BUILDING PUBLIC TRUST IN DAIRY FARMING: UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF FARM CULTURE, TRAINING AND RISK FACTORS THAT LEAD TO POOR ANIMAL HANDLING.

• Sponsoring Institution: National Institute of Food and Agriculture
• Project Status: ACTIVE
• Funding Source: AFRI COMPETITIVE GRANT
• Reporting Frequency: Annual
• Accession No.: 1022687
• Grant No.: 2020-68014-31413
• Cumulative Award Amt.: $1,000,000.00
• Proposal No.: 2019-07863
• Project Start Date: Jul 1, 2020
• Project End Date: Jun 30, 2026
• Grant Year: 2020
• Program Code: [A1261]- Inter-Disciplinary Engagement in Animal Systems

Recipient Organization
UNIV OF WISCONSIN
21 N PARK ST STE 6401
MADISON,WI 53715-1218

Performing Department
Department of Dairy Science

Non Technical Summary
Most of the U.S. population is now several generations removed from farming and unfamiliar with current food-production practices yet also increasingly dependent on these agricultural systems. This means consumers must trust that food production practices align with their values and expectations and discovering evidence to the contrary erodes public trust. For the dairy industry, poor treatment of cows by farm workers can both deteriorate public trust and result in profound negative impacts on animal welfare.Our goal is to build public trust in the U.S. dairy industry, particularly with regard to cow-handling practices and their effects on animal welfare. Our interdisciplinary project will integrate principles from applied psychology and animal welfare science to provide practical, socially sustainable, evidence-based tools to improve the training of dairy-farm personnel and the welfare of the cows under their care. We hypothesize that to promote consistently positive behaviors toward cows, we must target the attitudes that dairy-farm workers hold toward those animals. We also hypothesize that, to build or maintain public trust in dairy production practices, we must engage with members of the public while developing our training program and integrate the values of both public and industry stakeholders.Our objectives include evaluating public attitudes toward dairy cow-handling practices to understand risks for negative perceptions of dairy farming. We also seek tounderstand the attitudes of farm workers toward working with cows and to identify their individual traits and cultural, socioeconomic, and environmental factors predicting those attitudes. We will then incorporate this new knowledge into designing and rigorously evaluating the effectiveness of an accessible, bilingual, and culturally relevant digital training program for dairy-farm personnel.By determining how various cow-handling practices are viewed by the public and by learning why negative interactions sometimes occur between humans and cows on farms, we will develop an effective training program resulting in lasting positive changes in dairy workers' attitudes and behaviors toward cows. We anticipate that this gain in knowledge and change in behavior will help improve public trust in U.S. dairy production practices.

Animal Health Component

75%

Research Effort Categories

Basic

25%

Applied

75%

Developmental

(N/A)

Classification

Knowledge Area (KA)	Subject of Investigation (SOI)	Field of Science (FOS)	Percent
315	3410	1060	15%
315	6010	3070	40%
315	6099	3030	45%

Knowledge Area
315 - Animal Welfare/Well-Being and Protection;

Subject Of Investigation
6010 - Individuals; 6099 - People and communities, general/other; 3410 - Dairy cattle, live animal;

Field Of Science
3070 - Psychology; 1060 - Biology (whole systems); 3030 - Information and communication;

Keywords

animal welfare

animal well-being

social license

stockmanship

stockperson

training

Goals / Objectives
Our proposed integrated research and extension project aims to build trust in the U.S. dairy industry by engaging the public and dairy industry professionals, including personnel who handle cattle directly ("stockpeople"). We will design, implement, and evaluate a training program to promote humane dairy cattle-handling practices based on behavioral-change theories, which have proven to be successful in the Australian swine and dairy cattle sectors, and which incorporate the attitudes held by both dairy-industry and public stakeholders. Our comprehensive, highly interdisciplinary project will integrate applied psychology and animal welfare science to provide practical, socially sustainable, evidence-based information to improve dairy stockperson training and dairy cattle welfare.The long-term goal of our project is to build public trust in the U.S. dairy industry by improving dairy workers' attitudes and behavior toward dairy cattle. We will address this goal using 5 specific objectives:Obj. 1: Evaluate public attitudes toward dairy cattle-handling practices and stockperson training. Our findings will help establish which handling practices, if done poorly, represent the greatest risk for negative public perception.Obj. 2: Determine dairy stockperson attitudes toward dairy cows and working with them, along with the factors associated with those attitudes. We predict that individual, social, and informational factors will contribute to stockperson attitudes toward the cattle under their care.Obj. 3: Design a newtraining program to improve dairy stockperson attitudes and behavior toward cattle. We anticipate incorporating findings from Obj. 1 and 2 into an accessible, bilingual and culturally relevant program for the U.S. dairy industry.Obj. 4: Implement and field test the efficacy of the redesigned ProHand Dairy training program. We predict our redesigned training program will improve stockperson attitudes and behaviors toward dairy cattle, resulting in improvements in animal-based welfare indicators.Obj. 5: Extend the results of our multidisciplinary aims to the dairy industry and public.These objectives directly address the Inter-Disciplinary Engagement in Animal Systems (IDEAS) program priority to identify and resolve factors that influence building trust around animal agriculture across a diversity of communities, such as consumers and producers, to improve animal welfare and well-being. Ours will be the first project to use this highly interdisciplinary approach to gain a deeper understanding of why negative human-animal interactions occur on dairy farms and how to best prevent them. This information, along with our training program, will provide valuable resources to inform extension programming and the industry's ongoing efforts to improve stockperson training on dairy farms across the U.S.

Project Methods
Obj. 1. Approach 1 In Yr. 1, we will use a mixed-methods approachto assess the opinions of experts and the general WI population about cattle-handling practices.Using purposive sampling procedures, we will recruit both industry professionals and general-population adults (n = 50 each)to complete a 30-minonline survey. Respondents will view video clips of a range of cattle handling practices and estimate how frequentlythey believe the behaviors depicted occur on U.S. dairy farms, along with their attitudes toward the practices in the videos, and the emotions they felt in response. Using a multiple-regression analysis approach, we predict group differences will be found between experts and the general public on all dependent variables (i.e., perception of frequency of handling behaviors, appropriateness/acceptability/humaneness, and state emotions experienced in response).Afterward, WI-based respondents from each group (n = 18 from each) will be invited to attend one of 6 focus groups. A semi-structured interview will elicit further opinions and perspectives on cattle-handling practices, public/industry information gaps, and attitudes about the dairy industry. Video clips from recordings of the focus groups will incorporated into the training program (Obj. 3) to inform dairy stockpeople of both expert and public viewpoints on cattle handling.Obj 1. Approach 2 In Yr. 4, following the completion of Obj. 2-4, the training program will be adapted for the lay public. We will recruit 24 new WI attendeesto individually complete the digital training modules before breaking into 4focus groups (n = 6 each). Semi-structured interviews will be used to explore: 1) perspectives on dairy cattlewelfare, 2) experience of completing the training program, and 3) other animal-welfare questions/concerns. All small groups will then return to the larger group to pose their questions and concerns to a panel of industry experts. We will facilitate dialogue to understand the factors that build public trust in the dairy industry. We will assess the impact of this approach using a pre/post questionnaire assessing levels of trust in the dairy industry, which will be compared with a paired t-test. This exercise to improve perceptions could serve as a model for further stakeholder engagement around issues of importance to the dairy industry.Obj.1. Approach 3 In Yr. 5, we will evaluate how proactive vs. reactive implementation of training affects public perceptions. We predict that proactive training (i.e., without documented poor animal handling) may help mitigate negative perceptions of dairy farming compared to reactive training (i.e., in response to evidence of poor animal handling). We will recruit a sample of U.S. citizens (n = 500) via Amazon's Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing service.Participants will receive information about recent activity of a fictitious dairy farm inone of two randomly assigned treatments. (1) The Reactive treatment will be operationalized by describing the implementation of animal-handling training as part of a response to an undercover video showing evidence of inhumane cattle-handling practices. (2) In the Proactive treatment, the article will indicate that the farm voluntarily participates in a science-based stockperson-training program aimed at promoting positive stockperson attitudes and behaviors toward cows and minimizing occurrences of inhumane cattle-handling practices. After reading these respective materials, participants will respond to a series of questions assessing their trust, attitudes, and dairy-purchasing intentions. We predict that proactive animal handling training will result in more positive attitudes, greater trust, and greater purchasing intentions than reactive training.Obj.2.In Yr. 2,we will survey workers purposely sampled from a variety of dairy farms.The survey instrument willaccommodate both English- and Spanish-speaking respondents and will consist of 4 sections focused on: (1)understanding perceptions of stockperson training, (2) identifying dairy animal-handling attitudes, (3) understandingperceptions of dairy cattle-welfare issues, (4) characterizing past experiences with animals. We predict attitudes toward working with cattle will be associated with individual as well as social factors including age, gender, political orientation, religiosity, and pet ownership.Obj.3.We will integrate findings from Obj. 1 and 2 into our training program, to be offered in both English and Spanish.The goals will be to both assess and change negative attitudes and behaviors toward dairy cattle using a cognitive-behavioral intervention. The digital program will include a combination of slideshows (with videos, animations, and voiceover narration), an attitudes questionnaire, and an individualized attitudes report catered to each participant.The digital program will take approximately 90 minplus30 minof recommended in-person discussion facilitated by a trainer.We will pilot test the program in Yr. 3 using interviews and surveys of both Spanish- and English-speaking personnel from at least 4 WI dairy farms. Two phases of evaluation will address both usability and satisfaction. (1) Asmall sample (n = 3+ of each language) will complete each program module in person; we will record critical problems and other concerns with the usability of each module. We will modify the program based on the initial feedback. (2) The updated program will be implemented with a larger group (n = 10-15 of each language) who will complete a survey on the usability of the program and their overall satisfaction with it. The program will then be revised again and finalized.Obj.4. In Yr. 3-4 we will test the effectiveness of the program on dairy farmsrandomly allocated to either a treatment (Intervention; n = 30 farms) or control (No Intervention; n = 30 farms) group. (Note: after all data collection is completed for the No Intervention farms, they will be offered a facilitated training session for their workers.)All farms will be visited 3 times over the course of the study. Visit 1 (Pre-Intervention):baseline measurements will be taken from cows and stockpeople by an observer blinded to the treatment. Visit 2 (Intervention): ~6 mo. later, herds in the Intervention treatment will receive our training program through the guidance of trainers from our team. Herds enrolled in the No Intervention treatment will also be visited, but will complete basic, widely available skills-only training. Visit 3 (Post-Intervention): ~6 mo. after visit 2, we will record the same measurements as we did in visit 1. To determine the impact of our intervention on the welfare of dairy cows, we will measure their behavioral signs of fear of humans (flight distance using an avoidance test), behavioral measurements of affective state (Qualitative Behavioral Assessment; QBA), behavior at milking, lameness, and milk production.The behavior of stockpeople toward cows in the milking parlor will be measured during visits 1 and 3 and will be categorized as either positive or negative tactile interactions. Analysis will include linear mixed models, PCA, structural equation models, and correlation analysis, depending on the meausres.We predict our intervention will result in improvements in animal-based outcomes such as reduced flight distance, increased milk production, and reduced lameness in dairy cattle. We also predict farms using our training program will see benefits in stockperson behavior (i.e., a reduction in negative interactions and an increase in positive interactions with cows), increases in satisfaction with working in the milking parlor, and increases in self-reported benefits of the Intervention.Obj. 5. Throughout all years, we will extendour findings to stakeholders, as already under the Products and Audiences sections.We will evaluate the effectiveness and impact of our extension activities by tracking participation and soliciting feedback throughout our project.

Progress 07/01/24 to 06/30/25

Outputs
Target Audience:During the reporting period, we engaged with our target audience of professionals in the U.S. and global dairy industries through extension-outreach programs held both in person and online. These programs included an Australian dairy industry organization and U.S. northeast and western regional dairy producer conferences.During these programs, we shared the results of the survey study from Objective 1.1 of the project (Robbins et al., 2024), preliminary results from Objective 1.3 (Robbins et al., in peer review), and the progress in developing the ProHand Dairy U.S. training & continuing education program for dairy farm staff. Additionally, we made continued indirect progress to reach our target audience of dairy farm animal care staff by nearing the completion of the development of the ProHand Dairy course for Objective 3 of the project. During this reporting period, we completed programming of the digital learning modules in English and Spanish, recorded revised voiceover narration in both languages, and completed the programming of the digital offline mobile application for the course (in English; Spanish in progress for the next reporting period). Changes/Problems: During data collection for Objective 2, we encountered 2 unexpected challenges. 1) In this survey, we were recruiting U.S. dairy farm staff who work with adult cattle at least once per week. There is very little published data on surveys conducted with this population, not all of whom have email addresses or are familiar with or interested in taking surveys. In the past, our team has successfully recruited subjects from this population to participate in extension program evaluations, including questionnaires. However, during data collection in summer 2025, we encountered an unexpectedly low responses rate from this population, even when recruiting participants in person on their farms of employment. We have extended the data collection timeline and partnering with UW-Madison Extension colleagues who have trusted relationships with local dairy farms to assist with subject recruitment. 2) In pilot testing, we found that our survey takes many people about an hour to complete. Therefore, in our recruitment materials, we offered a cash incentive for completing the survey. We received an unexpectedly high volume of invalid responses to the online version of this survey,compared to when we conducted a similar survey for Objective 1.1. This has resulted in our team needing to shift our subject recruitment methods and to spend additional effort screening the responses, including adopting more stringent data validation criteria. Given our challenges with recruiting in-person participants in Objective 2, we have further revised our plans for Objective 4 since the last reporting period, anticipating that we may continue to encounter such issues. We plan to focus on individual participants, rather than the farm, as the experimental unit of analysis. This is appropriate since past research showed that the ProHand course influences individual learners' attitudes, and individual differences may be masked when evaluating outcomes at the farm level. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?A UW-Madison part-time postdoctoral scholar with expertise in quantitative social science methods completed the manuscript for Objective 1.3. He programmed the Qualtrics survey for Objective 2 and assisted with recruiting subjects and screening the data.A UW-Madison PhD student in Dairy Science continued to assist with translation of materials for Objectives 2 and 3 into Spanish and recorded the revised voiceover narration for Objective 3. She led data collection for Objective 2. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Nothing Reported What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Objective 1.2: We are planning a public engagement event with dairy consumers, to be recruited through the UW-Madison Survey Center, along with dairy farmers (owners, managers), to discuss animal welfare, cow handling, and industry expectations for dairy staff continuing education. Objective 2: Data collection is ongoing. We plan to complete data collection, clean and summarize the data, conduct analysis, present a scientific abstract, and prepare the manuscript. Objective 3: We plan to finish programming the Spanish version of the course application. We will then pilot test the course on local dairy farms and use the feedback to refine the course content, including the disussion facilitation guide. Objective 4: We will recruit farms and collect evaluation data from dairy farm staff who work with adult cows, who will complete the ProHand course. We now plan to evaluate both an in-person ("gold standard") version of ProHand Dairy, as well as an online version of the course.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Objective 1.3: We submitted the manuscript on this survey for publication, currently under peer review: Robbins, J., K. Proudfoot, L. Hemsworth, G. Coleman, P. Hemsworth, and J. Van Os. Motivational attributions and demographic factors associated with U.S. dairy consumer attitudes toward a hypothetical animal welfare initiative. Objective 2: We began data collection with U.S. dairy farm staff who work with adult cattle at least once per week, with a target sample size of n = 100 to 200 respondents, using a combination of online and in-person survey recruitment. We have obtained about 25-50% of the total desired responses, with data collection continuing into the next reporting period. Objective 3: We continued to work with professional instructional designers and educational IT professionals within UW-Madison. We completed programming all of the ProHand Dairy course content (video, narration, animations) in both English and Spanish within Articular Storyline. We revised the course content and voiceover narration following feedback from our external project advisory board. We programmed the English version of the course into an offline digital application for mobile devices, with programming of the Spanish course continuing into the next reporting period.

Publications

• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2025 Citation: Robbins, J., K. Proudfoot, L. Hemsworth, G. Coleman, P. Hemsworth, and J. Van Os. 2025. Dairy consumer attitudes toward a hypothetical animal welfare initiative. J Dairy Sci 108 (Suppl. 1):282. Annual Meeting of the American Dairy Science Association, Louisville, KY.
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2025 Citation: Ruiz-Ramos, M., K. Proudfoot, L. Hemsworth, G. Coleman, P. Hemsworth, J. Skuse, P. Krawczel, D. Ledesma, and J. Van Os. ProHand Dairy in action: A comprehensive approach to creating and pilot testing an educational program for dairy farm employees. North American Regional Meeting of the International Society for Applied Ethology. Guelph, ON, Canada. (Poster presentation, no published abstract or proceedings).

Progress 07/01/23 to 06/30/24

Outputs
Target Audience:During the reporting period, we engaged with our target audience of professionals in the U.S. and global dairy industries through extension-outreach programs, both in person and online. These programs includeda U.S. veterinary CE course, an international (U.K.) dairy industry conference, a U.S. webinar and a more informal discussion-based webcast, 2 U.S. industry lunch & learn (hybrid) presentations to animal care staff, and a Wisconsin industry short course; all except the veterinary CE course included dairy farmers. During these programs, we shared the results of the survey study from Objective 1.1 of the project (Robbins et al., 2024) and the plans for developing the ProHand Dairy U.S. training/continuing education program for dairy farm staff. Additionally, we made indirect progress during the reporting periodto reach our target audience of dairy farm animal care staff by developing the educational materials for Objective 3 of the project (the U.S. version of the ProHand Dairy training program). During this reporting period, we created detailed storyboards to map the footage we filmed (demonstrating cow handling practices) with the course script, recorded voiceover narration in English and Spanish, and completed 80% of the programming of the digital learning program modules. Changes/Problems:In planning for and pilot testing our data collection methods for Objective 4, our advisors raised two major concerns about our methods. The first concern related to ouroriginally planned timeline for data collection. We had proposed to collect data on n = 30 control and n = 30 intervention farms, then deliver the ProHand course to staff on the intervention farms, then follow up and collect data again on all 60 farms. Advisors were concerned that with this large number of farms and several months between visits, employee turnover may be high, limiting our ability to collect data which could be meaningfully attributed to the intervention, rather than to other factors such as staff change. The second concern related to our ability to pair-match intervention vs. control farms for various factors which could impact our dependent variables, relfective of both employee and cow responses. With commercial farms currently more hesitant to welcome visitors, including for data collection, we may face unanticipated levels of challenge in recruiting farms for Objective 4, and we may need to be more opportunistic without strict enrollment criteria to balance and match farms in two treatments. Therefore, we have adjusted the timeline and design of Objective 4. We will now collect data closer together in time to increase the chances of capturing the behavior of the same staff members before and after the intervention. We will likely limit our analysis to a pre/post comparison, using each farm as its own control, rather than comparing it to farms in a control treatment. Although this approach has the limitation that changes over time in our outcome variables could occur for other reasons, we believe the benefits (of overcoming the two challenges raised above)out weight this downside. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? AUW-Madisonpostdoctoral scholar with expertise in quantitative social science methods completed the data collection for Objective 1.3, along with the statistical analysis. He is drafting the manuscript. He also led the development of the quantitative survey tool for Objective 2 and will assist with data collection. A UW-Madison PhD student in Dairy Science translated the materials for Objectives 2 and 3 into Spanish. She recorded the Spanish voiceover narration for the ProHand Dairy course. She led the pilot testing and observer training for Objective 4. As part of her PhD dissertation, she will lead data collection for Objective 2, pilot testing of Objective 3, and data collection for Objective 4. A visiting PhD student from Romania on a Fulbright scholarship assisted with the pilot testing observations for Objective 4. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Nothing Reported What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? For Objective 1.1, we plan to submit a manuscript for publication on the qualitative thematic analysis of the focus group transcripts. We will continue to reach our target audience of U.S. dairy industry professionals and share our findings from both the qualitative and quantitative portions of this objective. For Objective 1.3, we plan to present a conference abstract and submit a manuscript. For Objective 2, we plan to have our advisory group pilot test the survey instrument, collect data from U.S. farm workers, analyze preliminary data,present a conference abstract, and prepare a manuscript. For Objective 3, we plan to finish programming the ProHand course modules in Articulate Storyline and program the course into an application for offline mobile tablets. We will pilot test the course content in 2 phases, first using an online share link with our advisory group, then on the offline tablets with Wisconsin dairy farm employees. We will use the feedback to refine the course ahead of Objective 4. For Objective 4, we will recruit farms, collect data before and after the intervention (the ProHand training program), and deliver the intervention. We will also evaluate the course with both the participants (farm employees) and farm managers/owners.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? In the reporting period, products were generated for Objective 1.1. The manuscript for the quantitative survey data were published (Robbins et al., 2024) and presented at the 56th International Congress of the International Society for Applied ethology. For the qualitative portion, thematic analysis was completed, and the manuscript is in preparation. We completed data collection for Objective 1.3, another quantitative survey, and conducted preliminary data analysis. The manuscript and a conference abstract are both in preparation for the next reporting period. For Objective 2, we finalized the survey instrument and obtained IRB review and approval. For the next reporting period, we will collect the data from U.S. dairy farm workers. For Objective 3, we continued to work with professional instructional designers within UW-Madison. We recorded voiceover narration in both English and Spanish. We created detailed storyboards mapping the video footage we obtained in the previous reporting period to the script. We completed programming of 80% of the content (video, narration, animations) in Articulate Storyline, and also drafted the knowledge-check questions and facilitated discussion questions, which will be used for evaluation. For Objective 4, we obtained IACUC approval, trained observers, pilot tested our data collection methods, and calculated inter-observer reliability metrics in preparation for on-farm evaluation of the ProHand Dairy course and its downstream effects on worker behavior and cow responses.

Publications

• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2024 Citation: Robbins, Jesse, Grahame Coleman, Paul Hemsworth, Lauren Hemsworth, Jeremy Skuse, Kathryn Proudfoot, Elizabeth Strand, Peter Krawczel, and Jennifer M.C. Van Os. 2024. Perceptions of dairy animal handling situations: A comparison of U.S. public and industry samples. Journal of Dairy Science. doi:10.3168/jds.2023-23496.
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2023 Citation: Robbins, Jesse, Grahame Coleman, Paul Hemsworth, Lauren Hemsworth, Jeremy Skuse, Kathryn Proudfoot, Elizabeth Strand, Peter Krawczel, and Jennifer M.C. Van Os. 2023. A comparison of industry and public perceptions of dairy cow handling practices. 56th Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology. Tallinn, Estonia.

Progress 07/01/22 to 06/30/23

Outputs
Target Audience:Progress was made to indirectly reach the target audience of professionals in the U.S. dairy industry during the reporting period through the development of educational materials for Objective 3 of the project (the U.S. version of the ProHand Dairy training modules). During the reporting period, we wrote the scripts and storyboards and filmed demonstrations of cow handling for the training program. Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?-At UW-Madison, a postdoctoral scholar with expertise in quantitative social science methods completed the statistical analysis and drafted the manuscript for Objective 1.1. He led the development of the quantitative survey tools for Objectives 1.3 and 2. -At UW-Madison, anew PhD student in Dairy Science matriculated in January 2023. She was one of the people who demonstrated cow-handling practices for the educational videos in Objective 3. For that objective, she also translated the scripts into Spanish (native speaker). -At University of Tennessee, a veterinary student who assisted with Objective 1.1 in the previous reporting period continued to assist by coding thematic analysis of the focus group transcripts. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Nothing Reported What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? For Objective 1.1, we plan to complete the thematic analysis of the focus group transcripts and submit a manuscript for publication. We plan to begin reaching our target audience with the findings from the quantitative survey portion of this objective, through presentations, webinars, and dairy industry articles. For Objective 1.3, we plan to collect quantitative survey data from general public participants, analyze those data, and submit for a conference abstract and peer-reviewed publication. For Objective 2, we plan to finalize the survey instrument, obtain IRB approval, recruit subjects, and collect data. For Objective 3, we plan to record voiceover narration for the educational modules, program the video clips into the digital learning program, and pilot test the program with our advisory group and internal UW-Madison professional trainers (who teach others how to handle dairy cattle). We plan to recruit farms to participate in a second phase of pilot testing to refine the learning program. For Objective 4, we plan to begin to recruit farms to participate in the randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of the learning program we are creating in Objective 3.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? In the reporting period, we completed major activities for Objective 1.1 (evaluate public attitudes toward dairy cattle-handling practices). We completed data collection for both sample populations (public vs. dairy industry), including the quantitative survey and qualitative focus groups. Data analysis was completed for the quantitative portion, and the manuscript (Robbins et al., 2023 in press) was accepted for publication in Journal of Dairy Science; the results were also accepted for presentation at the 56th International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology (presented in the subsequent reporting period). Thematic analysis of the focus group transcripts is underway. We also progressed with Objective 1.3, finalizing the survey instruments and obtaining IRB approval for another quantitative survey on public perceptions of animal welfare assurance programs. We also continued to refine the survey instruments for Objective 2 (determine stockperson attitudes) and will seek IRB review. For Objective 3 (design a new training program to improve dairy stockperson attitudes and behavior toward dairy cattle), we worked with professional instructional designers within UW-Madison to develop the scripts and storyboards for the learning program, and we filmed dairy-cow handling demonstrations at our research facility.

Publications

• Type: Journal Articles Status: Awaiting Publication Year Published: 2023 Citation: Robbins, Jesse, Grahame Coleman, Paul Hemsworth, Lauren Hemsworth, Jeremy Skuse, Kathryn Proudfoot, Elizabeth Strand, Peter Krawczel, and Jennifer M.C. Van Os. 2023 in press. Perceptions of dairy animal handling situations: A comparison of U.S. public and industry samples. Journal of Dairy Science. doi:10.3168/jds.2023-23496.
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Accepted Year Published: 2023 Citation: Robbins, Jesse, Grahame Coleman, Paul Hemsworth, Lauren Hemsworth, Jeremy Skuse, Kathryn Proudfoot, Elizabeth Strand, Peter Krawczel, and Jennifer M.C. Van Os. 2023. A comparison of industry and public perceptions of dairy cow handling practices. Accepted for the 56th Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology. Tallinn, Estonia.

Progress 07/01/21 to 06/30/22

Outputs
Target Audience:The target audience of professionals working in or closely with the U.S. dairy industry was indirectly reached during the reporting period through dissemination of our quantitative survey for Objective 1 on perceptions of cow-handling practices. The recruitment language stated the purpose of the survey was to support this USDA-NIFA funded project and gain knowledge on perceptions of various cow-handling practices. Engagement has been high with this population, who have shown high response rates to the survey and follow-up focus groups, and several participants have contacted the PD with questions and suggestions for future research. This population has included dairy owners, managers, bovine veterinary practitioners, nutritionists, dairy consultants, milk processor field staff, and others from dairy industry organizations. Changes/Problems:1. There have been delays in the execution of the project objectives, but progress continues to be made nonetheless. Reasons: (A) Our collaborative team spans 5 institutions across 3 continents and 5 time zones. Project meetings continue to be held online (via Zoom) due to continued covid-related travel challenges. (B) The lead PD was on maternity leave during part of this reporting period (July-August, 2021). 2. The technical team who had provided a letter of support to assist in Objective 3 (Design a new training program to improve dairy stockperson attitudes and behavior toward cattle) was dispersed due to a UW-Madison institutional reorganization of teaching-related technology and instructional design support in 2021. This reorganization occurred at the institutional level for reasons unrelated to our project, but caused additional delays while the PD sought to identify a replacement technical support team. A new team has been identified through the UW-Madison Division of Extension's Natural Resources Institute. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?(1) At UW-Madison, a postdoctoral scholar with expertise in quantitative social science methods has led the development of the quantitative survey tools for Objectives 1 and 2. (2) At University of Tennessee, a veterinary student with dairy farm experience classified and edited the >120 video clips for use in the quantitative surveys in Objectives 1 and 2. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Nothing Reported What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Data from the completed surveys and focus groups will be analyzed for both study populations and will be prepared for abstracts to be presented in 2023 as well as for publication in peer-reviewed journals. The information will be shared through extension-outreach presentations and articles. The information will also be used in Objective 3 in the development of the new training program. The instruments for the other sub-aim of Objective 1 and for Objective 2 will be submitted for IRB approval, followed by data collection for Objective 1 and pilot testing and data collection for Objective 2. Work will continue within the research team and with the technical development team to develop the new training tool for Objective 3.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? In Year 2, we executed 2 studies to accomplish Objective 1 (evaluate public attitudes toward dairy cattle-handling practices). We curated a selection of brief video clips depicting a range of human-cow interactions on real U.S. dairy farms to represent a spectrum of interactions, ranging from positive to negative. The veterinary student blurred all human faces and aspects of the environment that could identify farms or specific equipment manufacturers. We then pilot tested (see below) and revised the survey multiple times. Data collection was completed with population A: Wisconsin general-population adults, recruited through a marketing company (CloudResearch), for a total of n = 136 completed quantitative online surveys and n = 12 follow-up focus group or individual interview participants via Zoom. For the quantitative survey, descriptive summary data have been compiled, and preliminary analysis with predictor variables (i.e., demographics) is underway. For the focus groups, transcription and qualitative thematic analysis are in progress. For population B, professionals working in or with the U.S. dairy industry, data collection is in progress and nearly complete (over n = 200 completed quantitative online surveys anticipated, and over n = 20 follow-up focus group participants expected). Weconvened the second meeting of our external project advisory board via Zoom. Our advisors pilot tested the quantative survey and gave feedback on the selection of video clips, adequacy of blurring to protect human and farm identities, and on the phrasing of survey questions. They also gave input on how to recruit U.S. dairy industry professionals for the second version of the survey and follow-up focus groups and assisted with that effort. In addition, we have begun work to prepare for another sub-aim within Objective 1 (evaluate public attitudes toward stockperson training) by drafting hypothetical, contrasting scenarios regarding animal-welfare assurance schemes in the dairy industry, along with accompanying qualitative survey questions to gauge participants' reactions to those scenarios. We have also begun work to prepare for Objective 2 (determine stockperson attitudes) by drafting quantitative survey instruments. We will seek IRB approval for both of these aims. Finally, for Objective 3 (Design a new training program to improve dairy stockperson attitudes and behavior toward cattle), new technical teams were identified within UW-Madison to assist with the programming and deployment of the digital modules. The former technical team was dispersed due to institutional restructuring at UW-Madison unrelated to this project. Meetings with the new technical teams have begun to plan development of the training tool for Objective 3.

Publications

Progress 07/01/20 to 06/30/21

Outputs
Target Audience:Being that this is the first year, no target audiences yet. Changes/Problems:Changes: (1) Our collaborative research team spans multiple institutions across 3 continents. Project meetings had to be held online (e.g., via Zoom), with substantial restrictions due to time zones and the inability to meet in-person for a several-day project kickoff retreat as originally planned. (2) The focus groups for Objective 1 will now be held online instead of in-person. Co-PD Strand has experience conducting online focus groups. Reasons: (1) The project was significantly impacted by COVID-19.Due to restrictions on institutional travel due to COVID-19, this global pandemic delayed the start of the project and slowed our ability to begin data collection on Objective 1 and the development of the new training tool for Objective 3. (2) The lead PD started maternity leave during this reporting period (March 26-June 30, 2021). What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?(1) A postdoctoral scholar with expertise in quantitative social science methods has led the development of the quantitative survey tools for both audiences. (2) A veterinary student with experience in dairy farming classified the >120 video clips for potential use in the quantitative survey and will assist in obtaining additional new video footage on dairy farms as needed. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Nothing Reported What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Data collection will commence online for both phases of the survey (quantitative survey and follow-up focus groups), for both audiences. The data will then be analyzed and prepared for abstracts to be presented in 2022, and then for publication in peer-reviewed journals. The information we obtain will also be used in Objective 3, when developing the new training program.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? In Year 1, the goal was to being Objective 1: evaluate public attitudes toward dairy cattle-handling practices and stockperson training. Due to COVID-19, we convened several project research team kickoff meetings via Zoom. We also convened the first meeting of our external project advisory board via two Zoom sessions. To accomplish Objective 1, we compiled over 120 video clips depicting a range of human-cow interactions on real dairy farms, with the assistance of our advisory board. We have curated this repository of video clips to represent a limited spectrum of interactions, ranging from positive to negative. These clips will be used in an online quantitative survey of two separate audiences: (1) Wisconsin general-population adults; (2) dairy-industry professionals. We obtained IRB approval for the draft quantitative survey instruments for both audiences, as well as for the draft focus-group instruments for a follow-up subset of participants from each of those two audiences.

Publications