Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Public Awareness, Attitude and Empathy Regarding the Management of Surplus Dairy Calves

Public Awareness, Attitude and Empathy Regarding the Management of Surplus Dairy Calves Media reports are increasingly drawing attention to animal welfare issues related to surplus calves in dairy farming. Most calves born on conventional or organic dairy farms in Baden-Wuerttemberg (southern Germany) which are not needed for breeding or as replacement heifers are sold at about two to five weeks of age to conventional fattening farms located in northern Germany or other European countries. Associated animal welfare concerns pose an ethical issue, especially for organic dairy farms. In the present study, a representative online survey (N = 918) in south-west Germany is conducted to investigate public’s awareness of issues re- lated to dairy calves and their attitude towards various aspects of calf management. Regression analysis was used to examine whether public’s awareness of animal welfare issues, attitude toward calf management, and empathy with surplus dairy calves are associated with consumption frequency of organic, dairy and beef/veal products. Results indicate that most members of the public are aware of only a few common practices in dairy calf rearing but they are concerned about the well-being of dairy calves and have compassion for these animals. Organic food consumption frequency was linked to participants’ age, income, attitude, and awareness of issues. Consumption frequency of beef/veal products was related to gender, presence of children, attitude, and empathy, whereas dairy product consumption frequency was associated with income, presence of children, and problem awareness. This seems to indicate that members of the public are not aware of the link between dairy and meat industries - or that this awareness is not reflected in their consumption behavior. Keywords Dairy calves · Public · Animal welfare · Regression analysis · Attitudes · Consumption This paper was written as part of the project “WertKalb”, which is funded by the Ministry of Science, Research and Arts Baden-Wuerttemberg. Extended author information available on the last page of the article 1 3 11 Page 2 of 18 M. Herrler et al. Introduction Modern farm animal husbandry has been the subject of public criticism for several years (Boogaard et al., 2011a; Christoph-Schulz et al., 2015; Rovers et al., 2019; Weible et al., 2016). Public assessment of livestock farming differs depending on the type of animal considered (Christoph-Schulz et al., 2019; Faletar & Christoph- Schulz, 2022). While intensive poultry and pig farming are frequently viewed more negatively by society (Boogaard et al., 2011a; Weible et al., 2016; Christoph-Schulz & Rovers, 2020; Faletar & Christoph-Schulz, 2022), attitudes to dairy farming are more mixed (positive, Boogaard et al., 2011b; Christoph-Schulz et al., 2019; neg- ative, Boogaard et al., 2011b; Christoph-Schulz et al., 2018). Media reports have increasingly drawn public attention to the surplus calves in dairy farming and the resulting animal welfare issues (Rose & Volk, 2020; Schickling, 2021; Veauthier, 2020). In order to ensure continuous milk production, dairy cows must calve once a year (Franco et al., 2014; Kolbe, 2018) but in both organic and conventional systems are separated from their mothers shortly after birth (Kälber & Barth, 2014). With the exception of farms using sexed semen, on average about 50% of the calves are male (Franco et al., 2014; Haskell, 2020) which contribute to the beef supply (Creutzinger et al., 2021). Since only approximately 30–50% of the dairy calves born on dairy farms are used as replacement heifers (Bolton & Keyserlingk, 2021, there is a surplus of male and to a smaller extent female dairy calves that are not required on the dairy farms (Haskell, 2020). Calves of dairy breeds have low market value due to their comparatively low slaughter weights and lower intramuscular fat content (Placzek et al., 2021; Reiber et al., 2020). The handling of these surplus dairy calves differs depending on the region considered: For instance, in New Zealand and Australia surplus calves of dairy breeds are often transported over long distances to be subse- quently slaughtered only a few days after birth (Cave et al., 2005). In Canada, surplus male dairy calves are more likely to be euthanized immediately after birth, especially in larger herds (Renaud et al., 2017). Reasons for disposal of male surplus calves are presumed to be an inadequate infrastructure for calf rearing (Cave et al., 2005) or an insufficient economic benefit (Renaud et al., 2017). However, in the U.S. and Canada, majority of surplus dairy calves are raised to contribute to the beef industry (Creut- zinger et al., 2021). In Germany, according to the Animal Protection Act, killing animals for economic reasons is prohibited (BMJV 1972). Most surplus calves from conventional and organic dairy farms in Baden-Wuerttemberg (southern Germany) are sold to conventional fattening farms in northern Germany and other European countries at the age of approximately two to five weeks (Reiber et al., 2020). As previous studies have shown, long-distance transport poses a threat to calf welfare (Cave et al., 2005; Wilson, 2020). Accordingly, keeping dairy cows in a species- appropriate manner on organic farms is no guarantee that the calves of these animals will also be kept under species-appropriate conditions (Kolbe, 2018). The long-dis- tance transports of young dairy calves, as well as the rearing conditions and feeding on conventional fattening farms geared toward the production of the typical white veal meat, pose an ethical issue (Franco et al., 2014; Haskell, 2020; Veauthier, 2020; Kolbe, 2018) argues that dairy farming leads to more animal suffering and death per calorie produced than meat production. Furthermore, the sale of organic calves to 1 3 Public Awareness, Attitude and Empathy Regarding the Management… Page 3 of 18 11 conventional fattening farms poses a serious risk to the organic industry, as the rear- ing conditions on conventional fattening farms do not comply with the principles of organic farming in terms of animal welfare (Nielsen & Thamsborg, 2002). However, animal welfare is one of the most important motives for the consumption of organic food (Hasselbach & Roosen, 2015). In fact, for organic consumers in Germany, ani- mal welfare is one of the main reasons for buying organic products (BMEL, 2022). Yet, the majority of the public are unaware of common dairy farming practices such as cow/calf separation (Ventura et al., 2016; Hötzel et al., 2017; Cardoso et al., 2017). However, Bolton and Keyserlingk (2021) assume that news reports and media posts will raise public awareness of potentially controversial issues in animal farm- ing. How the public responds to information about common dairy farming practices has been examined in previous studies. In Brazil, Cardoso et al. (2017) found that most participants (79%) were unaware of the disposal of male calves. When the par- ticipants were informed about it, 90% of them rejected this practice. Early cow/calf separation was also often rejected by the participants of previous studies after they were informed about it (Busch et al., 2017; Hötzel et al., 2017; Sirovica et al., 2022) conducted a study in Canada in which participants were presented with one of four different cow-calf management systems. It was found that women had a more nega - tive attitude towards the early separation of cow and calf than men. Also, the results of the study by Ritter et al. (2022), carried out in Canada and the US, indicated that women had a more negative attitude toward baseline information about surplus dairy calves and interventional calf management practices than men. Furthermore, a study conducted in Germany and the US by Busch et al. (2017) revealed that women were more likely prefer a late separation of cow and calf than men. According to Sirovica et al. (2022), younger individuals were more concerned about animal welfare in their given calf management system. Similar results were found by Ritter et al. (2022), in which participants younger than 36 years had more negative attitudes toward baseline information about surplus dairy calve management than older respondents. Busch et al. (2017), however, found no association between age and preferred time of cow/calf separation. Moreover, according to Ritter et al. (2022), individuals with children had a more positive attitude toward baseline information about dairy calf management practices than those without children. In addition, vegetarians/vegans had a more negative attitude toward the baseline information than participants who consumed meat or other animal products. Evidence of an association between attitudes toward animal welfare and frequency of meat consumption has also been presented in previ- ous studies (DeBacker & Hudders, 2015; Lund et al., 2016). In general, people who care about animal welfare tend to consume less meat than those who care compara- tively little about animal welfare (DeBacker & Hudders, 2015; Kopplin & Rausch, 2021; Rothgerber, 2015; Sirovica et al., 2022) reported that participants who did not consume dairy products had a more negative attitudes toward their given cow-calf- management system compared to those who consumed dairy products. Yet, there are no studies on public’s awareness and attitude toward the various issues related to surplus dairy calves in Germany. The increased thematization of animal welfare issues related to surplus dairy calves in the media and the increased interest in animal welfare in general may lead to increased public awareness. This potentially results in negative attitudes towards (organic) dairy farming, as withhold- 1 3 11 Page 4 of 18 M. Herrler et al. ing information about animal husbandry practices can have negative consequences for the public’s trust in the livestock industry once they become aware of it (Robbins et al., 2016). If dairy product consumers who care about animal welfare and consume little or no meat are made aware of the relationship between dairy and meat pro- duction, a shift in attitudes and milk consumption frequency might occur. Demand for milk and meat from alternative farming systems could increase once the public becomes aware of current dairy farming practices (Placzek et al., 2021). In order to find socially acceptable solutions to the issue of surplus dairy calves, it is essential to include the attitudes and values of the population in the development of possible solutions (Bolton & Keyserlingk, 2021). Since there are very few studies on public’s awareness of the issue of surplus dairy calves and associated problems in Germany, we set out to investigate this issue in the present study. In addition, the study examines the importance members of the public place on calf welfare in dairy farming and whether they have compassion for surplus calves. In this regard, the present study aims to analyze whether there is a link between the consumption frequency of organic foods, beef/veal and dairy products and public’s attitude and empathy towards dairy calves. Methodological Approach and Data Procedure The present research was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Hohenheim. Citizens from the south-west of Germany were surveyed by means of a self-designed quantitative online questionnaire in March 2021. In order to obtain a representative sample distribution for the federal states of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Rhineland-Palatinate, Hesse and Saarland, participants were recruited by a market research company using quota regarding gender, age and place of residence. After purging outliers, 918 cases were left for further analysis. Questionnaire Design The questionnaire consisted of several parts. The first section concentrated on the food consumption and purchasing behavior of the respondents. Participants could assign themselves to one of the following categories: omnivores (‘I eat both animal and plant-based foods.’), pescatarian (‘I eat plant based foods, dairy, eggs and fish, but no meat.’), flexitarian (‘I eat meat only occasionally - but my diet is mostly veg - etarian.’), vegetarian (‘I eat plant based foods, eggs and dairy products, but no fish or meat.’), vegan (‘I eat plant-based foods, but I do not eat any products of animal origin.’), ‘I do not drink milk and/or eat dairy products, but I do eat meat and meat products’ or ‘other’. Those who followed a vegan diet were excluded from the sur- vey. Participants were asked how often they consume organic products, milk and dairy products, beef, veal as well as beef and veal products (e.g., sausage). Consump- tion frequency was measured by a 7-point scale (1= ‘never’, 2= ‘less frequently than once per month’, 3= ‘once a month’, 4= ‘several times a month’, 5= ‘once a week’, 1 3 Public Awareness, Attitude and Empathy Regarding the Management… Page 5 of 18 11 6= ‘several times a week’, 7= ‘daily’). In the second section, in order to examine public’s attitude toward the management of dairy calves, the participants’ perceived importance of various aspects of the keeping of calves in dairy husbandry was mea- sured with 12 items using six-point Likert scales from 1= ‘very unimportant’ to 6= ‘very important’. Items were randomized to eliminate order bias. Afterwards, the participants were informed about the issue of surplus calves by means of a quiz. They were asked three single-choice questions, each with four possible answers. The par- ticipants were required to estimate how often a dairy cow usually gives birth to a calf, how many organic calves, that are not needed for breeding, are sold to conventional fattening farms, and how many of these calves are transported abroad. After answer- ing a question, participants received a text with the corresponding solution. Based on the solution texts, the participants learned step by step why there is a surplus of dairy calves, why raising these calves is usually not profitable and what is usually done with the (organic) surplus calves. In the third section, they were asked if they were aware of the animal welfare issues associated with keeping dairy calves. Subjects could indicate those issues they had heard of before. Options included early separa- tion of cow and calf, the sale of young calves, low market value of dairy calves/ low demand for organic beef, the sale of organic dairy calves to conventional farms and long-distance transportation of young calves. Three items (early cow/calf separation, long-distance transportation and sale of young organic dairy calves to conventional farms) with a six-point scale ranging from 1= ‘does not depress me at all’ to 6= ‘depresses me a lot’ were used to measure participants’ level of empathy with surplus dairy calves. In the last section of the questionnaire, respondents were asked about the presence of children in the household. Statistical Analysis Hierarchical multiple linear regression models predicting consumption frequency of organic foods, milk/dairy products, and beef/veal products were computed using metric and dichotomous variables. Data on consumption frequency were collected using seven categories based on a metric scale. In order to aggregate the variables on the consumption frequency of milk and dairy products as well as those on the consumption frequency of beef and veal (products) and to subsequently use them as dependent variables in a linear regression, these categorically collected data were recoded into metric data (days per month). Following the approach of Kleiser et al. (2009), one month was equated to 28 days. For example, ‘once a week’ was recoded as 4. For categories with frequency spans, the arithmetic mean of the thresholds was calculated. For instance, for the category ‘several times per week’, the arithmetic mean of thresholds 2 and 6 was calculated and multiplied by 4, resulting in ‘several Although it would have been better in terms of statistics to collect the data metrically (e.g. days per month), we chose to query by means of categories to avoid imprecision. Since veal is consumed rather rarely, most respondents who eat veal several times a year (but less often than once a month) would probably have given the value 0 instead of calculating the exact value. With metric data, we could have avoided statistical imprecision, but would have had to accept greater imprecision in the survey because of the research question. 1 3 11 Page 6 of 18 M. Herrler et al. times per week’ = 16. These new variables were used for further calculations. By computing the mean score of the two variables concerning ‘milk consumption fre- quency’ and ‘dairy product consumption frequency’ for each participant, a new vari- able was calculated. In the same way, the four variables regarding the frequency of consumption of beef, beef products, veal and veal products were aggregated into one variable. The newly calculated variables ‘dairy products’ and ‘beef/veal products’ were used as dependent variables in regression analysis. The first model includes ‘awareness of issues in dairy farming’, ‘attitudes toward aspects of dairy calf rearing’ and ‘empathy with (surplus) dairy calves’ as indepen- dent variables. The mean scores were computed for the questions related to ‘atti- tudes toward various welfare aspects of calf rearing’ and for the questions related to ’empathy with (surplus) dairy calves’. Factor analyses were conducted to assess the unidimensionality of both constructs (Slocum-Gori & Zumbo, 2011). The Kaiser- Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy for the variables ‘attitudes toward vari- ous aspects of calf rearing’ was 0.960, for the variables ‘empathy with (surplus) dairy calves’ 0.698. Bartlett’s test for sphericity was significant in both factor analyses (p < 0.001). Only one factor (with an eigenvalue > 1) could be retained respectively. Examination of the scree plots also confirmed the unidimensionality of these two constructs. Afterwards, Cronbach’s α was calculated to ensure that the averaged vari- ables are internally consistent. The values of this reliability analysis for both attitudes toward animal welfare aspects (Cronbach’s α = 0.950) and empathy with (surplus) dairy calves (Cronbach’s α = 0.822) are above the cut-off value of 0.7 (Cortina, 1993). Thus, the use of these mean scores for regression analysis is considered appropri- ate. In regard to the awareness of various issues in dairy calf rearing, the sum score was computed. These scores were used as independent variables in regression anal- yses. The second model additionally contains the variables gender (with 0 = male, 1 = female), age, net household income and presence of children in household. Net household income was divided into three categories: less than 2,600€, 2,600€ to less than 5,000€, 5,000€ and more (where the first category was used as reference cat - egory). These categories were included in the regression as dummy variables. Frequencies and percentages were determined to show public’s awareness of ani- mal welfare issues in dairy farming, participants’ attitude towards various animal welfare aspects in dairy farming, and level of empathy with (surplus) dairy calves. For the frequency distribution regarding the attitude towards animal welfare aspects, the 6-point scale was divided into three groups (with 1–2 = unimportant, 3–4 = mod- erate and 5–6 = important). For the items on empathy with (surplus) dairy calves, a respective subdivision of the 6-item scale was applied (with 1–2 = hardly depress- ing, 3–4 = moderately depressing and 5–6 = depressing). All analyses were carried out using the statistical software IBM® SPSS, version 28. The advantage of transforming to class means instead of using categories is that the assumed distribution better reflects reality. Furthermore, someone who eats beef once a week, for example, consumes it seven times less frequently than someone who eats it daily and four times more frequently than someone who eats it once a month. Therefore, the differences can be interpreted in a meaningful way. 1 3 Public Awareness, Attitude and Empathy Regarding the Management… Page 7 of 18 11 Results Sample Description The demographic data of the participants are shown in Table 1. The gender and age distribution of the sample reflects the distribution of these characteristics in the fed - eral states where the subjects were recruited. Regarding net household income, most individuals were in the middle-income segment. The majority of respondents (78%) reported to follow an omnivorous diet, while 17% indicated to be flexitarian. Only a few participants reported that they avoided meat or milk/dairy products. Three- quarters of the participants stated to live without children in the household. Table 1 Socio-demographic Sample South- characteristics of the sample West Germany* Gender (N = 918) male 48% 49% female 52% 51% Age group (N = 918) below 25 9% 10% 25–39 21% 23% 40–64 43% 42% 65 and above 27% 25% Net household income (N = 826) less than 1.300€ 14% 1.300€ - below 2.600€ 29% 2.600€ - below 3.600€ 23% 3.600€ - below 5.000€ 24% 5.000€ and more 10% Diet (N = 918) omnivore 78% pescatarian 1% flexitarian 17% * South-West Germany: Baden- vegetarian 3% Wuerttemberg, Rhineland- no milk/ dairy products but meat 1% Palatinate, Hesse and Saarland; (products) a = Federal Statistical Oc ffi e Children in household (N = 918) 25% (2021) Descriptive Statistics The survey on awareness of the various issues in dairy farming showed that the majority of respondents knew of at least one of the problems mentioned. Only 14% stated that they have not been aware of any of the problems listed while 6% of the sample stated that they were aware of all these issues. Early separation of cow and calf, as well as transport of young calves over long distances, were both known to 63% of the participants. While 37% of the respondents indicated that they had already been aware of the early sale of young calves, 25% stated that they knew 1 3 11 Page 8 of 18 M. Herrler et al. Fig. 1 Indicated importance of animal welfare aspects regarding dairy calf management (in %). (Origi- nal scale: 1 = very unimportant - 6 = very important. New categories:1-2 = unimportant, 3-4 = moder- ate, 5-6 = important (N = 918)) about the low market value of dairy calves/low demand for organic beef. 18% of the respondents indicated that they knew that dairy calves from organic farms are often sold to conventional farms. Figure 1 shows how much importance the partici- pants attached to various aspects of animal welfare in dairy calf management. For the majority of participants, all listed aspects of dairy calf management were very important or important. A healthy and species-appropriate life for calves was most important to the respondents. Participants also attached importance to the avoidance of calf transportation and stressful situations, as well as keeping calves on pasture. Fig. 2 Public’s empathy with (surplus) dairy calves. (Original scale: 1 = does not depress me at all - 6 = depresses me a lot. New categories: 1-2 = hardly depressing, 3-4 = moderately depressing, 5-6 = depressing(N=918)) 1 3 Public Awareness, Attitude and Empathy Regarding the Management… Page 9 of 18 11 These aspects concerning the physical and psychological health of the calves were of greater importance to the participants than elements related to cow/calf-systems (e.g., the opportunity for the calves to drink milk from the udder). Local and organic rearing of calves was important to participants, but still less relevant than keeping calves with the cows. Figure 2 shows the frequency distributions regarding public’s empathy with (surplus) dairy calves. Results indicate that the study participants were concerned about all the listed issues. Respondents had the most compassion for calves that were transported long distances. In comparison, they were less depressed by the fact that organic dairy calves are sold to conventional farms. Consumption Frequencies Almost half of the respondents (49%) consumed organic food on a regular basis (daily to several times a week). Only 17.3% ate organic food less than once a month or never. The majority of participants (73.6%) consumed beef and veal occasionally (once a week to once a month). While 9.4% indicated that they eat beef/veal regularly, 17% reported that they consume this kind of meat less than once a month or never. More than half of the participants (65.6%) regularly consumed milk/dairy products. Only 2.9% said they drink/eat these products less than once a month or never. Organic food Consumption As shown in Table 2, the model used in multiple linear regression analysis can explained 13.1% of the variance of organic food consumption frequency. Regres- sion coefficients ranged in absolute value from B = -0.109, (SE = 0.019) for age to B = 6.087 (SE = 1.144) for the monthly net household income of 5000€ and more. Results showed that age, income, the awareness of issues in dairy farming and the attitude towards animal welfare aspects in dairy farming were associated with the consumption frequency of organic food. With increasing age, the frequency of con- sumption of organic foods decreased. Increased income, as well as higher awareness of dairy farming issues, were associated with an increased consumption of organic foods. In addition, with increasing importance of calf welfare, the frequency of con- sumption of organic foods also increased. Meat Consumption The regression model used explains 6.8% of the variance in the frequency of beef/ veal consumption frequency. Regression coefficients ranged in absolute value from B= -0.004, (SE = 0.110) for ‘awareness of issues’ to B = − 1.961 (SE = 0.310) for gen- der. Results of the regression analysis indicated that gender, presence of children, attitude towards animal welfare aspects in dairy farming, and empathy with (sur- plus) dairy calves were associated with beef/veal consumption frequency. Comparing regression coefficients, gender was the strongest predictor for the frequency of beef/ veal consumption, with men eating beef/veal more frequently than women. There was a positive association between the presence of children in the household and the 1 3 11 Page 10 of 18 M. Herrler et al. 1 3 Table 2 Results from the three multiple regression analyses showing associations between consumption frequencies and various variables (N = 824) Organic food consumption frequency Beef and veal consumption frequency Milk and dairy product consumption adj. R²=0.131, adj. R²=0.068, frequency F (8,816) = 16.583, p < .001 F (8,816) = 8.533, p < .001 adj. R²=0.024, F (8,816) = 3.578, p < .001 B SE Beta B SE Beta B SE Beta Intercept -0.893 2.157 4.925 1.015 14.45 1.977 Attitude 1.797** 0.570 0.155 0.680* 0.268 0.129 0.833 0.523 0.083 Empathy 0.890 0.468 0.092 - 0.648** 0.220 -0.147 - 0.722 0.429 - 0.086 Awareness of issues 0.642** 0.233 0.093 - 0.004 0.110 -0.001 0.532* 0.213 0.089 Gender 0.136 0.658 0.007 - 1.961*** 0.310 -0.224 - 0.641 0.603 - 0.038 Age -0.109*** 0.019 -0.191 - 0.010 0.009 -0.038 - 0.026 0.018 - 0.052 Income 2600€ - below 5000€ 2.209** 0.693 0.114 0.402 0.326 0.046 0.333 0.635 0.020 Income 5000€ and more 6.087*** 1.144 0.193 0.277 0.538 0.019 2.281* 1.048 0.084 Children 0.943 0.771 0.043 0.860* 0.363 0.086 1.497* 0.707 0.078 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 Public Awareness, Attitude and Empathy Regarding the Management… Page 11 of 18 11 frequency of beef/veal consumption. Furthermore, results indicated that the impor- tance of calf welfare is positively associated with the consumption frequency of beef/veal. A negative predictor was empathy for (surplus) dairy calves (B = − 0.648, SE = 0.220), showing that an increase in empathy was associated with a decrease in beef/veal consumption. Milk and Dairy Product Consumption The model used in multiple linear regression analysis explains 2.4% of the variance in the frequency of consumption of milk/dairy products. Regression coefficients ranged in absolute values from B= -0.026 (SE = 0.018) for age to B = 2.281 (SE = 1.048) for net household income of 5,000€ and more per month. Frequency of milk and dairy product consumption was positively associated with the awareness of issues in dairy farming, the presence of children and household net income of 5,000€ and more. Discussion The aim of the present study was to investigate whether the public in south-west- ern Germany is aware of animal welfare issues related to surplus dairy calves, how important members of the public consider the well-being of these animals, and whether awareness and empathy could be related to consumption. Since results of previous studies have shown that there is a link between dietary behavior and attitude towards farm animal welfare (DeBacker & Hudders, 2015; Kopplin & Rausch, 2021; Lund et al., 2016; Rothgerber, 2015), the study also assessed whether attitudes and empathy towards practices of dairy farming can predict the frequency of consump- tion of organic, beef/veal and milk/dairy products. The results indicated that most people were aware of at least one issue related to surplus dairy calves but only 6% of the sample stated that they were aware of all issues mentioned. More than half of the respondents reported that they knew about the early cow/calf separation and long-distance transportation of young calves before participating in the survey. High awareness of early cow-calf-separation contradicts findings from other parts of the world (North America: Ventura et al. ( 2016); Brazil: Cardoso et al. (2017); Hötzel et al. (2017).). However, the early separation of cow and calf received more and more public attention during the last years (Placzek et al., 2021). Long-distance transports of animals have also been the subject of public criticism in Europe (Moynagh, 2000). Although various media have reported on the low value of male dairy calves in recent years (Rose & Volk, 2020; Schickling, 2021; Veauthier, 2020), the results of this study indicate that few participants were aware of the low market value and early sale of these calves. Selling organic calves to conven- tional farms was the least known issue in dairy farming. The findings of the present study showed that the various animal welfare aspects in dairy calf management are important to the study participants. Results concerning empathy with (surplus) dairy calves were analogous. Overall, participants indicated that they felt depressed by the early separation of cow and calf, the transport of calves over long distances and the sale of organic dairy calves to conventional farms. Previous studies have also 1 3 11 Page 12 of 18 M. Herrler et al. shown that members of the public are concerned about the well-being of farm ani- mals (Boogaard et al., 2011a ; Rovers et al., 2019; Weible et al., 2016) and criticize practices in dairy calf management (Busch et al., 2017; Cardoso et al., 2017; Hötzel et al., 2017; Ventura et al., 2016; Ritter et al., 2022; Sirovica et al., 2022). The results of the regression analysis indicated that gender is associated with fre- quency of beef/veal consumption with men eating beef/veal more frequently than women. These findings are in line with the results of previous studies (Lund et al., 2016; Ruby, 2012; Sares-Jäske et al., 2022). According to Rothgerber (2013), men often associate the consumption of meat with masculinity on a personal level. Age was a predictor for organic food consumption frequency. With increasing age, the frequency of consumption of organic food decreased. These findings are consistent with the results from Onyango et al. (2007) who found young individuals to be more likely to purchase organic food products. However, the findings of studies regarding the relationship between age and organic consumption vary. For example, research by Sivathanu (2015) indicated that middle-aged people are more likely to consume organic foods than younger or older individuals. According to the results of Zhang et al. (2008) retired people have a higher propensity to buy organic products. The results of the present study also showed a positive association between the pres- ence of children in the household and the frequency of consumption of milk/dairy and beef/veal products. An increased consumption of dairy products in households with children, compared to households without children, was also found by Ortez et al. (2021). Finding that participants with children consume beef/veal more frequently than those without children is in line with the findings of Sares-Jäske et al. ( 2022), indicating that women who have children living in the household are more likely to consume red and processed meat than other women. In contrast, the study conducted by Merlino et al. (2017) found that individuals without children in the household con- sume meat more frequently than those with children. Furthermore, study participants’ net household income predicted the consumption frequency of organic and milk/dairy products. Participants with higher incomes consumed both organic foods and milk/ dairy products more frequently. The results concerning organic food consumption are consistent with findings from previous studies indicating that individuals with higher incomes are more likely to purchase organic foods than others (Sivathanu, 2015; Furno et al., 2021). The results regarding the positive association between the level of household income and milk/dairy product consumption are consistent with the findings of Boaitey and Minegishi ( 2020). Results of the present study also showed that public’s awareness of the issues related to surplus calves in dairy farming was associated with both organic food and milk/dairy product consumption frequency. Individuals who consumed organic food more frequently are also more aware of practices in dairy farming than those who rarely consume it. As previous studies have shown, organic consumers are more likely to seek information about their food than non-organic consumers (Zepeda & Deal, 2009). Further, animal welfare is one of the most important motives for pur- chasing organic food (Hasselbach & Roosen, 2015). Results of the present study also showed that there was a positive association between the awareness of issues and the consumption frequency of milk/dairy products. According to Sirovica et al. (2022), people rather spend the same amount or less money on milk from farming systems 1 3 Public Awareness, Attitude and Empathy Regarding the Management… Page 13 of 18 11 where cow and calf are separated than on milk from systems where calves are kept together. The positive relationship between awareness and milk/dairy consumption found in the present study may indicate that members of the public do not transfer their knowledge to their consumption of milk/dairy products. But, since the model used does not explain the variance in the frequency of dairy consumption well, it can be assumed that the relationship between problem awareness and frequency of milk/ dairy consumption is weak. There are no significant associations between the aware - ness of issues in dairy farming and participants’ beef/veal consumption frequency. This may indicate that most members of the public are not aware of the link between dairy farming and meat industry. The question regarding the consumption frequency of beef/veal and milk/dairy products did not consider whether these products were produced conventional or organic. In contrast to conventional dairy farming, the pub- lic perceived organic dairy farming as less in need of improvement (Faletar & Chris- toph-Schulz, 2022). In fact, some individuals have a very idealistic view on organic farming (Christoph-Schulz et al., 2015). It is evident from previous studies that concern for animal welfare is positively associated with organic food consumption (BMEL, 2022; Hasselbach & Roosen, 2015). This was also reflected in the results of the present study, as there is a positive relationship between attitudes toward vari- ous animal welfare aspects of calf rearing and frequency of organic food consump- tion. Members of the public who are aware of the issues in dairy farming may buy organic dairy products, believing that they are contributing to animal welfare. A lack of awareness that the problems mentioned also occur in organic dairy farming might explain positive relationship between awareness of the issues related to (surplus) dairy calves and frequency of consumption of milk/dairy products, although aware- ness of the issues in general dairy farming is increasing. Results of the present study indicated a positive association between public’s atti- tude and beef/veal consumption frequency. This is contrary to the results of studies showing that meat eaters are less concerned about animal welfare than vegetarians/ vegans (Ruby, 2012; DeBacker & Hudders, 2015; Hagmann et al., 2019). However, since consumers generally associate animal welfare with improved health and food safety (Harper & Makatouni, 2002), it is reasonable to assume that meat eaters are also interested in high animal welfare standards. According to Rothgerber (2015), the cognitive dissonance often caused by criticism of intensive livestock farming is not always reduced by abstaining from meat but can also be mitigated by eating meat from animals raised under certain ethical standards. A possible indirect indicator for this could be the consumption of organic meat. As with the consumption frequency of dairy products, no distinction was made between organic and conventional beef/ veal products. However, results of the present study indicated a negative association between people’s empathy with dairy calves and the frequency of beef/ veal consumption. This is consistent with studies by Rothgerber (2015) and Filippi et al. (2010) indicat- ing that vegans have greater empathy with animals than omnivores. While attitudes played an important role in the consumption of both organic food and beef/veal prod- ucts, empathy with the (surplus) dairy calves was only related to the consumption frequency of beef/veal. However, neither attitudes toward animal welfare aspects of calf management on dairy farms nor empathy with these calves was associated with 1 3 11 Page 14 of 18 M. Herrler et al. frequency of dairy product consumption. This indicates that members of the public can see the direct link between the consumption of meat and the death of animals. Hence, reducing the suffering and deaths of animals is an important motive for indi - viduals to become vegetarians. However, compared to the meat production, milk production leads to more deaths per calorie of product produced (Kolbe, 2018). Since dairy products are not the result of slaughter, and therefore the death of animals, the public may not see (or want to see) the link between dairy and meat industry and the indirect deaths that the dairy industry consequentially causes. The awareness that through the consumption of dairy products the meat industry is indirectly supported could evoke undesirable feelings in consumers of dairy products (cognitive disso- nance). However, giving up the consumption of dairy products seems difficult for many people. The lack of awareness of the link between those industries might be one of the reasons for the comparably good reputation of dairy farming. The model used in the multiple regression analyses can explained the frequency of organic food (R²=0.131) and beef/veal consumption (R²=0.068) better than the frequency of dairy product consumption (R²=0.024). Especially dairy product consumption seems to be influenced by other factors that were not considered in the present study (e.g. education, household size or environmental factors). Thus, further research should investigate which factors play a role in the consumption frequency of dairy products. The findings of this study have to be seen in light of some limitations. There is a possibility that the participants filled in the questionnaire according to social desirability. In addition, calculations of consumption frequency were based on the responses of participants who may not have been able to correctly assess their own consumption patterns and therefore provided incorrect information. Conclusion The low economic value of surplus dairy calves and the associated animal welfare issues have increasingly become the subject of media attention in recent years. Since the current management of surplus dairy calves contradicts the principles of organic farming, this is a major problem for the organic dairy industry. The results show that the public is concerned and feels empathy towards dairy calves. While participants were aware of animal welfare issues in dairy farming, many were only aware of some of the issues. However, awareness of the issue of (surplus) dairy calves was positively associated with the frequency of consumption of organic food as well as the consumption frequency of milk/dairy products. In addition, results indicated a positive relationship between participants’ attitudes toward animal welfare aspects in dairy calf rearing and their consumption frequency of organic foods and beef/veal products. While empathy for (surplus) dairy calves was related to beef/veal consump- tion frequency, there was no significant association with milk/dairy or organic food consumption frequency. Interestingly, it seems that members of the public do not see (or want to see) the link between the meat and dairy industry. The frequency of dairy product consumption seems to be influenced more by factors that also play a role in the consumption of organic products. However, since the included factors can only explain a small proportion of the variance in dairy product consumption frequency, 1 3 Public Awareness, Attitude and Empathy Regarding the Management… Page 15 of 18 11 other factors must have a greater influence. Further factors impacting on milk con - sumption frequency should be studied in the future. In addition, future studies should distinguish between conventionally and organically produced products when exam- ining the relationship between attitude or awareness regarding the management of (surplus) dairy calves and the frequency of consumption of dairy and beef/veal prod- ucts. Furthermore, it should be investigated whether the public is actually unaware of the relationship between milk and beef production, or whether they suppress this fact in order to avoid feelings of guilt when buying dairy products. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/. References BMEL (2022). Öko-Barometer 2021: [Eco-Barometer 2021] Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture). https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/ Downloads/DE/Broschueren/oekobarometer-2021.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=5 BMJV (1972). Tierschutzgesetz in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung (Animal Welfare Act as amende by the notice) vom 18. Mai 2006 (BGBl. I S. 1206, 1313), das zuletzt durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 17. Dezember 2018 (BGBl. I S. 2586) geändert worden ist. TierSchG, revised 12/17/2018. In (Bun- desministeriums der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tierschg/ Boaitey, A., & Minegishi, K. (2020). Determinants of household choice of dairy and plant-based milk alternatives: Evidence from a field survey. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 26(9), 639–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2020.1857318. Bolton, S. E., & von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. (2021). The dispensable surplus dairy calf: Is this issue a “wicked problem” and where do we go from here? Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8. https://doi. org/10.3389/fvets.2021.660934. Boogaard, B. K., Bock, B. B., Oosting, S. J., Wiskerke, J., & van der Zijpp, A. J. (2011b). Social accep- tance of dairy farming: The ambivalence between the two faces of modernity. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 24(3), 259–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9256-4. Boogaard, B. K., Boekhorst, L., Oosting, S. J., & Sørensen, J. T. (2011a). Socio-cultural sustainability of pig production: Citizen perceptions in the Netherlands and Denmark. Livestock Science, 140, 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011b.03.028. Busch, G., Weary, D. M., Spiller, A., & von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. (2017). American and german atti- tudes towards cow-calf separation on dairy farms. PloS One, 12(3), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0174013. Cardoso, C. S., von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., & Hötzel, M. J. (2017). Brazilian citizens: Expectations regarding dairy cattle welfare and awareness of contentious practices. Animals, 7(12), 89. https://doi. org/10.3390/ani7120089. Cave, J. G., Callinan, A. P. L., & Woonton, W. K. (2005). Mortalities in bobby calves associ- ated with long distance transport. Australian Veterinary Journal, 83(1–2), 82–84. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.2005.tb12203.x. 1 3 11 Page 16 of 18 M. Herrler et al. Christoph-Schulz, I., & Rovers, A. K. (2020). German citizens’ perception of fattening pig husbandry— Evidence from a mixed methods approach. Agriculture, 10(8), 342. https://doi.org/10.3390/ agriculture10080342. Christoph-Schulz, I., Rovers, A., & Luy, J. (2019). Fairer Deal?! Zwischen verbesserter Tierhaltung und günstigen Lebensmittelpreisen: [Fair deal?! Between improved animal husbandry and low food prices]. In 29. Jahrbuch der Österreihischen Gesellschaft für Agrarökonomie (pp. 23–24). Christoph-Schulz, I., Saggau, D., Brümmer, N., & Rovers, A. (2018). Die unterschiedlichen vorstellungen deutscher BürgerInnen zur Haltung von Milchkühen und Fleischrindern: [The different perceptions of german citizens on the husbandry of dairy cows and beef cattle]. Austrian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Rural Studies, 27(14), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.15203/OEGA_30.7. Christoph-Schulz, I., Salamon, P., & Weible, D. (2015). What is the benefit of organically-reared dairy cattle? Societal perception towards convential and organic dairy farming. Internatoional Journal on Food System Dynamics, 6(3), 139–146. https://doi.org/10.18461/ijfsd.v6i3.632. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98. Creutzinger, K., Pempek, J., Habing, G., Proudfoot, K., Locke, S., Wilson, D., & Renaud, D. (2021). Per- spectives on the management of surplus dairy calves in the United States and Canada. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.661453. DeBacker, C., & Hudders, L. (2015). Meat morals: Relationship between meat consumption consumer attitudes towards human and animal welfare and moral behavior. Meat Science, 99, 68–74. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.08.011. Faletar, I., & Christoph-Schulz, I. (2022). The relationship between citizens’ perceptions of farmers and the overall assessment of farm animal husbandry in Germany: A case of four animal types and two production systems. Proceedings in Food System Dynamics, 75–95. Federal Statistical Office (2021). Bevölkerung: Bundesländer, Stichtag, Geschlecht, Altersjahre (12411- 0013): [Population: states, reference date, sex, age (12411-0013)]. https://www-genesis.destatis.de/ genesis/online#astructure Filippi, M., Riccitelli, G., Falini, A., Di Salle, F., Vuilleumier, P., Comi, G., & Rocca, M. A. (2010). The brain functional networks associated to human and animal suffering differ among omnivores, veg - etarians and vegans. PloS One, 5(5), e10847. Franco, N. H., Magalhães-Sant’Ana, M., & Olsson, I. A. S. (2014). Welfare and quantity of life. In M. C. Appleby, D. M. Weary, & P. Sandøe (Eds.), Dilemmas in animal welfare (pp. 46–66). CABI. https:// doi.org/10.1079/9781780642161.0046 Furno, M., Del Giudice, T., & Cicia, G. (2021). Organic consumers’ profile beyond the mean. Organic Agriculture, 11(3), 337–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-020-00333-z. Hagmann, D., Siegrist, M., & Hartmann, C. (2019). Meat avoidance: Motives, alternative proteins and diet quality in a sample of swiss consumers. Public Health Nutrition, 22(13), 2448–2459. https://doi. org/10.1017/S1368980019001277. Harper, G. C., & Makatouni, A. (2002). Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare. British Food Journal, 104(3/4/5), 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700210425723. Haskell, M. J. (2020). What to do with surplus dairy calves? Welfare, economic, and ethical considerations. Journal of Sustainable and Organic Agricultural Systems, 70(1), 45–48. https://doi.org/10.3220/ LBF1593617173000. Hasselbach, J. L., & Roosen, J. (2015). Motivations behind preferences for local or organic food. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 27(4), 295–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2015.102 Hötzel, M. J., Cardoso, C. S., Roslindo, A., & von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. (2017). Citizens’ views on the practices of zero-grazing and cow-calf separation in the dairy industry: Does providing informa- tion increase acceptability? Journal of Dairy Science, 100(5), 4150–4160. https://doi.org/10.3168/ jds.2016-11933. Kälber, T., & Barth, K. (2014). Practical implications of suckling systems for dairy calves in organic production systems - a review. Landbauforschung - Journal of Applied Research in Agriculture and Forestry, 64(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.3220/LBF201445-58. Kleiser, C., Mensink, G. B. M., Scheidt-Nave, C., & Kurth, B. M. (2009). Husky: A healthy nutrition score based on food intake of children and adolescents in Germany. The British Journal of Nutrition, 102(4), 610–618. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114509222689. 1 3 Public Awareness, Attitude and Empathy Regarding the Management… Page 17 of 18 11 Kolbe, K. (2018). Why milk consumption is the bigger problem: Ethical implications and deaths per calo- rie created of milk compared to meat production. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 31(4), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9740-9. Kopplin, C. S., & Rausch, T. M. (2021). Above and beyond meat: The role of consumers’ dietary behavior for the purchase of plant-based food substitutes. Review of Managerial Science, 1–30. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11846-021-00480-x. Lund, T. B., McKeegan, D., Cribbin, C., & Sandøe, P. (2016). Animal ethics profiling of vegetarians, veg - ans and meat-eaters. Anthrozoös, 29(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2015.1083192. Merlino, V. M., Borra, D., Tibor, V., & Massaglia, S. (2017). Household Behavior with respect to meat consumption: Differences between households with and without children. Veterinary Sciences, 4(4), https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci4040053. Moynagh, J. (2000). EU regulation and consumer demand for animal welfare. Agbioforum, 3, 107–114. https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/handle/10355/453. Nielsen, B., & Thamsborg, S. M. (2002). Dairy bull calves as a resource for organic beef production: A farm survey in Denmark. Livestock Production Science, 75(3), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0301-6226(01)00322-0. Onyango, B. M., Hallman, W. K., & Bellows, A. C. (2007). Purchasing organic food in US food sys- tems: A study of attitudes and practice. British Food Journal, 109(5), 399–411. https://doi. org/10.1108/00070700710746803. Ortez, M., Bir, C., Widmar, N. O., & Townsend, J. (2021). Dairy product purchasing in households with and without children. JDS Communications, 2(1), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.3168/jdsc.2020-19305. Placzek, M., Christoph-Schulz, I., & Barth, K. (2021). Public attitude towards cow-calf separation and other common practices of calf rearing in dairy farming—a review. Organic Agriculture, 11(11), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-020-00321-3. Reiber, C., Wollmeister, M., Sommer, T., & Chagunda, M. (2020). Status quo und Determinanten der Käl- bervermarktung von ökologischen und konventionellen Milchviehbetrieben in Baden-Württemberg: [Status quo and determinants of calf marketing of organic and conventional dairy farms in Baden- Wuerttemberg]. Züchtungskunde, 92(5), 320–338. Renaud, D. L., Duffield, T. F., LeBlanc, S. J., Haley, D. B., & Kelton, D. F. (2017). Management practices for male calves on canadian dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science, 100(8), 6862–6871. https://doi. org/10.3168/jds.2017-12750. Ritter, C., Hötzel, M. J., & von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. (2022). Public attitudes toward different manage - ment scenarios for “surplus” dairy calves. Journal of Dairy Science, 105(7), 5909–5925. https://doi. org/10.3168/jds.2021-21425. Robbins, J. A., Franks, B., Weary, D. M., & von Keyserlingk, M. (2016). Awareness of ag-gag laws erodes trust in farmers and increases support for animal welfare regulations. Food Policy, 61, 121–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.02.008. Rose, J., & Volk, I. (2020). Lebewesen ohne Wert? Kälber-Transporte: Deswegen regt ein Gerichtsurteil so viele auf.: [Living beings without value? Calf transports: That’s why a court decision upsets so many.]. https://www.swr.de/swraktuell/baden-wuerttemberg/transport-kaelber-bw-100.html Rothgerber, H. (2013). Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(4), 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030379. Rothgerber, H. (2015). Underlying differences between conscientious omnivores and vegetarians in the evaluation of meat and animals. Appetite, 87, 251–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.12.206. Rovers, A., Christoph-Schulz, I., & Brümmer, N. (2019). Citizens’ perception of different aspects regard - ing german livestock production. International Journal on Food System Dynamics, 10(4), 361–374. https://doi.org/10.18461/IJFSD.V10I4.24. Ruby, M. B. (2012). Vegetarianism. A blossoming field of study. Appetite, 58(1), 141–150. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.019. Sares-Jäske, L., Valsta, L., Haario, P., & Martelin, T. (2022). Population group differences in subjective importance of meat in diet and red and processed meat consumption. Appetite, 169, 105836. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105836. Schickling, K. (2021). Das Schnitzel und seine Schattenseiten: [The schnitzel and its dark sides]. https:// www.zdf.de/dokumentation/zdfzoom/zdfzoom-das-schnitzel-und-seine-schattenseiten-102.html Sirovica, L. V., Ritter, C., Hendricks, J., Weary, D. M., Gulati, S., & von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. (2022). Public attitude toward and perceptions of dairy cattle welfare in cow-calf management systems dif- fering in type of social and maternal contact. Journal of Dairy Science, 105(4), 3248–3268. https:// doi.org/10.3168/jds.2021-21344. 1 3 11 Page 18 of 18 M. Herrler et al. Sivathanu, B. (2015). Factors affecting consumer preference towards the organic food purchases. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 8(33), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i33/78261. Slocum-Gori, S. L., & Zumbo, B. D. (2011). Assessing the unidimensionality of psychological scales: Using multiple criteria from factor analysis. Social Indicators Research, 102, 443–461. Veauthier, G. (2020). In Zukunft mit weniger Kälbern? [In future with fewer calves?].Elite Magazin, 3. https://www.elite-magazin.de/heftarchiv/betriebsleitung/zukunft-mit-weniger-kalbern-13658.html 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, 11(5), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154733. Weible, D., Christoph-Schulz, I., Salamon, P., & Zander, K. (2016). Citizens’ perception of modern pig production in Germany: A mixed-method research approach. British Food Journal, 118(8), 2014– 2032. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2015-0458. Wilson, D. J., Stojkov, J., Renaud, D. L., & Fraser, D. (2020). Risk factors for poor health outcomes for male dairy calves undergoing transportation in western Canada. The Canadian Veterinary Journal, 61(12), 1265–1272. Zepeda, L., & Deal, D. (2009). Organic and local food consumer behaviour: Alphabet Theory. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(6), 697–705. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00814.x. Zhang, F., Huang, C. L., Lin, B. H., & Epperson, J. E. (2008). Modeling fresh organic produce consump- tion with scanner data: A generalized double hurdle model approach. Agribusiness, 24(4), 510–522. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.20176. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and appli- cable law. Authors and Affiliations 1 2 1 Mareike Herrler  · Mizeck G. G. Chagunda  · Nanette Stroebele-Benschop Mareike Herrler mareike.herrler@uni-hohenheim.de Institute of Nutritional Medicine, Department of Applied Nutritional Psychology, University of Hohenheim, Fruwirthstr. 12, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany Institute of Agricultural Sciences in the Tropics, Department of Animal Breeding and Husbandry in the Tropics and Subtropics, University of Hohenheim, Garbenstr. 17, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany 1 3 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Springer Journals

Public Awareness, Attitude and Empathy Regarding the Management of Surplus Dairy Calves

Download PDF
18 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/public-awareness-attitude-and-empathy-regarding-the-management-of-jdw4Yy3a3i

References (42)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2023. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
ISSN
1187-7863
eISSN
1573-322X
DOI
10.1007/s10806-023-09905-x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Media reports are increasingly drawing attention to animal welfare issues related to surplus calves in dairy farming. Most calves born on conventional or organic dairy farms in Baden-Wuerttemberg (southern Germany) which are not needed for breeding or as replacement heifers are sold at about two to five weeks of age to conventional fattening farms located in northern Germany or other European countries. Associated animal welfare concerns pose an ethical issue, especially for organic dairy farms. In the present study, a representative online survey (N = 918) in south-west Germany is conducted to investigate public’s awareness of issues re- lated to dairy calves and their attitude towards various aspects of calf management. Regression analysis was used to examine whether public’s awareness of animal welfare issues, attitude toward calf management, and empathy with surplus dairy calves are associated with consumption frequency of organic, dairy and beef/veal products. Results indicate that most members of the public are aware of only a few common practices in dairy calf rearing but they are concerned about the well-being of dairy calves and have compassion for these animals. Organic food consumption frequency was linked to participants’ age, income, attitude, and awareness of issues. Consumption frequency of beef/veal products was related to gender, presence of children, attitude, and empathy, whereas dairy product consumption frequency was associated with income, presence of children, and problem awareness. This seems to indicate that members of the public are not aware of the link between dairy and meat industries - or that this awareness is not reflected in their consumption behavior. Keywords Dairy calves · Public · Animal welfare · Regression analysis · Attitudes · Consumption This paper was written as part of the project “WertKalb”, which is funded by the Ministry of Science, Research and Arts Baden-Wuerttemberg. Extended author information available on the last page of the article 1 3 11 Page 2 of 18 M. Herrler et al. Introduction Modern farm animal husbandry has been the subject of public criticism for several years (Boogaard et al., 2011a; Christoph-Schulz et al., 2015; Rovers et al., 2019; Weible et al., 2016). Public assessment of livestock farming differs depending on the type of animal considered (Christoph-Schulz et al., 2019; Faletar & Christoph- Schulz, 2022). While intensive poultry and pig farming are frequently viewed more negatively by society (Boogaard et al., 2011a; Weible et al., 2016; Christoph-Schulz & Rovers, 2020; Faletar & Christoph-Schulz, 2022), attitudes to dairy farming are more mixed (positive, Boogaard et al., 2011b; Christoph-Schulz et al., 2019; neg- ative, Boogaard et al., 2011b; Christoph-Schulz et al., 2018). Media reports have increasingly drawn public attention to the surplus calves in dairy farming and the resulting animal welfare issues (Rose & Volk, 2020; Schickling, 2021; Veauthier, 2020). In order to ensure continuous milk production, dairy cows must calve once a year (Franco et al., 2014; Kolbe, 2018) but in both organic and conventional systems are separated from their mothers shortly after birth (Kälber & Barth, 2014). With the exception of farms using sexed semen, on average about 50% of the calves are male (Franco et al., 2014; Haskell, 2020) which contribute to the beef supply (Creutzinger et al., 2021). Since only approximately 30–50% of the dairy calves born on dairy farms are used as replacement heifers (Bolton & Keyserlingk, 2021, there is a surplus of male and to a smaller extent female dairy calves that are not required on the dairy farms (Haskell, 2020). Calves of dairy breeds have low market value due to their comparatively low slaughter weights and lower intramuscular fat content (Placzek et al., 2021; Reiber et al., 2020). The handling of these surplus dairy calves differs depending on the region considered: For instance, in New Zealand and Australia surplus calves of dairy breeds are often transported over long distances to be subse- quently slaughtered only a few days after birth (Cave et al., 2005). In Canada, surplus male dairy calves are more likely to be euthanized immediately after birth, especially in larger herds (Renaud et al., 2017). Reasons for disposal of male surplus calves are presumed to be an inadequate infrastructure for calf rearing (Cave et al., 2005) or an insufficient economic benefit (Renaud et al., 2017). However, in the U.S. and Canada, majority of surplus dairy calves are raised to contribute to the beef industry (Creut- zinger et al., 2021). In Germany, according to the Animal Protection Act, killing animals for economic reasons is prohibited (BMJV 1972). Most surplus calves from conventional and organic dairy farms in Baden-Wuerttemberg (southern Germany) are sold to conventional fattening farms in northern Germany and other European countries at the age of approximately two to five weeks (Reiber et al., 2020). As previous studies have shown, long-distance transport poses a threat to calf welfare (Cave et al., 2005; Wilson, 2020). Accordingly, keeping dairy cows in a species- appropriate manner on organic farms is no guarantee that the calves of these animals will also be kept under species-appropriate conditions (Kolbe, 2018). The long-dis- tance transports of young dairy calves, as well as the rearing conditions and feeding on conventional fattening farms geared toward the production of the typical white veal meat, pose an ethical issue (Franco et al., 2014; Haskell, 2020; Veauthier, 2020; Kolbe, 2018) argues that dairy farming leads to more animal suffering and death per calorie produced than meat production. Furthermore, the sale of organic calves to 1 3 Public Awareness, Attitude and Empathy Regarding the Management… Page 3 of 18 11 conventional fattening farms poses a serious risk to the organic industry, as the rear- ing conditions on conventional fattening farms do not comply with the principles of organic farming in terms of animal welfare (Nielsen & Thamsborg, 2002). However, animal welfare is one of the most important motives for the consumption of organic food (Hasselbach & Roosen, 2015). In fact, for organic consumers in Germany, ani- mal welfare is one of the main reasons for buying organic products (BMEL, 2022). Yet, the majority of the public are unaware of common dairy farming practices such as cow/calf separation (Ventura et al., 2016; Hötzel et al., 2017; Cardoso et al., 2017). However, Bolton and Keyserlingk (2021) assume that news reports and media posts will raise public awareness of potentially controversial issues in animal farm- ing. How the public responds to information about common dairy farming practices has been examined in previous studies. In Brazil, Cardoso et al. (2017) found that most participants (79%) were unaware of the disposal of male calves. When the par- ticipants were informed about it, 90% of them rejected this practice. Early cow/calf separation was also often rejected by the participants of previous studies after they were informed about it (Busch et al., 2017; Hötzel et al., 2017; Sirovica et al., 2022) conducted a study in Canada in which participants were presented with one of four different cow-calf management systems. It was found that women had a more nega - tive attitude towards the early separation of cow and calf than men. Also, the results of the study by Ritter et al. (2022), carried out in Canada and the US, indicated that women had a more negative attitude toward baseline information about surplus dairy calves and interventional calf management practices than men. Furthermore, a study conducted in Germany and the US by Busch et al. (2017) revealed that women were more likely prefer a late separation of cow and calf than men. According to Sirovica et al. (2022), younger individuals were more concerned about animal welfare in their given calf management system. Similar results were found by Ritter et al. (2022), in which participants younger than 36 years had more negative attitudes toward baseline information about surplus dairy calve management than older respondents. Busch et al. (2017), however, found no association between age and preferred time of cow/calf separation. Moreover, according to Ritter et al. (2022), individuals with children had a more positive attitude toward baseline information about dairy calf management practices than those without children. In addition, vegetarians/vegans had a more negative attitude toward the baseline information than participants who consumed meat or other animal products. Evidence of an association between attitudes toward animal welfare and frequency of meat consumption has also been presented in previ- ous studies (DeBacker & Hudders, 2015; Lund et al., 2016). In general, people who care about animal welfare tend to consume less meat than those who care compara- tively little about animal welfare (DeBacker & Hudders, 2015; Kopplin & Rausch, 2021; Rothgerber, 2015; Sirovica et al., 2022) reported that participants who did not consume dairy products had a more negative attitudes toward their given cow-calf- management system compared to those who consumed dairy products. Yet, there are no studies on public’s awareness and attitude toward the various issues related to surplus dairy calves in Germany. The increased thematization of animal welfare issues related to surplus dairy calves in the media and the increased interest in animal welfare in general may lead to increased public awareness. This potentially results in negative attitudes towards (organic) dairy farming, as withhold- 1 3 11 Page 4 of 18 M. Herrler et al. ing information about animal husbandry practices can have negative consequences for the public’s trust in the livestock industry once they become aware of it (Robbins et al., 2016). If dairy product consumers who care about animal welfare and consume little or no meat are made aware of the relationship between dairy and meat pro- duction, a shift in attitudes and milk consumption frequency might occur. Demand for milk and meat from alternative farming systems could increase once the public becomes aware of current dairy farming practices (Placzek et al., 2021). In order to find socially acceptable solutions to the issue of surplus dairy calves, it is essential to include the attitudes and values of the population in the development of possible solutions (Bolton & Keyserlingk, 2021). Since there are very few studies on public’s awareness of the issue of surplus dairy calves and associated problems in Germany, we set out to investigate this issue in the present study. In addition, the study examines the importance members of the public place on calf welfare in dairy farming and whether they have compassion for surplus calves. In this regard, the present study aims to analyze whether there is a link between the consumption frequency of organic foods, beef/veal and dairy products and public’s attitude and empathy towards dairy calves. Methodological Approach and Data Procedure The present research was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Hohenheim. Citizens from the south-west of Germany were surveyed by means of a self-designed quantitative online questionnaire in March 2021. In order to obtain a representative sample distribution for the federal states of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Rhineland-Palatinate, Hesse and Saarland, participants were recruited by a market research company using quota regarding gender, age and place of residence. After purging outliers, 918 cases were left for further analysis. Questionnaire Design The questionnaire consisted of several parts. The first section concentrated on the food consumption and purchasing behavior of the respondents. Participants could assign themselves to one of the following categories: omnivores (‘I eat both animal and plant-based foods.’), pescatarian (‘I eat plant based foods, dairy, eggs and fish, but no meat.’), flexitarian (‘I eat meat only occasionally - but my diet is mostly veg - etarian.’), vegetarian (‘I eat plant based foods, eggs and dairy products, but no fish or meat.’), vegan (‘I eat plant-based foods, but I do not eat any products of animal origin.’), ‘I do not drink milk and/or eat dairy products, but I do eat meat and meat products’ or ‘other’. Those who followed a vegan diet were excluded from the sur- vey. Participants were asked how often they consume organic products, milk and dairy products, beef, veal as well as beef and veal products (e.g., sausage). Consump- tion frequency was measured by a 7-point scale (1= ‘never’, 2= ‘less frequently than once per month’, 3= ‘once a month’, 4= ‘several times a month’, 5= ‘once a week’, 1 3 Public Awareness, Attitude and Empathy Regarding the Management… Page 5 of 18 11 6= ‘several times a week’, 7= ‘daily’). In the second section, in order to examine public’s attitude toward the management of dairy calves, the participants’ perceived importance of various aspects of the keeping of calves in dairy husbandry was mea- sured with 12 items using six-point Likert scales from 1= ‘very unimportant’ to 6= ‘very important’. Items were randomized to eliminate order bias. Afterwards, the participants were informed about the issue of surplus calves by means of a quiz. They were asked three single-choice questions, each with four possible answers. The par- ticipants were required to estimate how often a dairy cow usually gives birth to a calf, how many organic calves, that are not needed for breeding, are sold to conventional fattening farms, and how many of these calves are transported abroad. After answer- ing a question, participants received a text with the corresponding solution. Based on the solution texts, the participants learned step by step why there is a surplus of dairy calves, why raising these calves is usually not profitable and what is usually done with the (organic) surplus calves. In the third section, they were asked if they were aware of the animal welfare issues associated with keeping dairy calves. Subjects could indicate those issues they had heard of before. Options included early separa- tion of cow and calf, the sale of young calves, low market value of dairy calves/ low demand for organic beef, the sale of organic dairy calves to conventional farms and long-distance transportation of young calves. Three items (early cow/calf separation, long-distance transportation and sale of young organic dairy calves to conventional farms) with a six-point scale ranging from 1= ‘does not depress me at all’ to 6= ‘depresses me a lot’ were used to measure participants’ level of empathy with surplus dairy calves. In the last section of the questionnaire, respondents were asked about the presence of children in the household. Statistical Analysis Hierarchical multiple linear regression models predicting consumption frequency of organic foods, milk/dairy products, and beef/veal products were computed using metric and dichotomous variables. Data on consumption frequency were collected using seven categories based on a metric scale. In order to aggregate the variables on the consumption frequency of milk and dairy products as well as those on the consumption frequency of beef and veal (products) and to subsequently use them as dependent variables in a linear regression, these categorically collected data were recoded into metric data (days per month). Following the approach of Kleiser et al. (2009), one month was equated to 28 days. For example, ‘once a week’ was recoded as 4. For categories with frequency spans, the arithmetic mean of the thresholds was calculated. For instance, for the category ‘several times per week’, the arithmetic mean of thresholds 2 and 6 was calculated and multiplied by 4, resulting in ‘several Although it would have been better in terms of statistics to collect the data metrically (e.g. days per month), we chose to query by means of categories to avoid imprecision. Since veal is consumed rather rarely, most respondents who eat veal several times a year (but less often than once a month) would probably have given the value 0 instead of calculating the exact value. With metric data, we could have avoided statistical imprecision, but would have had to accept greater imprecision in the survey because of the research question. 1 3 11 Page 6 of 18 M. Herrler et al. times per week’ = 16. These new variables were used for further calculations. By computing the mean score of the two variables concerning ‘milk consumption fre- quency’ and ‘dairy product consumption frequency’ for each participant, a new vari- able was calculated. In the same way, the four variables regarding the frequency of consumption of beef, beef products, veal and veal products were aggregated into one variable. The newly calculated variables ‘dairy products’ and ‘beef/veal products’ were used as dependent variables in regression analysis. The first model includes ‘awareness of issues in dairy farming’, ‘attitudes toward aspects of dairy calf rearing’ and ‘empathy with (surplus) dairy calves’ as indepen- dent variables. The mean scores were computed for the questions related to ‘atti- tudes toward various welfare aspects of calf rearing’ and for the questions related to ’empathy with (surplus) dairy calves’. Factor analyses were conducted to assess the unidimensionality of both constructs (Slocum-Gori & Zumbo, 2011). The Kaiser- Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy for the variables ‘attitudes toward vari- ous aspects of calf rearing’ was 0.960, for the variables ‘empathy with (surplus) dairy calves’ 0.698. Bartlett’s test for sphericity was significant in both factor analyses (p < 0.001). Only one factor (with an eigenvalue > 1) could be retained respectively. Examination of the scree plots also confirmed the unidimensionality of these two constructs. Afterwards, Cronbach’s α was calculated to ensure that the averaged vari- ables are internally consistent. The values of this reliability analysis for both attitudes toward animal welfare aspects (Cronbach’s α = 0.950) and empathy with (surplus) dairy calves (Cronbach’s α = 0.822) are above the cut-off value of 0.7 (Cortina, 1993). Thus, the use of these mean scores for regression analysis is considered appropri- ate. In regard to the awareness of various issues in dairy calf rearing, the sum score was computed. These scores were used as independent variables in regression anal- yses. The second model additionally contains the variables gender (with 0 = male, 1 = female), age, net household income and presence of children in household. Net household income was divided into three categories: less than 2,600€, 2,600€ to less than 5,000€, 5,000€ and more (where the first category was used as reference cat - egory). These categories were included in the regression as dummy variables. Frequencies and percentages were determined to show public’s awareness of ani- mal welfare issues in dairy farming, participants’ attitude towards various animal welfare aspects in dairy farming, and level of empathy with (surplus) dairy calves. For the frequency distribution regarding the attitude towards animal welfare aspects, the 6-point scale was divided into three groups (with 1–2 = unimportant, 3–4 = mod- erate and 5–6 = important). For the items on empathy with (surplus) dairy calves, a respective subdivision of the 6-item scale was applied (with 1–2 = hardly depress- ing, 3–4 = moderately depressing and 5–6 = depressing). All analyses were carried out using the statistical software IBM® SPSS, version 28. The advantage of transforming to class means instead of using categories is that the assumed distribution better reflects reality. Furthermore, someone who eats beef once a week, for example, consumes it seven times less frequently than someone who eats it daily and four times more frequently than someone who eats it once a month. Therefore, the differences can be interpreted in a meaningful way. 1 3 Public Awareness, Attitude and Empathy Regarding the Management… Page 7 of 18 11 Results Sample Description The demographic data of the participants are shown in Table 1. The gender and age distribution of the sample reflects the distribution of these characteristics in the fed - eral states where the subjects were recruited. Regarding net household income, most individuals were in the middle-income segment. The majority of respondents (78%) reported to follow an omnivorous diet, while 17% indicated to be flexitarian. Only a few participants reported that they avoided meat or milk/dairy products. Three- quarters of the participants stated to live without children in the household. Table 1 Socio-demographic Sample South- characteristics of the sample West Germany* Gender (N = 918) male 48% 49% female 52% 51% Age group (N = 918) below 25 9% 10% 25–39 21% 23% 40–64 43% 42% 65 and above 27% 25% Net household income (N = 826) less than 1.300€ 14% 1.300€ - below 2.600€ 29% 2.600€ - below 3.600€ 23% 3.600€ - below 5.000€ 24% 5.000€ and more 10% Diet (N = 918) omnivore 78% pescatarian 1% flexitarian 17% * South-West Germany: Baden- vegetarian 3% Wuerttemberg, Rhineland- no milk/ dairy products but meat 1% Palatinate, Hesse and Saarland; (products) a = Federal Statistical Oc ffi e Children in household (N = 918) 25% (2021) Descriptive Statistics The survey on awareness of the various issues in dairy farming showed that the majority of respondents knew of at least one of the problems mentioned. Only 14% stated that they have not been aware of any of the problems listed while 6% of the sample stated that they were aware of all these issues. Early separation of cow and calf, as well as transport of young calves over long distances, were both known to 63% of the participants. While 37% of the respondents indicated that they had already been aware of the early sale of young calves, 25% stated that they knew 1 3 11 Page 8 of 18 M. Herrler et al. Fig. 1 Indicated importance of animal welfare aspects regarding dairy calf management (in %). (Origi- nal scale: 1 = very unimportant - 6 = very important. New categories:1-2 = unimportant, 3-4 = moder- ate, 5-6 = important (N = 918)) about the low market value of dairy calves/low demand for organic beef. 18% of the respondents indicated that they knew that dairy calves from organic farms are often sold to conventional farms. Figure 1 shows how much importance the partici- pants attached to various aspects of animal welfare in dairy calf management. For the majority of participants, all listed aspects of dairy calf management were very important or important. A healthy and species-appropriate life for calves was most important to the respondents. Participants also attached importance to the avoidance of calf transportation and stressful situations, as well as keeping calves on pasture. Fig. 2 Public’s empathy with (surplus) dairy calves. (Original scale: 1 = does not depress me at all - 6 = depresses me a lot. New categories: 1-2 = hardly depressing, 3-4 = moderately depressing, 5-6 = depressing(N=918)) 1 3 Public Awareness, Attitude and Empathy Regarding the Management… Page 9 of 18 11 These aspects concerning the physical and psychological health of the calves were of greater importance to the participants than elements related to cow/calf-systems (e.g., the opportunity for the calves to drink milk from the udder). Local and organic rearing of calves was important to participants, but still less relevant than keeping calves with the cows. Figure 2 shows the frequency distributions regarding public’s empathy with (surplus) dairy calves. Results indicate that the study participants were concerned about all the listed issues. Respondents had the most compassion for calves that were transported long distances. In comparison, they were less depressed by the fact that organic dairy calves are sold to conventional farms. Consumption Frequencies Almost half of the respondents (49%) consumed organic food on a regular basis (daily to several times a week). Only 17.3% ate organic food less than once a month or never. The majority of participants (73.6%) consumed beef and veal occasionally (once a week to once a month). While 9.4% indicated that they eat beef/veal regularly, 17% reported that they consume this kind of meat less than once a month or never. More than half of the participants (65.6%) regularly consumed milk/dairy products. Only 2.9% said they drink/eat these products less than once a month or never. Organic food Consumption As shown in Table 2, the model used in multiple linear regression analysis can explained 13.1% of the variance of organic food consumption frequency. Regres- sion coefficients ranged in absolute value from B = -0.109, (SE = 0.019) for age to B = 6.087 (SE = 1.144) for the monthly net household income of 5000€ and more. Results showed that age, income, the awareness of issues in dairy farming and the attitude towards animal welfare aspects in dairy farming were associated with the consumption frequency of organic food. With increasing age, the frequency of con- sumption of organic foods decreased. Increased income, as well as higher awareness of dairy farming issues, were associated with an increased consumption of organic foods. In addition, with increasing importance of calf welfare, the frequency of con- sumption of organic foods also increased. Meat Consumption The regression model used explains 6.8% of the variance in the frequency of beef/ veal consumption frequency. Regression coefficients ranged in absolute value from B= -0.004, (SE = 0.110) for ‘awareness of issues’ to B = − 1.961 (SE = 0.310) for gen- der. Results of the regression analysis indicated that gender, presence of children, attitude towards animal welfare aspects in dairy farming, and empathy with (sur- plus) dairy calves were associated with beef/veal consumption frequency. Comparing regression coefficients, gender was the strongest predictor for the frequency of beef/ veal consumption, with men eating beef/veal more frequently than women. There was a positive association between the presence of children in the household and the 1 3 11 Page 10 of 18 M. Herrler et al. 1 3 Table 2 Results from the three multiple regression analyses showing associations between consumption frequencies and various variables (N = 824) Organic food consumption frequency Beef and veal consumption frequency Milk and dairy product consumption adj. R²=0.131, adj. R²=0.068, frequency F (8,816) = 16.583, p < .001 F (8,816) = 8.533, p < .001 adj. R²=0.024, F (8,816) = 3.578, p < .001 B SE Beta B SE Beta B SE Beta Intercept -0.893 2.157 4.925 1.015 14.45 1.977 Attitude 1.797** 0.570 0.155 0.680* 0.268 0.129 0.833 0.523 0.083 Empathy 0.890 0.468 0.092 - 0.648** 0.220 -0.147 - 0.722 0.429 - 0.086 Awareness of issues 0.642** 0.233 0.093 - 0.004 0.110 -0.001 0.532* 0.213 0.089 Gender 0.136 0.658 0.007 - 1.961*** 0.310 -0.224 - 0.641 0.603 - 0.038 Age -0.109*** 0.019 -0.191 - 0.010 0.009 -0.038 - 0.026 0.018 - 0.052 Income 2600€ - below 5000€ 2.209** 0.693 0.114 0.402 0.326 0.046 0.333 0.635 0.020 Income 5000€ and more 6.087*** 1.144 0.193 0.277 0.538 0.019 2.281* 1.048 0.084 Children 0.943 0.771 0.043 0.860* 0.363 0.086 1.497* 0.707 0.078 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 Public Awareness, Attitude and Empathy Regarding the Management… Page 11 of 18 11 frequency of beef/veal consumption. Furthermore, results indicated that the impor- tance of calf welfare is positively associated with the consumption frequency of beef/veal. A negative predictor was empathy for (surplus) dairy calves (B = − 0.648, SE = 0.220), showing that an increase in empathy was associated with a decrease in beef/veal consumption. Milk and Dairy Product Consumption The model used in multiple linear regression analysis explains 2.4% of the variance in the frequency of consumption of milk/dairy products. Regression coefficients ranged in absolute values from B= -0.026 (SE = 0.018) for age to B = 2.281 (SE = 1.048) for net household income of 5,000€ and more per month. Frequency of milk and dairy product consumption was positively associated with the awareness of issues in dairy farming, the presence of children and household net income of 5,000€ and more. Discussion The aim of the present study was to investigate whether the public in south-west- ern Germany is aware of animal welfare issues related to surplus dairy calves, how important members of the public consider the well-being of these animals, and whether awareness and empathy could be related to consumption. Since results of previous studies have shown that there is a link between dietary behavior and attitude towards farm animal welfare (DeBacker & Hudders, 2015; Kopplin & Rausch, 2021; Lund et al., 2016; Rothgerber, 2015), the study also assessed whether attitudes and empathy towards practices of dairy farming can predict the frequency of consump- tion of organic, beef/veal and milk/dairy products. The results indicated that most people were aware of at least one issue related to surplus dairy calves but only 6% of the sample stated that they were aware of all issues mentioned. More than half of the respondents reported that they knew about the early cow/calf separation and long-distance transportation of young calves before participating in the survey. High awareness of early cow-calf-separation contradicts findings from other parts of the world (North America: Ventura et al. ( 2016); Brazil: Cardoso et al. (2017); Hötzel et al. (2017).). However, the early separation of cow and calf received more and more public attention during the last years (Placzek et al., 2021). Long-distance transports of animals have also been the subject of public criticism in Europe (Moynagh, 2000). Although various media have reported on the low value of male dairy calves in recent years (Rose & Volk, 2020; Schickling, 2021; Veauthier, 2020), the results of this study indicate that few participants were aware of the low market value and early sale of these calves. Selling organic calves to conven- tional farms was the least known issue in dairy farming. The findings of the present study showed that the various animal welfare aspects in dairy calf management are important to the study participants. Results concerning empathy with (surplus) dairy calves were analogous. Overall, participants indicated that they felt depressed by the early separation of cow and calf, the transport of calves over long distances and the sale of organic dairy calves to conventional farms. Previous studies have also 1 3 11 Page 12 of 18 M. Herrler et al. shown that members of the public are concerned about the well-being of farm ani- mals (Boogaard et al., 2011a ; Rovers et al., 2019; Weible et al., 2016) and criticize practices in dairy calf management (Busch et al., 2017; Cardoso et al., 2017; Hötzel et al., 2017; Ventura et al., 2016; Ritter et al., 2022; Sirovica et al., 2022). The results of the regression analysis indicated that gender is associated with fre- quency of beef/veal consumption with men eating beef/veal more frequently than women. These findings are in line with the results of previous studies (Lund et al., 2016; Ruby, 2012; Sares-Jäske et al., 2022). According to Rothgerber (2013), men often associate the consumption of meat with masculinity on a personal level. Age was a predictor for organic food consumption frequency. With increasing age, the frequency of consumption of organic food decreased. These findings are consistent with the results from Onyango et al. (2007) who found young individuals to be more likely to purchase organic food products. However, the findings of studies regarding the relationship between age and organic consumption vary. For example, research by Sivathanu (2015) indicated that middle-aged people are more likely to consume organic foods than younger or older individuals. According to the results of Zhang et al. (2008) retired people have a higher propensity to buy organic products. The results of the present study also showed a positive association between the pres- ence of children in the household and the frequency of consumption of milk/dairy and beef/veal products. An increased consumption of dairy products in households with children, compared to households without children, was also found by Ortez et al. (2021). Finding that participants with children consume beef/veal more frequently than those without children is in line with the findings of Sares-Jäske et al. ( 2022), indicating that women who have children living in the household are more likely to consume red and processed meat than other women. In contrast, the study conducted by Merlino et al. (2017) found that individuals without children in the household con- sume meat more frequently than those with children. Furthermore, study participants’ net household income predicted the consumption frequency of organic and milk/dairy products. Participants with higher incomes consumed both organic foods and milk/ dairy products more frequently. The results concerning organic food consumption are consistent with findings from previous studies indicating that individuals with higher incomes are more likely to purchase organic foods than others (Sivathanu, 2015; Furno et al., 2021). The results regarding the positive association between the level of household income and milk/dairy product consumption are consistent with the findings of Boaitey and Minegishi ( 2020). Results of the present study also showed that public’s awareness of the issues related to surplus calves in dairy farming was associated with both organic food and milk/dairy product consumption frequency. Individuals who consumed organic food more frequently are also more aware of practices in dairy farming than those who rarely consume it. As previous studies have shown, organic consumers are more likely to seek information about their food than non-organic consumers (Zepeda & Deal, 2009). Further, animal welfare is one of the most important motives for pur- chasing organic food (Hasselbach & Roosen, 2015). Results of the present study also showed that there was a positive association between the awareness of issues and the consumption frequency of milk/dairy products. According to Sirovica et al. (2022), people rather spend the same amount or less money on milk from farming systems 1 3 Public Awareness, Attitude and Empathy Regarding the Management… Page 13 of 18 11 where cow and calf are separated than on milk from systems where calves are kept together. The positive relationship between awareness and milk/dairy consumption found in the present study may indicate that members of the public do not transfer their knowledge to their consumption of milk/dairy products. But, since the model used does not explain the variance in the frequency of dairy consumption well, it can be assumed that the relationship between problem awareness and frequency of milk/ dairy consumption is weak. There are no significant associations between the aware - ness of issues in dairy farming and participants’ beef/veal consumption frequency. This may indicate that most members of the public are not aware of the link between dairy farming and meat industry. The question regarding the consumption frequency of beef/veal and milk/dairy products did not consider whether these products were produced conventional or organic. In contrast to conventional dairy farming, the pub- lic perceived organic dairy farming as less in need of improvement (Faletar & Chris- toph-Schulz, 2022). In fact, some individuals have a very idealistic view on organic farming (Christoph-Schulz et al., 2015). It is evident from previous studies that concern for animal welfare is positively associated with organic food consumption (BMEL, 2022; Hasselbach & Roosen, 2015). This was also reflected in the results of the present study, as there is a positive relationship between attitudes toward vari- ous animal welfare aspects of calf rearing and frequency of organic food consump- tion. Members of the public who are aware of the issues in dairy farming may buy organic dairy products, believing that they are contributing to animal welfare. A lack of awareness that the problems mentioned also occur in organic dairy farming might explain positive relationship between awareness of the issues related to (surplus) dairy calves and frequency of consumption of milk/dairy products, although aware- ness of the issues in general dairy farming is increasing. Results of the present study indicated a positive association between public’s atti- tude and beef/veal consumption frequency. This is contrary to the results of studies showing that meat eaters are less concerned about animal welfare than vegetarians/ vegans (Ruby, 2012; DeBacker & Hudders, 2015; Hagmann et al., 2019). However, since consumers generally associate animal welfare with improved health and food safety (Harper & Makatouni, 2002), it is reasonable to assume that meat eaters are also interested in high animal welfare standards. According to Rothgerber (2015), the cognitive dissonance often caused by criticism of intensive livestock farming is not always reduced by abstaining from meat but can also be mitigated by eating meat from animals raised under certain ethical standards. A possible indirect indicator for this could be the consumption of organic meat. As with the consumption frequency of dairy products, no distinction was made between organic and conventional beef/ veal products. However, results of the present study indicated a negative association between people’s empathy with dairy calves and the frequency of beef/ veal consumption. This is consistent with studies by Rothgerber (2015) and Filippi et al. (2010) indicat- ing that vegans have greater empathy with animals than omnivores. While attitudes played an important role in the consumption of both organic food and beef/veal prod- ucts, empathy with the (surplus) dairy calves was only related to the consumption frequency of beef/veal. However, neither attitudes toward animal welfare aspects of calf management on dairy farms nor empathy with these calves was associated with 1 3 11 Page 14 of 18 M. Herrler et al. frequency of dairy product consumption. This indicates that members of the public can see the direct link between the consumption of meat and the death of animals. Hence, reducing the suffering and deaths of animals is an important motive for indi - viduals to become vegetarians. However, compared to the meat production, milk production leads to more deaths per calorie of product produced (Kolbe, 2018). Since dairy products are not the result of slaughter, and therefore the death of animals, the public may not see (or want to see) the link between dairy and meat industry and the indirect deaths that the dairy industry consequentially causes. The awareness that through the consumption of dairy products the meat industry is indirectly supported could evoke undesirable feelings in consumers of dairy products (cognitive disso- nance). However, giving up the consumption of dairy products seems difficult for many people. The lack of awareness of the link between those industries might be one of the reasons for the comparably good reputation of dairy farming. The model used in the multiple regression analyses can explained the frequency of organic food (R²=0.131) and beef/veal consumption (R²=0.068) better than the frequency of dairy product consumption (R²=0.024). Especially dairy product consumption seems to be influenced by other factors that were not considered in the present study (e.g. education, household size or environmental factors). Thus, further research should investigate which factors play a role in the consumption frequency of dairy products. The findings of this study have to be seen in light of some limitations. There is a possibility that the participants filled in the questionnaire according to social desirability. In addition, calculations of consumption frequency were based on the responses of participants who may not have been able to correctly assess their own consumption patterns and therefore provided incorrect information. Conclusion The low economic value of surplus dairy calves and the associated animal welfare issues have increasingly become the subject of media attention in recent years. Since the current management of surplus dairy calves contradicts the principles of organic farming, this is a major problem for the organic dairy industry. The results show that the public is concerned and feels empathy towards dairy calves. While participants were aware of animal welfare issues in dairy farming, many were only aware of some of the issues. However, awareness of the issue of (surplus) dairy calves was positively associated with the frequency of consumption of organic food as well as the consumption frequency of milk/dairy products. In addition, results indicated a positive relationship between participants’ attitudes toward animal welfare aspects in dairy calf rearing and their consumption frequency of organic foods and beef/veal products. While empathy for (surplus) dairy calves was related to beef/veal consump- tion frequency, there was no significant association with milk/dairy or organic food consumption frequency. Interestingly, it seems that members of the public do not see (or want to see) the link between the meat and dairy industry. The frequency of dairy product consumption seems to be influenced more by factors that also play a role in the consumption of organic products. However, since the included factors can only explain a small proportion of the variance in dairy product consumption frequency, 1 3 Public Awareness, Attitude and Empathy Regarding the Management… Page 15 of 18 11 other factors must have a greater influence. Further factors impacting on milk con - sumption frequency should be studied in the future. In addition, future studies should distinguish between conventionally and organically produced products when exam- ining the relationship between attitude or awareness regarding the management of (surplus) dairy calves and the frequency of consumption of dairy and beef/veal prod- ucts. Furthermore, it should be investigated whether the public is actually unaware of the relationship between milk and beef production, or whether they suppress this fact in order to avoid feelings of guilt when buying dairy products. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/. References BMEL (2022). Öko-Barometer 2021: [Eco-Barometer 2021] Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture). https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/ Downloads/DE/Broschueren/oekobarometer-2021.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=5 BMJV (1972). Tierschutzgesetz in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung (Animal Welfare Act as amende by the notice) vom 18. Mai 2006 (BGBl. I S. 1206, 1313), das zuletzt durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 17. Dezember 2018 (BGBl. I S. 2586) geändert worden ist. TierSchG, revised 12/17/2018. In (Bun- desministeriums der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tierschg/ Boaitey, A., & Minegishi, K. (2020). Determinants of household choice of dairy and plant-based milk alternatives: Evidence from a field survey. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 26(9), 639–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2020.1857318. Bolton, S. E., & von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. (2021). The dispensable surplus dairy calf: Is this issue a “wicked problem” and where do we go from here? Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8. https://doi. org/10.3389/fvets.2021.660934. Boogaard, B. K., Bock, B. B., Oosting, S. J., Wiskerke, J., & van der Zijpp, A. J. (2011b). Social accep- tance of dairy farming: The ambivalence between the two faces of modernity. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 24(3), 259–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9256-4. Boogaard, B. K., Boekhorst, L., Oosting, S. J., & Sørensen, J. T. (2011a). Socio-cultural sustainability of pig production: Citizen perceptions in the Netherlands and Denmark. Livestock Science, 140, 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011b.03.028. Busch, G., Weary, D. M., Spiller, A., & von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. (2017). American and german atti- tudes towards cow-calf separation on dairy farms. PloS One, 12(3), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0174013. Cardoso, C. S., von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., & Hötzel, M. J. (2017). Brazilian citizens: Expectations regarding dairy cattle welfare and awareness of contentious practices. Animals, 7(12), 89. https://doi. org/10.3390/ani7120089. Cave, J. G., Callinan, A. P. L., & Woonton, W. K. (2005). Mortalities in bobby calves associ- ated with long distance transport. Australian Veterinary Journal, 83(1–2), 82–84. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.2005.tb12203.x. 1 3 11 Page 16 of 18 M. Herrler et al. Christoph-Schulz, I., & Rovers, A. K. (2020). German citizens’ perception of fattening pig husbandry— Evidence from a mixed methods approach. Agriculture, 10(8), 342. https://doi.org/10.3390/ agriculture10080342. Christoph-Schulz, I., Rovers, A., & Luy, J. (2019). Fairer Deal?! Zwischen verbesserter Tierhaltung und günstigen Lebensmittelpreisen: [Fair deal?! Between improved animal husbandry and low food prices]. In 29. Jahrbuch der Österreihischen Gesellschaft für Agrarökonomie (pp. 23–24). Christoph-Schulz, I., Saggau, D., Brümmer, N., & Rovers, A. (2018). Die unterschiedlichen vorstellungen deutscher BürgerInnen zur Haltung von Milchkühen und Fleischrindern: [The different perceptions of german citizens on the husbandry of dairy cows and beef cattle]. Austrian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Rural Studies, 27(14), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.15203/OEGA_30.7. Christoph-Schulz, I., Salamon, P., & Weible, D. (2015). What is the benefit of organically-reared dairy cattle? Societal perception towards convential and organic dairy farming. Internatoional Journal on Food System Dynamics, 6(3), 139–146. https://doi.org/10.18461/ijfsd.v6i3.632. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98. Creutzinger, K., Pempek, J., Habing, G., Proudfoot, K., Locke, S., Wilson, D., & Renaud, D. (2021). Per- spectives on the management of surplus dairy calves in the United States and Canada. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.661453. DeBacker, C., & Hudders, L. (2015). Meat morals: Relationship between meat consumption consumer attitudes towards human and animal welfare and moral behavior. Meat Science, 99, 68–74. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.08.011. Faletar, I., & Christoph-Schulz, I. (2022). The relationship between citizens’ perceptions of farmers and the overall assessment of farm animal husbandry in Germany: A case of four animal types and two production systems. Proceedings in Food System Dynamics, 75–95. Federal Statistical Office (2021). Bevölkerung: Bundesländer, Stichtag, Geschlecht, Altersjahre (12411- 0013): [Population: states, reference date, sex, age (12411-0013)]. https://www-genesis.destatis.de/ genesis/online#astructure Filippi, M., Riccitelli, G., Falini, A., Di Salle, F., Vuilleumier, P., Comi, G., & Rocca, M. A. (2010). The brain functional networks associated to human and animal suffering differ among omnivores, veg - etarians and vegans. PloS One, 5(5), e10847. Franco, N. H., Magalhães-Sant’Ana, M., & Olsson, I. A. S. (2014). Welfare and quantity of life. In M. C. Appleby, D. M. Weary, & P. Sandøe (Eds.), Dilemmas in animal welfare (pp. 46–66). CABI. https:// doi.org/10.1079/9781780642161.0046 Furno, M., Del Giudice, T., & Cicia, G. (2021). Organic consumers’ profile beyond the mean. Organic Agriculture, 11(3), 337–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-020-00333-z. Hagmann, D., Siegrist, M., & Hartmann, C. (2019). Meat avoidance: Motives, alternative proteins and diet quality in a sample of swiss consumers. Public Health Nutrition, 22(13), 2448–2459. https://doi. org/10.1017/S1368980019001277. Harper, G. C., & Makatouni, A. (2002). Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare. British Food Journal, 104(3/4/5), 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700210425723. Haskell, M. J. (2020). What to do with surplus dairy calves? Welfare, economic, and ethical considerations. Journal of Sustainable and Organic Agricultural Systems, 70(1), 45–48. https://doi.org/10.3220/ LBF1593617173000. Hasselbach, J. L., & Roosen, J. (2015). Motivations behind preferences for local or organic food. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 27(4), 295–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2015.102 Hötzel, M. J., Cardoso, C. S., Roslindo, A., & von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. (2017). Citizens’ views on the practices of zero-grazing and cow-calf separation in the dairy industry: Does providing informa- tion increase acceptability? Journal of Dairy Science, 100(5), 4150–4160. https://doi.org/10.3168/ jds.2016-11933. Kälber, T., & Barth, K. (2014). Practical implications of suckling systems for dairy calves in organic production systems - a review. Landbauforschung - Journal of Applied Research in Agriculture and Forestry, 64(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.3220/LBF201445-58. Kleiser, C., Mensink, G. B. M., Scheidt-Nave, C., & Kurth, B. M. (2009). Husky: A healthy nutrition score based on food intake of children and adolescents in Germany. The British Journal of Nutrition, 102(4), 610–618. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114509222689. 1 3 Public Awareness, Attitude and Empathy Regarding the Management… Page 17 of 18 11 Kolbe, K. (2018). Why milk consumption is the bigger problem: Ethical implications and deaths per calo- rie created of milk compared to meat production. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 31(4), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9740-9. Kopplin, C. S., & Rausch, T. M. (2021). Above and beyond meat: The role of consumers’ dietary behavior for the purchase of plant-based food substitutes. Review of Managerial Science, 1–30. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11846-021-00480-x. Lund, T. B., McKeegan, D., Cribbin, C., & Sandøe, P. (2016). Animal ethics profiling of vegetarians, veg - ans and meat-eaters. Anthrozoös, 29(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2015.1083192. Merlino, V. M., Borra, D., Tibor, V., & Massaglia, S. (2017). Household Behavior with respect to meat consumption: Differences between households with and without children. Veterinary Sciences, 4(4), https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci4040053. Moynagh, J. (2000). EU regulation and consumer demand for animal welfare. Agbioforum, 3, 107–114. https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/handle/10355/453. Nielsen, B., & Thamsborg, S. M. (2002). Dairy bull calves as a resource for organic beef production: A farm survey in Denmark. Livestock Production Science, 75(3), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0301-6226(01)00322-0. Onyango, B. M., Hallman, W. K., & Bellows, A. C. (2007). Purchasing organic food in US food sys- tems: A study of attitudes and practice. British Food Journal, 109(5), 399–411. https://doi. org/10.1108/00070700710746803. Ortez, M., Bir, C., Widmar, N. O., & Townsend, J. (2021). Dairy product purchasing in households with and without children. JDS Communications, 2(1), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.3168/jdsc.2020-19305. Placzek, M., Christoph-Schulz, I., & Barth, K. (2021). Public attitude towards cow-calf separation and other common practices of calf rearing in dairy farming—a review. Organic Agriculture, 11(11), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-020-00321-3. Reiber, C., Wollmeister, M., Sommer, T., & Chagunda, M. (2020). Status quo und Determinanten der Käl- bervermarktung von ökologischen und konventionellen Milchviehbetrieben in Baden-Württemberg: [Status quo and determinants of calf marketing of organic and conventional dairy farms in Baden- Wuerttemberg]. Züchtungskunde, 92(5), 320–338. Renaud, D. L., Duffield, T. F., LeBlanc, S. J., Haley, D. B., & Kelton, D. F. (2017). Management practices for male calves on canadian dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science, 100(8), 6862–6871. https://doi. org/10.3168/jds.2017-12750. Ritter, C., Hötzel, M. J., & von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. (2022). Public attitudes toward different manage - ment scenarios for “surplus” dairy calves. Journal of Dairy Science, 105(7), 5909–5925. https://doi. org/10.3168/jds.2021-21425. Robbins, J. A., Franks, B., Weary, D. M., & von Keyserlingk, M. (2016). Awareness of ag-gag laws erodes trust in farmers and increases support for animal welfare regulations. Food Policy, 61, 121–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.02.008. Rose, J., & Volk, I. (2020). Lebewesen ohne Wert? Kälber-Transporte: Deswegen regt ein Gerichtsurteil so viele auf.: [Living beings without value? Calf transports: That’s why a court decision upsets so many.]. https://www.swr.de/swraktuell/baden-wuerttemberg/transport-kaelber-bw-100.html Rothgerber, H. (2013). Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(4), 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030379. Rothgerber, H. (2015). Underlying differences between conscientious omnivores and vegetarians in the evaluation of meat and animals. Appetite, 87, 251–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.12.206. Rovers, A., Christoph-Schulz, I., & Brümmer, N. (2019). Citizens’ perception of different aspects regard - ing german livestock production. International Journal on Food System Dynamics, 10(4), 361–374. https://doi.org/10.18461/IJFSD.V10I4.24. Ruby, M. B. (2012). Vegetarianism. A blossoming field of study. Appetite, 58(1), 141–150. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.019. Sares-Jäske, L., Valsta, L., Haario, P., & Martelin, T. (2022). Population group differences in subjective importance of meat in diet and red and processed meat consumption. Appetite, 169, 105836. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105836. Schickling, K. (2021). Das Schnitzel und seine Schattenseiten: [The schnitzel and its dark sides]. https:// www.zdf.de/dokumentation/zdfzoom/zdfzoom-das-schnitzel-und-seine-schattenseiten-102.html Sirovica, L. V., Ritter, C., Hendricks, J., Weary, D. M., Gulati, S., & von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. (2022). Public attitude toward and perceptions of dairy cattle welfare in cow-calf management systems dif- fering in type of social and maternal contact. Journal of Dairy Science, 105(4), 3248–3268. https:// doi.org/10.3168/jds.2021-21344. 1 3 11 Page 18 of 18 M. Herrler et al. Sivathanu, B. (2015). Factors affecting consumer preference towards the organic food purchases. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 8(33), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i33/78261. Slocum-Gori, S. L., & Zumbo, B. D. (2011). Assessing the unidimensionality of psychological scales: Using multiple criteria from factor analysis. Social Indicators Research, 102, 443–461. Veauthier, G. (2020). In Zukunft mit weniger Kälbern? [In future with fewer calves?].Elite Magazin, 3. https://www.elite-magazin.de/heftarchiv/betriebsleitung/zukunft-mit-weniger-kalbern-13658.html 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, 11(5), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154733. Weible, D., Christoph-Schulz, I., Salamon, P., & Zander, K. (2016). Citizens’ perception of modern pig production in Germany: A mixed-method research approach. British Food Journal, 118(8), 2014– 2032. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2015-0458. Wilson, D. J., Stojkov, J., Renaud, D. L., & Fraser, D. (2020). Risk factors for poor health outcomes for male dairy calves undergoing transportation in western Canada. The Canadian Veterinary Journal, 61(12), 1265–1272. Zepeda, L., & Deal, D. (2009). Organic and local food consumer behaviour: Alphabet Theory. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(6), 697–705. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00814.x. Zhang, F., Huang, C. L., Lin, B. H., & Epperson, J. E. (2008). Modeling fresh organic produce consump- tion with scanner data: A generalized double hurdle model approach. Agribusiness, 24(4), 510–522. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.20176. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and appli- cable law. Authors and Affiliations 1 2 1 Mareike Herrler  · Mizeck G. G. Chagunda  · Nanette Stroebele-Benschop Mareike Herrler mareike.herrler@uni-hohenheim.de Institute of Nutritional Medicine, Department of Applied Nutritional Psychology, University of Hohenheim, Fruwirthstr. 12, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany Institute of Agricultural Sciences in the Tropics, Department of Animal Breeding and Husbandry in the Tropics and Subtropics, University of Hohenheim, Garbenstr. 17, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany 1 3

Journal

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics – Springer Journals

Published: Jun 1, 2023

Keywords: Dairy calves; Public; Animal welfare; Regression analysis; Attitudes; Consumption

There are no references for this article.