In Canada, national guidelines and a federal quality assurance program establish minimum standards for dairy cow welfare, principally guided by the Five Freedoms, which define basic welfare as freedom from hunger, pain, and fear and the ability to express natural behaviors. While important in addressing physical well-being, these measures don’t explicitly promote positive experiences that contribute to overall welfare.

Research shows that cows actively seek out pasture, mechanical brushes, deep bedding, and social interactions — suggesting that their well-being is influenced by more than just the absence of suffering. In spite of the evidence supporting positive welfare (characterized by happiness, comfort, and autonomy), the dairy industry remains largely committed to preventing harm, as enrichment practices haven’t been widely adopted.

The authors of this qualitative study explain that little is known about how dairy farmers perceive positive welfare, despite their daily decisions determining how animals are cared for. They highlight that understanding farmers’ perspectives is essential for developing practical and effective improvements in cow welfare. To gain this insight, they recruited Ontario farmers for focus groups to discuss their views on enrichment and the main factors that affect their decisions.

The researchers conducted five focus groups between March and April 2023 with 27 Ontario dairy farmers, recruited via their provincial association, Dairy Farmers of Ontario, and snowball sampling (referrals from peer farmers). Participants represented 24 farms, with herd sizes ranging from 40 to 320 cows. Most were men (74%), averaging 42 years old.

During the sessions, researchers introduced the concept of positive welfare and facilitated semi-structured discussions on enrichment, its role in dairy farming, and barriers to implementation. Each 80-minute session was recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using applied thematic analysis to identify trends in farmer perspectives.

The researchers identified two dominant themes in farmers’ perspectives: tacit expertise (knowledge gained through experience) and influences on farmer choice.

Farmers’ Perspectives

The study found that dairy farmers prioritized hands-on, tacit experience over scientific research when assessing cow welfare. Many equated good welfare to healthy, productive cows and saw additional enrichment as unnecessary. While some recognized the benefits of positive welfare practices, many remained incredulous, fearing changes like pasture access could reduce milk production or increase mastitis risk.

Farmers resisted standardized welfare policies, feeling that top-down regulations ignored the realities of farm management. Many believed welfare decisions should be farm-specific rather than dictated by policymakers or researchers. They argued that those who work with cows daily understand their needs best, and outsiders shouldn’t dictate farm decisions. However, some conceded the impact of public perception, recognizing that misaligning their practices with consumer expectations could affect their long-term survival.

The authors noted that farmers had a range of strong emotions toward input from the public, researchers, and policymakers on farm management and animal care:

• Frustration: Farmers felt the public pushed for changes based on human emotions versus the actual needs of cows.
• Defensiveness: Some rejected claims that cows require more freedom, arguing that they already provide adequate care.
• Dismissiveness: Many saw positive welfare as unnecessary and unserviceable, adding complexity to their operations without clear benefits for their farms.
• Anger: Some took offense at suggestions, believing they implied that their current practices were inadequate or needed reform.

External Barriers To Enrichment

The analysis showed that economic and social pressures affect farmers’ decisions. While some farmers saw benefits in enrichment, they cited several difficulties that stymied their ability to implement them:

• Financial constraints: Many farmers couldn’t afford enrichment without subsidies or clear economic returns on the investment.
• Labor shortages: Limited workforces made labor-intensive welfare practices, like pasture access, difficult to sustain.
• Public expectations versus reality: Some provided enrichment for consumer appeal or placation rather than perceived necessity.
• Cost of infrastructure changes: Many farmers were interested in automatic milking systems but found the investment prohibitive, or the cost of new fencing for pasture access impractical.

The study also found that relationships drive farmers’ decisions. Farmers overwhelmingly believed researchers and policymakers were disconnected from real farm conditions but trusted their peers for recommendations. They said they were more likely to consider a new practice if another farmer vouched for it. Veterinarians were also trusted advisors.

Study Limitations

The authors acknowledge that the study focused on Ontario dairy farmers, limiting its generalizability. Additionally, since the participants were volunteers, self-selection bias may have skewed the results, as farmers with strong opinions were more likely to participate.

Another consideration is that the researchers provided a definition of positive welfare at the start of each session, which may have influenced farmers’ responses. However, they highlight that farmers’ diverse opinions indicate this had little effect on the results, and the findings provide valuable insight into how they perceive positive welfare.

Conclusions

This study accentuates that farmers are not opposed to improving welfare but believe their foremost responsibility is to prevent negative experiences. Most will only adopt positive welfare practices if they see financial or operational benefits. Advocacy efforts should present enrichment as both practical and beneficial to farm success.

Making positive cow welfare work means making it work for farmers, too. The authors emphasize that farmers must be engaged as partners rather than dictated to. They recommend peer-led extension programs, veterinary-supported guidance, and financial incentives as realistic strategies to encourage integrating positive welfare into dairy farming.