Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-pnlb5 Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-10-28T22:36:15.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumer perceptions, knowledge and preferences on animal welfare in grazing and confined dairy systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2025

Macarena Córdoba ,
Agustin Alesso ,
Belen Lazzarini ,
Emiliano Demarchi ,
Einar Vargas-Bello-Pérez Open the ORCID record for Einar Vargas-Bello-Pérez [Opens in a new window]  and
Javier Baudracco
Macarena Córdoba
Affiliation:
Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional del Litoral, Esperanza, Argentina
Agustin Alesso
Affiliation:
Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional del Litoral, Esperanza, Argentina ICiAgro Litoral, Universidad Nacional del Litoral-CONICET, Esperanza, Argentina
Belen Lazzarini
Affiliation:
Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional del Litoral, Esperanza, Argentina
Emiliano Demarchi
Affiliation:
ICiAgro Litoral, Universidad Nacional del Litoral-CONICET, Esperanza, Argentina
Einar Vargas-Bello-Pérez*
Affiliation:
Facultad de Zootecnia y Ecología, Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, Chihuahua, Mexico
Javier Baudracco
Affiliation:
Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional del Litoral, Esperanza, Argentina ICiAgro Litoral, Universidad Nacional del Litoral-CONICET, Esperanza, Argentina
*
Corresponding author: Einar Vargas-Bello-Pérez; Email: einar.vargasbelloperez@reading.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Animal welfare is a growing concern in dairy production, influencing consumer preferences and industry practices. While extensive research has been conducted in Europe and North America, limited data exist on consumers´ attitudes in Latin America, particularly Argentina. This study aimed to assess Argentine consumers’ perceptions, knowledge, and preferences regarding dairy cow welfare in grazing and confined systems. An online survey was conducted among Argentine residents (n = 3,051), assessing sociodemographic characteristics, knowledge of animal welfare, perceptions of dairy production systems, and willingness to pay for animal welfare-certified products. Most respondents (99%) believed that cows feel pain, and 85% believed they have emotions. Most respondents (91%) agreed that pasture access improves animal welfare. A significant portion (70%) expressed willingness to pay a premium for animal welfare-certified dairy products, with women (p < 0.001) and younger consumers (p < 0.001) showing higher interest. Women and respondents connected to the agricultural sector considered animal welfare more frequently when buying animal-based products compared with men and those without an agricultural connection (p < 0.001). Consumers without a direct agricultural background were more likely to perceive confined systems negatively. Grazing systems were widely preferred, with respondents associating them with better welfare, healthier products, and environmental sustainability. Our findings indicate a consumer preference for pasture-based dairy systems in Argentina. These insights can help industry stakeholders refine their communication strategies and promote welfare-oriented production practices that better align with consumer expectations

Keywords

animal welfareconsumer preferencesdairydairy cow

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , First View , pp. 1 - 9
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Hannah Dairy Research Foundation.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aberson, CL (2022) Applied Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edn. Routledge: New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315171500Google Scholar
Alonso, ME, González-Montaña, JR and Lomillos, JM (2020) Consumers’ concerns and perceptions of farm animal welfare. Animals 10(3), 385. Article 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnott, G, Ferris, CP and O'Connell, NE (2017) Review: Welfare of dairy cows in continuously housed and pasture-based production systems. Animal 11(2), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731116001336CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Britt, JH, Cushman, RA, Dechow, CD, Dobson, H, Humblot, P, Hutjens, MF, Jones, GA, Ruegg, PS, Sheldon, IM and Stevenson, JS (2018) Invited review: Learning from the future. A vision for dairy farms and cows in 2067. Journal of Dairy Science 101(5), 3722–3741. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-14025CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Busch, G, Weary, DM, Spiller, A and von Keyserlingk, MAG (2017) American and German attitudes towards cow-calf separation on dairy farms. PLoS One 12(3), e0174013. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174013CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caffarena, RD, Riet-Correa, F and Giannitti, F (2018) Use of pain management procedures during disbudding/dehorning of dairy heifers: a pilot study in Uruguay and Argentina. Veterinaria (Montevideo) 54(210), 22–26. https://doi.org/10.29155/vet.54.210.4Google Scholar
Cardoso, C, Hötzel, MJ, Weary, DM, Robbins, JA and von Keyserlingk, MAG (2016) Imagining the ideal dairy farm. Journal of Dairy Science 99(2), 1663–1671. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9925CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cardoso, CS, von Keyserlingk, MAG and Hötzel, MJ (2019) Views of dairy farmers, agricultural advisors, and lay citizens on the ideal dairy farm. Journal of Dairy Science 102(2), 1811–1821. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-14688CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carnovale, F, Jin, X, Arney, D, Descovich, K, Guo, W, Shi, B and Phillips, CJC (2021) Chinese public attitudes towards, and knowledge of, animal welfare. Animals 11(3), 855. Article 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11030855CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Core Team (2023) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved June 2023, from https://www.Rproject.org/.Google Scholar
Coria-Avila, GA, Pfaus, JG, Orihuela, A, Domínguez-Oliva, A, José-Pérez, N, Hernández, LA and Mota-Rojas, D (2022) The neurobiology of behavior and its applicability for animal welfare: A review. Animals 12(7), 928. Article 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12070928CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cornish, A, Raubenheimer, D and McGreevy, P (2016) What we know about the public's level of concern for farm animal welfare in food production in developed countries. Animals 6(11), 74. Article 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani6110074CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Estévez-Moreno, LX, Miranda-de la Lama, GC and Miguel-Pacheco, GG (2022) Consumer attitudes towards farm animal welfare in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia: A segmentation-based study. Meat Science 187, 108747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108747CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fox, J and Weisberg, S (2019) An R Companion to Applied Regression, 3rd Edn. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion/Google Scholar
Habiyaremye, N, Mtimet, N, Ouma, EA and Obare, GA (2023) Consumers’ willingness to pay for safe and quality milk: evidence from experimental auctions in Rwanda. Agribusiness 39(4), 1049–1074. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampton, JO, Jones, B and McGreevy, PD (2020) social license and animal welfare: Developments from the past decade in Australia. Animals 10(12), 2237. Article 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10122237CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hötzel, MJ, Cardoso, CS, Roslindo, A and von Keyserlingk, MAG (2017) Citizens’ views on the practices of zero-grazing and cow-calf separation in the dairy industry: Does providing information increase acceptability? Journal of Dairy Science 100(5), 4150–4160. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-11933CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, A, Doidge, C, Green, M and Kaler, J (2022) Understanding public preferences for different dairy farming systems using a mixed-methods approach. Journal of Dairy Science 105(9), 7492–7512. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2022-21829CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jiang, R, Sharma, C, Bryant, R, Mohan, MS, Al-Marashdeh, O, Harrison, R and Torrico, DD (2021) Animal welfare information affects consumers’ hedonic and emotional responses towards milk. Food Research International 141, 110006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.110006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jurkovich, V, Hejel, P and Kovács, L (2024) A review of the effects of stress on dairy cattle behaviour. Animals 14(14), 2038. Article 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14142038CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kühl, S, Gauly, S and Spiller, A (2019) Analysing public acceptance of four common husbandry systems for dairy cattle using a picture-based approach. Livestock Science 220, 196–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2018.12.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazzarini, B, Baudracco, J, Tuñon, G, Gastaldi, L, Lyons, N, Quattrochi, H and Lopez-Villalobos, N (2019) Review: Milk production from dairy cows in Argentina: Current state and perspectives for the future. Applied Animal Science 35(4), 426–432. https://doi.org/10.15232/aas.2019-01842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazzarini, B, Llonch, P and Baudracco, J (2024) Animal welfare on Argentinean dairy farms based on the Welfare Quality® protocol framework. Journal of Animal Behaviour and Biometeorology 12(2), 2024010–2024010. https://doi.org/10.31893/jabb.2024010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenth, R (2023) emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means_. R package version 1.8.6. Retrieved June 2023, from https://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=emmeansGoogle Scholar
Miranda-de la Lama, GC, Estévez-Moreno, LX, Sepúlveda, WS, Estrada-Chavero, MC, Rayas-Amor, AA, Villarroel, M and María, GA (2017) Mexican consumers’ perceptions and attitudes towards farm animal welfare and willingness to pay for welfare friendly meat products. Meat Science 125, 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.12.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, C, Scott, S and Geddes, A (2019) Snowball sampling. In Atkinson, P, Delamont, S, Cernat, A, Sakshaug, JWW and Richard, A (eds), SAGE Research Methods Foundations. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Pejman, N, Kallas, Z, Dalmau, A and Velarde, A (2019) Should animal welfare regulations be more restrictive? A case study in eight European Union countries. Animals 9(4). Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9040195CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ritter, C, Hötzel, MJ and von Keyserlingk, MAG (2022) Public attitudes toward different management scenarios for “surplus” dairy calves. Journal of Dairy Science 105(7), 5909–5925. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2021-21425CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schuppli, CA, von Keyserlingk, MAG and Weary, DM (2014) Access to pasture for dairy cows: Responses from an online engagement. Journal of Animal Science 92(11), 5185–5192. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2014-7725CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shortall, O (2019) Cows eat grass, don't they? Contrasting sociotechnical imaginaries of the role of grazing in the UK and Irish dairy sectors. Journal of Rural Studies 72, 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.10.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sirovica, LV, Ritter, C, Hendricks, J, Weary, DM, Gulati, S and von Keyserlingk, MAG (2022) Public attitude toward and perceptions of dairy cattle welfare in cow-calf management systems differing in type of social and maternal contact. Journal of Dairy Science 105(4), 3248–3268. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2021-21344CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spooner, JM, Schuppli, CA and Fraser, D (2014) Attitudes of Canadian citizens toward farm animal welfare: a qualitative study. Livestock Science 163, 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.02.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vargas-Bello-Pérez, E, Miranda-de la Lama, GC, Teixeira, DL, Enríquez-Hidalgo, D, Tadich, T and Lensink, J (2017) Farm animal welfare influences on markets and consumer attitudes in Latin America: The cases of Mexico, chile and Brazil. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 30(5), 697–713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-017-9695-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vargas-Bello-Pérez, E, Obermöller-Bustamante, C, Faber, I, Tadich, T and Toro-Mujica, P (2021) Knowledge and perception on animal welfare in Chilean undergraduate students with emphasis on dairy cattle. Animals 11(7), 1921. Article 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11071921CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vargas-Bello-Pérez, E, Riveros, JL, Köbrich, C, Álvarez-Melo, PA and Lensink, J (2015) Chilean consumers’ perception about animal welfare in dairy production systems: Short communication. Animal Production Science 57(1), 147–151. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN14968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venables, WN and Ripley, BD (2002) Modern Applied Statistics with S, 4th Edn. New York: Springer. ISBN 0-387-95457-010.1007/978-0-387-21706-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ventura, BA, von Keyserlingk, MAG, Wittman, H and Weary, DM (2016) What difference does a visit make? Changes in animal welfare perceptions after interested citizens tour a dairy farm. PLoS One 11(5), e0154733. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickham, H, Averick, M, Bryan, J, Chang, W, McGowan, LD, François, R, Grolemund, G, Hayes, A, Henry, L, Hester, J, Kuhn, M, Pedersen, TL, Miller, E, Bache, SM, Müller, K, Ooms, J, Robinson, D, Seidel, DP, Spinu, V, Takahashi, K, Vaughan, D, Wilke, C, Woo, K and Yutani, H (2019) Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yunes, MC, von Keyserlingk, MAG and Hötzel, MJ (2017) Brazilian citizens’ opinions and attitudes about farm animal production systems. Animals: An Open Access Journal from MDPI 7(10), 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7100075CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Córdoba et al. supplementary material

Córdoba et al. supplementary material
Download Córdoba et al. supplementary material(File)
File 2.4 MB