in as well as the environment
in the surrounding area” (Resp. C2 23)].
Features Related to Dairy Products
Respondents expressed expectations relative to the
quality of milk, stating that the ideal dairy farm pro-
duces high-quality milk and other products:
“The farm would also uphold standards of health
for their products” (Resp. C1 16);
“I consider a dairy farm ideal when they care
about the quality of products that they sell”
(Resp. C1 61).
Many respondents provided qualifiers when referring
to quality, stating that this referred to the absence of

antibiotics, hormones, or other chemicals in the milk,
and a clean environment to produce a safe and healthy
product [“They should be as natural as possible, don’t
use chemicals on their products” (Resp. C1 69)]. Some
referred to the need to follow laws and regulations, as
well as good equipment, for farms to keep the consum-
ers safe and healthy:
“The collection of the milk must be handled with
health regulations” (Resp. C2 243);
“All equipment would be clean and in perfect
working order to ensure the milk doesn’t get con-
taminated or that the equipment doesn’t injure a
cow” (Resp. C1 169).
Reasons Related to Milk Quality
The other main aspect that was identified by respon-
dents involved concerns for themselves, especially their
own health; simply put, they want healthy milk. More-
over, participants made explicit in their responses that
they want milk and other dairy products that are high
quality, clean, and safe to consume. These respondents
suggested that the quality of life of a cow influences the
quality of the milk she produces, which in turn influ-
ences human health:
“These [low use of antibiotics, no sacrifice of
animals, good quality of products, hygienic prac-
tices and attention to detail] are important to me
because it ensures that what I’m eating will be
of the highest standard and acceptable in both
flavour and nutritional content” (Resp. C2 73);

“I think that the better the cows are taken care of,
and the healthier they are, the healthier the milk
will be” (Resp. C1 96);
“...one where cows aren’t given hormones because
I don’t like the idea of taking drugs in my food
and drink” (Resp. C1 28).
Finally, several people linked the food that cows con-
sume with milk quality, mentioning that the cow’s feed
should be organic, grass-based, and without hormones
or antibiotics. Others associated the quality of the milk
with the quality of life of the cows, and concluded that
for this reason cows should be treated well: [“Grass fed
cows produce, I think, better tasting products” (Resp.
C1 111); “The less drugs given to them the better, so
they don’t pass them along to humans in their milk”
(Resp. C2 222); “The cows have to be treated properly,
free range not locked in pens their whole lives. Good
milk comes from happy cows” (Resp. C2 3)].
Features Related to the Environment
Although only a few respondents (11 in the first co-
hort and 15 in the second cohort) made references that
reflected concerns with environmental issues, those
that did comment clearly indicated their desire that
some care and responsibility about pollution and envi-
ronmental effects should be part of an ideal dairy farm.
Terms such as “green,” “eco-friendly,” and “sustainable”
were used to designate the ideal dairy farm:
“A dairy farmer that gets their milk responsibly
for the environment” (Resp. C2 66);
“I would say ideal would be a farm which gives

back as much as it takes from the earth and strives
to be a ‘green’ farm” (Resp. C1 52);
1668 CARDOSO ET AL.
“The farm is being run in an eco-friendly way”
(Resp. C1 234);
“The farm is sustainable, because it is important
to respect the environment” (Resp. C2 111).
Other Relevant Results
Respondents expressed characteristics related to sev-
eral aspects of a dairy farm within the same response;
individual participant responses referenced on average
1.5 features. The ideal farm often included characteris-
tics relating to the cows, milk products, environment,
consumers, farmers, workers, and the community:
“Sustainable. Does not waste a lot of natural re-
sources. Humane, not torturous for the animals.
It’s important for me because these things are
ethical considerations for production of food”
(Resp. C1 221);
“A farm that has the latest equipment and pro-
duces the best product. Where the animals are
cared for and given enough room. The food fed to
the animals should be high quality and not filled
with chemicals or hormones” (Resp. C2 164);

“Well cared for cows, top of the line pasteurization
equipment. Caring for your animals is very impor-
tant, don’t hurt them! Providing top quality and
safe products for your consumers is also extremely
important” (Resp. C2 214);
“One that produces quality milk for reasonable
costs and treats animals and workers well. That is
important to me because I enjoy quality milk and
low prices” (Resp. C2 247);
“Fresh, green grass, happy cows, good milk. The
happier the cows, the better tasting the milk, the
more money can be made” (Resp. C2 225).
In a few responses, participants made reference to
previous information or experiences that informed their
views of the ideal dairy farm. For instance, a few indi-
viduals referred to visiting their local dairy farm. How-
ever, the majority of the comments that made reference
to previous information and the resulting perception
were negative. For example,
“I think the animals should be treated well. We
hear too many horror stories” (Resp. C2 215);
“It is important to me to preserve animal welfare,
because I think it is disturbing and horrifying how
animals are treated in some dairy farms” (Resp.
C1 15);
“This is important to me because I have seen first
hand some dairy farms where the cows are kept
in their stalls all day hooked up to the pump ma-
chines and it is pretty horrid” (Resp. C1 76).

DISCUSSION
To our knowledge, this is the first study that de-
scribed characteristics of an ideal dairy farm by people
not associated with the dairy industry. Participants
referred to the social, economic, and ecological perspec-
tives generally discussed in the definition of sustain-
ability (von Keyserlingk et al., 2013). The majority of
respondents (90%, 419 of total) referred to the animal
in some capacity when referring to an ideal dairy farm.
These concerns focused largely on animal welfare and
argued that cows inherently deserve to be provided
a good quality of life, and that providing a good life
would have the instrumental benefit of improving milk
quality for consumers.
Our research differs from previous studies in that
it solicited general public views on the concept of a
dairy farm rather than on specific issues such as animal
welfare (e.g., Boogaard et al., 2006; Vanhonacker et
al., 2008; Ellis et al., 2009; Miele et al., 2011). Instead
of asking participants about experimenter-generated
characteristics, we invited participants to freely express
their views of an ideal farm. That animal welfare was
the most cited theme, regardless of whether the term
“Animal Welfare” was present on the Ethics Consent
Form, indicates that the quality of treatment given to
animals is a priority concern for participants. A Dutch
study reported similar findings when the general public
were asked their views on factors deemed most valuable
to ensure the dairy farm’s future, all respondents made
mention of the animal (Boogaard et al., 2008).
The majority of reasons provided by participants
referred to ethical arguments about the treatment of
animals. In this context, respondents argued that milk

production is ethically acceptable only if animals are
well treated. This utilitarian view is frequently men-
tioned in the ethical debate about the use of animals
in agriculture. Sandøe et al. (1997) stated that utili-
tarians believe that it is acceptable to kill animals for
consumption, as long as it is predicated on the animals
having a good life and that they are killed without
pain. However, these authors also argue that to achieve
these conditions radical changes must be implemented
on farms to ensure that animals are being treated
in this regard. Indeed, it is the moral aspect behind
animal production that has emerged from interested
people that has guided much of the debate about farm
animal welfare (Fraser et al., 1997). We suggest that
these insights provided by the respondents in this
study indicate that providing assurance that animals
are well cared for will improve the acceptability of dairy
farming to people who are not affiliated with the dairy
industry.
Respondents focused largely on 2 aspects of animal
welfare (as defined by Fraser et al., 1997): first, com-
ments linked to the concept of natural living, including
that the animals be provided access to space and pasture.
Participants also made reference to the animal’s health,
central to the concept of biological functioning. Con-
cerns about natural living have been reported in many
other studies on public perceptions about farm animal
welfare (Prickett et al., 2010). Lassen et al. (2006) re-

ported that living a natural life was an important part
of animal welfare for the general public. Vanhonacker et
al. (2008) reported that the general public is concerned
with an animal’s ability to engage in natural behaviors.
Several European studies showed that citizens valued
space and pasture, and outdoor grazing as important
components of animal welfare (Boogaard et al., 2008;
Ellis et al., 2009; Boogaard et al., 2010; Miele et al.,
2011). One recent North American study reported that
the general public demonstrated preference for systems
that provide some pasture access to cows (Schuppli et
al., 2014), a point also raised by many of the partici-
pants in our study. Dairy farms that incorporate some
form of pasture (e.g., diversified or mixed systems)
could contribute to sustainability of dairy industry in
2 ways: environmentally, given that they have reduced
water requirements (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2012)
compared with zero grazing or pasture-based systems;
and socially, given that they resonate with public val-
ues (see also Schuppli et al., 2014). Thus, we suggest
that some form of access to pasture should be part
of any future discussions regarding the sustainability
of the dairy industry, despite conflicting evidence from
different studies on the effects of pasture access on milk
production (White et al., 2002; Fontaneli et al., 2005;
Chapinal et al., 2010). Interestingly, although the par-
ticipants in the current study mentioned productivity
and profitability as desired characteristics of the ideal
farm, they did not question the potential economic im-
plications of including other desired characteristics of
what makes up an ideal dairy farm.
For 22% of respondents the most important char-
acteristic was related to dairy products, which was
sometimes related to human health. Interestingly, milk
quality was associated with qualifiers such as organic,

green, local, small-scale, and family-run operations.
Others that referred to concerns about milk quality fo-
cused on the ideal dairy farm having cows that did not
receive any hormones or unnecessary antibiotics. Desir-
ing practices that do not rely on hormones highlights
the disconnect between standard industry practices and
what participants view as ideal; exogenous hormones
are frequently used on many farms to address challeng-
es associated with low fertility (Moore and Thatcher,
2006) and to increase milk production (Bauman, 1992).
Given that respondents clearly rejected the use of these
technologies, our results suggest that continued reliance
on them may undermine the sustainability of the dairy
industry (von Keyserlingk et al., 2013). Although 22%
of respondents rejected the use of antibiotics and exog-
enous hormones as means to increase milk production,
some did specifically endorse the use of antibiotics when
cows were ill (by stating that cows should be treated
when necessary), suggesting a desire for naturalness
but not at the expense of animal welfare.
Most of our participants made reference to aspects
associated specifically with dairy farming and thus
were not completely naïve of farm practices. Many vol-
unteered information referring to the use of hormones
or antibiotics and the associated effects on milk quality
and human health, as well as animal rearing practices
such as early cow-calf separation and the environmental
effect of dairy farming. Several studies have reported
differences in the assessment of animal welfare between
farmers and people not associated with animal produc-
tion (Te Velde et al., 2002; Vanhonacker et al., 2008;
Miele et al., 2011). This has prompted some to sug-
gest the need to facilitate consensus building between
stakeholders, including farmers and general public, on

animal welfare issues (Poletto and Hötzel, 2012; von
Keyserlingk and Hötzel, 2015).
Some respondents also referred to modernity as im-
portant for the ideal dairy system. In general, respon-
dents desired a mix between an industrial and agrarian
view of agriculture. Thompson (2012) points out the
presence of 2 types of public philosophies of agricul-
ture: the industrial philosophy that sees agriculture as a
business, and just one of many sectors in the industrial
economy, which should be efficient and not cause risks
to third parties; and the agrarian philosophy, which is
more concerned with other issues of agriculture, such as
ecosystem services, good nutrition, and food security.
Participants of our survey showed interest in having
access to high-quality food, which they equated with
a more natural production system [e.g., with no (or
limited) antibiotics and cows grazing], which was also
linked, often simultaneously, with the animal’s quality
of life, and with human health. However, many par-
ticipants were clear that this does not mean that they
1670 CARDOSO ET AL.
expect that farmers should produce in the same way
as when the production was less technological and less
profitable. As Boogaard et al. (2010) concluded, the
general public wants it all: they prefer naturalness and
tradition, but also value modernity in dairy production.
A variety of reasons may explain why animal wel-
fare concerns were emphasized in the comments in this

survey. First, it seems reasonable that after 6 decades
of public debate and the presence of organized animal
protection groups (reviewed by von Keyserlingk and
Hötzel, 2015), society may have internalized animal
welfare as a critical issue of food animal production.
Moreover, access to information and formation of social
values can contribute to the general public demonstrat-
ing concern about animal welfare in animal agriculture
(Rollin, 2004). In fact, media coverage of cases involv-
ing the use and mistreatment of farm animals has been
particularly intense in recent years, and in many US
states the public has been exposed to an increase in
legislative initiatives aimed at addressing farm animal
welfare (Centner, 2010). Additionally, food safety crises
commonly attributed to industrial animal production
systems (e.g., bovine spongiform encephalopathy and
Salmonella outbreaks) are frequently highlighted by the
media (e.g., Nunez, 2015). It is clear that at least in de-
veloped countries the general public has become more
interested in farm animal production (Eurobarometer,
2007; Ellis et al., 2009), and a few studies in developing
nations suggest a similar trend (Schnettler et al., 2009;
Bonamigo et al., 2012; de Barcellos et al., 2013). This
increased interest is also reflected by greater media at-
tention, the primary source of information on farming
practices for the public (Eurobarometer, 2007; Miele,
2010; Tonsor and Wolf, 2010), which likely influences
urban citizens’ perceptions of the animal industries
(Verbeke and Ward, 2001). Also, animal activism some-
times promotes a negative image of animal industries
(for a recent example see Kanso, 2014), which may
contribute to some practices (for example, cow-calf
separation, Ventura et al., 2013) being rejected by the
general public (e.g., Tiplady et al., 2013; Rodan and
Mummery, 2014). This link may explain why some of
our respondents voiced concerns regarding the treat-

ment received by animals, suggesting that the quality
of treatment does not fully match their aspirations. For
example, 5.5% of participants explicitly reported that
many cows are currently mistreated on dairy farms, or
they argued that the quality of treatment needs to be
improved, or labeled the systems as unethical.
CONCLUSIONS
The main characteristics of an ideal dairy system
identified by the respondents were related to animal
welfare from 2 perspectives: consideration for the qual-
ity of life of the animals, based on ethical arguments,
and the consequences of animal care on the quality
of milk. We noted preferences for organic systems,
smaller family size operations, and rejection of the use
of antibiotics and hormones for purposes of increasing
production. Respondents also made mention that the
farm enterprise should remain productive and profit-
able. Overall, participants expressed an ethic for dairy
farming that includes concerns for the animal and for
social and environmental aspects of the dairy system.
Our study suggests that providing assurances that
animals are well treated, developing methods to incor-
porate pasture access, and ensuring healthy products
without relying on antibiotics or hormones will improve
the social sustainability of the dairy industry.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
C. S. Cardoso was awarded the Emerging Leaders
in the Americas Program (ELAP) scholarship, which
provided funds to support her visit to the Animal Wel-
fare Program, University of British Columbia. Maria J.
Hötzel received support from CNPq (National Council

for Scientific and Technological Development, Brazil).
Funding was provided in part by CNPq 22/2010 Inter-
institutional Network Agroecological Dairy Chain,
562908/2010-2.
REFERENCES
Bauman, D. E. 1992. Bovine somatotropin: Review of an
emerging
animal technology. J. Dairy Sci. 75:3432–3451.
Benard, M., and T. De Cock Buning. 2013. Exploring the
potential
of Dutch pig farmers and urban-citizens to learn through frame
reflection. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 26:1015–1036.
Bonamigo, A., C. B. dos Santos Silva Bonamigo, and C. F.
Maiolino
Molento. 2012. Broiler meat characteristics relevant to the con-
sumer: Focus on animal welfare. Braz. J. Anim. Sci. 41:1044–
1050.
Boogaard, B. K., B. B. Bock, S. J. Oosting, and E. Krogh. 2010.
Vis-
iting a farm: An exploratory study of the social construction of
animal farming in Norway and the Netherlands based on sensory
perception. Int. J. Sociol. Agric. Food 17:24–50.
Boogaard, B. K., S. J. Oosting, and B. B. Bock. 2006. Elements
of
societal perception of farm animal welfare: A quantitative study
in
the Netherlands. Livest. Sci. 104:13–22.
Boogaard, B. K., S. J. Oosting, and B. B. Bock. 2008. Defining
sus-

tainability as a socio-cultural concept: Citizen panels visiting
dairy
farms in the Netherlands. Livest. Sci. 117:24–33.
Buhrmester, M., T. Kwang, and S. D. Gosling. 2011. Amazon’s
Me-
chanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality,
data?
Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6:3–5.
Centner, T. J. 2010. Limitations on the confinement of food
animals in
the United States. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 23:469–486.
Chapinal, N., C. Goldhawk, A. M. de Passillé, M. A. G. von
Key-
serlingk, D. M. Weary, and J. Rushen. 2010. Overnight access
to
pasture does not reduce milk production or feed intake in dairy
cows. Livest. Sci. 129:104–110.
de Barcellos, M. D., K. G. Grunert, Y. Zhou, W. Verbeke, F. J.
A.
Perez-Cueto, and A. Krystallis. 2013. Consumer attitudes to dif-
ferent pig production systems: A study from mainland China.
Ag-
ric. Human Values 30:443–455.
Ellis, K. A., K. Billington, B. McNeil, and D. E. F. McKeegan.

2009.
Public opinion on UK milk marketing and dairy cow welfare.
Anim. Welf. 18:267–282.
Eurobarometer. 2007. Attitudes of EU citizens towards animal
wel-
fare. Special Eurobarometer 270/Wave 66.1–TNS Opinion &
So-
cial. Page 82.
Fontaneli, R. S., L. E. Sollenberger, R. C. Littell, and C. R.
Staples.
2005. Performance of lactating dairy cows managed on pasture-
based or in freestall barn-feeding systems. J. Dairy Sci.
88:1264–
1276.
Fraser, D. 2008. Animal welfare and the intensification of
animal pro-
duction. Pages 167–189 in Ethics of Intensification:
Agricultural
Development and Cultural Change. Vol. 16. P. B. Thompson,
ed.
FAO, Rome, Italy.
Fraser, D., D. M. Weary, E. A. Pajor, and B. N. Milligan. 1997.
A sci-
entific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical
concerns.
Anim. Welf. 6:187–205.
Garnett, T., M. C. Appleby, A. Balmford, I. J. Bateman, T. G.
Ben-
ton, P. Bloomer, B. Burlingame, M. Dawkins, L. Dolan, D.
Fraser,
M. Herrero, I. Hoffmann, P. Smith, P. K. Thornton, C. Toulmin,

S. J. Vermeulen, and H. C. J. Godfray. 2013. Sustainable
intensi-
fication in agriculture: Premises and policies. Science 341:33–
34.
Gaymard, S., and J. Bordarie. 2015. The perception of the ideal
neigh-
borhood: A preamble to implementation of a “street use code”.
Soc. Indic. Res. 120:801–816.
Godfray, H. C. J., I. R. Crute, L. Haddad, D. Lawrence, J. F.
Muir,
N. Nisbett, J. Pretty, S. Robinson, C. Toulmin, and R. Whiteley.
2010. The future of the global food system. Philos. Trans. R.
Soc.
Lond. B Biol. Sci. 365:2769–2777.
Groot Koerkamp, P. W. G., and A. P. Bos. 2008. Designing
complex
and sustainable agricultural production systems: An integrated
and reflexive approach for the case of table egg production in
the
Netherlands. NJAS-Wageningen. J. Life Sci. 55:113–138.
Hötzel, M. J. 2014. Improving farm animal welfare: Is evolution
or rev-
olution needed in production systems? Pages 67–84 in
Dilemmas
in Animal Welfare. M. C. Appleby, D. M. Weary, and P.
Sandoe,
ed. CABI, Wallingford, UK.
Huberman, A. M., and M. B. Miles. 1994. Data management and
analysis methods. Handbook of Qualitative Research. N. K.
Den-
zin and Y. S. Lincoln, ed. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Kanso, H. 2014. World’s largest clothing retailer drops angora
wool
after talks with PETA. Accessed Feb. 11, 2015. http://www.
cbsnews.com/news/worlds-largest-clothing-retailer-drops-
angora-
wool-after-talks-with-peta/.
Lassen, J., P. Sandøe, and B. Forkman. 2006. Happy pigs are
dirty!
Conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livest. Sci.
103:221–
230.
Mason, W., and S. Suri. 2012. Conducting behavioral research
on Am-
azon’s Mechanical Turk. Behav. Res. Methods 44:1–23.
Mekonnen, M. M., and A. Y. Hoekstra. 2012. A global
assessment of
the water footprint of farm animal products. Ecosystems (N. Y.)
15:401–415.
Miele, M. 2010. Report concerning consumer perceptions and
attitudes
towards farm animal welfare. Official Experts Report EAWP
(task
1.3). Vol. Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Miele, M., I. Veissier, A. Evans, and R. Botreau. 2011. Animal
welfare:
A dialogue between science and society. Anim. Welf. 20:103–
117.
Moore, K., and W. W. Thatcher. 2006. Major advances
associated

with reproduction in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 89:1254–1266.
Nunez, C. 2015. Mad cow disease still menaces U.K. blood
supply.
Accessed Apr. 25, 2015. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/
news/2015/02/150215-mad-cow-disease-vcjd-blood-supply-
health/.
O’Connor, C. E., and A. C. D. Bayvel. 2012. Challenges to
imple-
menting animal welfare standards in New Zealand. Anim. Welf.
21:397–401.
Poletto, R., and M. J. Hötzel. 2012. The five freedoms in the
global
animal agriculture market: Challenges and achievements as
oppor-
tunities. Anim. Front. 2:22–30.
Prickett, R. W., F. B. Norwood, and J. L. Lusk. 2010. Consumer
pref-
erences for farm animal welfare: Results from a telephone
survey
of US households. Anim. Welf. 19:335–347.
Rodan, D., and J. Mummery. 2014. The “Make it Possible”
multimedia
campaign: Generating a “New Everyday” in animal welfare.
Media
International Australia 153:78–87.
Rollin, B. E. 2004. Annual meeting keynote address: Animal
agricul-
ture and emerging social ethics for animals. J. Anim. Sci.
82:955–
964.

Rouse, S. V. 2015. A reliability analysis of Mechanical Turk
data.
Comput. Human Behav. 43:304–307.
Sandøe, P., R. Crisp, and N. Holtug. 1997. Ethics. Pages 3–17
in Ani-
mal Welfare. M. C. Appleby and B. O. Hughes, ed. CABI
Publish-
ing, Wallingford, UK.
Saunders, D. R., P. J. Bex, and R. L. Woods. 2013.
Crowdsourcing
a normative natural language dataset: A comparison of Amazon
Mechanical Turk and in-lab data collection. J. Med. Internet
Res.
15:e100.
Schnettler, B., R. Vidal, R. Silva, L. Vallejos, and N.
Sepulveda. 2009.
Consumer willingness to pay for beef meat in a developing
country:
The effect of information regarding country of origin, price and
animal handling prior to slaughter. Food Qual. Prefer. 20:156–
165.
Schuppli, C. A., M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary.
2014.
Access to pasture for dairy cows: Responses from an online
engage-
ment. J. Anim. Sci. 92:5185–5192.
Te Velde, H., N. Aarts, and C. Van Woerkum. 2002. Dealing
with am-
bivalence: Farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal
welfare

in livestock breeding. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 15:203–219.
Thompson, P. B. 2012. Agriculture, food and society—
Philosophy to
nanotechnology. Adv. Dairy Technol. 24:53–65.
Tiplady, C. M., D.-A. B. Walsh, and C. J. C. Phillips. 2013.
Public
response to media coverage of animal cruelty. J. Agric. Environ.
Ethics 26:869–885.
Tonsor, G. T., and C. A. Wolf. 2010. Drivers of resident support
for animal care oriented ballot initiatives. J. Agric. Appl. Econ.
42:419–428.
Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, E. Van Poucke, and F. A. M.
Tuyttens.
2008. Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm
animal
welfare differently? Livest. Sci. 116:126–136.
Ventura, B. A., M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, C. A. Schuppli, and
D. M.
Weary. 2013. Views on contentious practices in dairy farming:
The
case of early cow-calf separation. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6105–6116.
Verbeke, W., and R. W. Ward. 2001. A fresh meat almost ideal
de-
mand system incorporating negative TV press and advertising
im-
pact. Agric. Econ. 25:359–374.
von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., and M. J. Hötzel. 2015. The ticking
clock:
Addressing farm animal welfare in emerging countries. J. Agric.

Environ. Ethics 28:179–195.
von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., N. P. Martin, E. Kebreab, K. F.
Knowlton,
R. J. Grant, M. Stephenson II, C. J. Sniffen, J. R. Harner III, A.
D. Wright, and S. I. Smith. 2013. Invited review: Sustainability
of
the US dairy industry. J. Dairy Sci. 96:5405–5425.
Weary, D. M., C. A. Schuppli, and M. A. G. von Keyserlingk.
2011.
Tail docking dairy cattle: Responses from an online
engagement.
J. Anim. Sci. 89:3831–3837.
Weary, D. M., B. A. Ventura, and M. A. G. von Keyserlingk.
2015.
Invited Review: Societal views and animal welfare science:
Under-
standing why the modified cage may fail and other stories.
Animal
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731115001160.
White, S. L., G. A. Benson, S. P. Washburn, and J. T. Green Jr..
2002.
Milk production and economic measures in confinement or
pasture
systems using seasonally calved Holstein and Jersey cows. J.
Dairy
Sci. 85:95–104.
Copyright of Journal of Dairy Science is the property of
Elsevier Science and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv

without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for
individual use.

Week 3 Individual Project 1American Intercontin.docx

More Related Content

Similar to Week 3 Individual Project 1American Intercontin.docx (20)

More from cockekeshia (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Week 3 Individual Project 1American Intercontin.docx