Consumer perceptions of dairy farming (PhD)

Summary

Conflicting views between the dairy industry and the public about how dairy cows should be managed, together with an increase in the availability of alternatives to dairy foods, challenge future markets for milk producers. Members of the public are understood to value animal welfare as well as naturalness and grazing – but key questions remain. How diverse are these views, and why? What preconceptions are they based upon? And how do these preferences play out in terms of different management systems and the benefits they are seen to deliver to the cow? A better understanding of these perspectives will not only help the dairy industry to improve its communication to citizens and consumers about the social sustainability of milk production, but also offers opportunities for the industry to adapt its production systems to better meet societal expectations.

Key Findings

• Preferences for how dairy cows are managed and milk is produced are more diverse among the public than first appears, with socio-demographics, experiences and attitudes all playing a role. 
• Despite having little direct experience of cows, the public have formed strong attachments with them, ‘framing’ them – sometimes simultaneously – as subordinates, forces of nature, or companions. 
• Dairy farmers are ‘framed’ by the public as traditional or modernising – in both positive or negative lights, creating distrust and confusion about their care of the cow. 
• While fully housed or fully grazed systems are less favoured by the public, some perceive them as offering a better choice of environment or comfort in the former, and a more natural life in the latter. 
• There is no universal perception of an ‘ideal’ dairy farming system, but there are aspects which could be communicated more effectively and adaptations to systems which could improve public support of dairy farming.

Aims and Objectives

This study set out to understand public perceptions and preferences around dairy cow management in UK milk production, especially in relation to dairy cow welfare. Improved understanding of these areas could not only help to adjust outward communication, but could identify ways to adapt production systems to better meet societal expectations. 

Quantitative and qualitative methods were used. First a survey of over 2,000 UK citizens used Best Worst Scaling to present 17 different preferences for cow management and milk production; Hierarchical Bayesian analysis was used to develop a scaled ranking from the results, with Latent Class analysis identifying underlying groups with different preferences and characteristics. A subset of sixty survey participants then undertook face-to-face interviews. Frame analysis first identified how participants framed the cow and the farmer, then responses to descriptions of three different management systems were analysed qualitatively using inductive thematic analysis and quantitatively using text and sentiment analysis.

Key results

While Health & Welfare, Grazing and Cow Comfort were equal top priorities overall in our survey, six underlying ‘citizen groups’ of approximately equal size were identified, each with very different preferences. These groups were also found to be characteristically distinct in terms of a range of attitudes, experiences and socio-demographic factors.  

Frame analysis of the 60 face-to-face interviews further investigated what might underlie diversity of opinion on dairy cow welfare by examining perceptions of two key actors: cow and farmer. Interviewees had strong attachments to the cow, seeing her as enduring, mysterious force of nature, or familiar companion. By contrast the farmer was either ‘traditional’ and/or ‘modernising’ but in both positive and negative lights, leading to distrust over how well the cow is actually cared for.

Investigating how participants viewed different dairy farming systems found that keeping cows inside in the winter and outside grazing in the summer was strongly favoured as a good compromise and ‘best of both worlds’, offering safety and protection from danger but also a natural environment. Fully housing or grazing cows lacked familiarity or understanding of how cows could thrive in such conditions. However, diversity of view was also apparent with some supporting fully housed systems for offering improved choice or comfort, and fully grazed systems for being altogether more natural for the cow.