Introduction
Over the past two decades, growing consumer and public concern regarding the treatment of farm animals has brought increased attention to animal welfare within dairy production systems (Spooner et al., Reference Spooner, Schuppli and Fraser2014; Alonso et al., Reference Alonso, González-Montaña and Lomillos2020). Particular concern has been expressed over management practices that constrain natural behaviours, as these are perceived to directly compromise animal welfare (AW) (Schuppli et al., Reference Schuppli, von Keyserlingk and Weary2014; Vargas-Bello-Pérez et al., Reference Vargas-Bello-Pérez, Riveros, Köbrich, Álvarez-Melo and Lensink2015). As awareness continues to rise, conventional dairy practices are subject to increasing scrutiny (Ritter et al., Reference Ritter, Hötzel and von Keyserlingk2022). In this context, AW has emerged as a critical factor influencing the dairy sector's social license to operate (Hampton et al., Reference Hampton, Jones and McGreevy2020). Practices such as restricted animal movement, limited access to grazing, and the early separation of cow and calf have drawn considerable criticism from consumers (Hötzel et al., Reference Hötzel, Cardoso, Roslindo and von Keyserlingk2017; Sirovica et al., Reference Sirovica, Ritter, Hendricks, Weary, Gulati and von Keyserlingk2022). Dairy production systems can be categorized into grazing and confined systems. However, it should be acknowledged that many farms adopt a hybrid or seasonal approach, alternating between both systems according to climatic conditions, forage availability, and management objectives. Consumers generally perceive grazing as a practice more aligned with AW, as it allows cows to express natural behaviours (Shortall, Reference Shortall2019). In contrast, confined systems are promoted as a means to increase production efficiency and meet the growing demand for dairy products (Britt et al., Reference Britt, Cushman, Dechow, Dobson, Humblot, Hutjens, Jones, Ruegg, Sheldon and Stevenson2018).
Studies in South America have explored consumer perceptions of AW, although most research has focused on beef cattle production and studies on dairy farming remain limited (Vargas-Bello-Pérez et al., Reference Vargas-Bello-Pérez, Miranda-de la Lama, Teixeira, Enríquez-Hidalgo, Tadich and Lensink2017; Estévez-Moreno et al., Reference Estévez-Moreno, Miranda-de la Lama and Miguel-Pacheco2022). A study conducted in Latin America reported that 46% of surveyed consumers expressed concern about farm AW (Yunes et al., Reference Yunes, von Keyserlingk and Hötzel2017; Estévez-Moreno et al., Reference Estévez-Moreno, Miranda-de la Lama and Miguel-Pacheco2022). In Brazil, a study found that dairy farmers, advisors, and citizens identified AW as one of five essential characteristics of an ideal dairy farm (Cardoso et al., Reference Cardoso, von Keyserlingk and Hötzel2019), while Chilean consumers not only express concern over farm AW but also advocate for labelling that indicates milk production conditions and AW standards (Vargas-Bello-Pérez et al., Reference Vargas-Bello-Pérez, Riveros, Köbrich, Álvarez-Melo and Lensink2015).
In Argentina, approximately 90% of dairy farms use year-round grazing systems; however, confinement practices have been increasing in recent years (Lazzarini et al., Reference Lazzarini, Llonch and Baudracco2024). Although Argentina ranks as the world's sixth-largest milk exporter (Lazzarini et al., Reference Lazzarini, Baudracco, Tuñon, Gastaldi, Lyons, Quattrochi and Lopez-Villalobos2019), scientific research on consumer perceptions of AW within its dairy sector remains scarce. No studies have explored Argentine consumers’ perceptions of dairy cow welfare concerning different production systems, such as grazing versus confinement. The present study aims to address this gap by assessing consumer perceptions, knowledge, and preferences regarding these systems. We hypothesize that consumers will perceive grazing-based systems as more favourable for AW compared to confinement systems.
Materials and methods
An anonymous online survey was administered using Google Forms and was available from September 20 to October 14, 2022. The target population included residents of Argentina aged 18 years and older. The survey was disseminated nationwide via governmental and non-governmental organizations, as well as to the general urban population, through multiple communication channels, including email, and social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, and X), all related to the agricultural sector. To reach consumers outside the agricultural sector, a snowball sampling approach was employed for data collection (Parker et al., Reference Parker, Scott, Geddes, Atkinson, Delamont, Cernat, Sakshaug and Richard2019). The survey link was initially distributed via WhatsApp to a group of respondents unrelated to agriculture. These participants were then encouraged to share the survey with others within the same target population (such as friends, relatives, and colleagues) thereby expanding the sample through their personal network. Before distribution, a pilot study was conducted with 60 participants to evaluate the clarity and timing of the questionnaire. Based on their feedback, several items were refined for the final version. The survey was closed when the weekly response rate dropped below 50 completed questionnaires.
The required sample size was determined through a power analysis using the ‘pwr2ppl’ package (Aberson, Reference Aberson2022) in R (R Core Team, 2023), aimed at detecting 10% differences between groups at a 5% significance level; a minimum of 775 responses would be needed to achieve 80% statistical power. The initially determined required number of distributed invitations was adjusted upward to allow for non-responses. Power analysis was performed.
Ethical approval for the study was granted by the CEYSTE – Committee of Ethical and Experimental Work Safety (CEYSTE, CONICET) under protocol number CEYSTE-CES-01261.
Survey design and structure
The survey was designed with 26 questions (Supplementary material) distributed across five sections: (i) sociodemographic information (questions 1–7), (ii) perceptions on AW (questions 8–13), (iii) knowledge on milk production (questions 14–18), (iv) purchasing behaviour in relation to AW (questions 19–21), and (v) views on production systems and AW (questions 22–26). Among the sociodemographic questions, question 7 asked whether the respondent was or was not connected to the agricultural sector. Based on the answer to this question, respondents were directed either to questions 14–18 (knowledge on milk production, for those not related to the agricultural sector) or questions 22–26 (views on production systems, for those related to the agricultural sector). Some questions used in this study were adapted from previous surveys (Vargas-Bello-Pérez et al., Reference Vargas-Bello-Pérez, Obermöller-Bustamante, Faber, Tadich and Toro-Mujica2021). We used an image-based approach in questions 14, 20 and 22–26, providing neutral images of three different dairy systems [grazing, outdoor confinement (dry lots) and indoor confinement (barns)] (Supplementary material). This visual representation aimed to ensure that all participants clearly understood the primary differences in cow allocation across these systems. For statistical analyses, the two confinement systems (outdoor and indoor) were subsequently regrouped into a single “confinement” category due to the low representation of responses for the outdoor confinement system. This reclassification allowed for more robust and meaningful comparisons between grazing and confinement-based systems. At the beginning of the survey, participants were informed about the study's objectives, estimated completion time, and provided with contact information of the research team in case they required additional details. An initial question confirmed participants’ consent to proceed with the survey; if respondents selected “NO,” they were automatically exited from the survey.
Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated to characterize the sociodemographic groups. For data processing and analysis, the statistical software R (R Core Team, 2023) and ‘tidyverse’ package (Wickham et al., Reference Wickham, Averick, Bryan, Chang, McGowan, François, Grolemund, Hayes, Henry, Hester, Kuhn, Pedersen, Miller, Bache, Müller, Ooms, Robinson, Seidel, Spinu, Takahashi, Vaughan, Wilke, Woo and Yutani2019) were used. Generalized linear models (GLM) with binomial distribution were applied to questions with two possible outcomes, and multinomial distribution was used for questions with more than two possible responses. In both cases, the logit link function was applied. Models were fitted using restricted maximum likelihood (REML), and response probabilities with 95% confidence intervals were estimated. The significance of effects on response probability was evaluated using type III marginal deviance analysis. For significant effects, comparisons of marginal probabilities were conducted. Models were fitted using the multinomial function from the “net” package (Venables and Ripley, Reference Venables and Ripley2002). Deviance analysis was obtained with ANOVA from the “car” package (Fox and Weisberg, Reference Fox and Weisberg2019). Marginal means estimation and comparisons were performed using “emmeans” (Lenth, R., Reference Lenth2023).
Results
A total of 3,070 responses were obtained, 19 were excluded as they corresponded to individuals not living in Argentina, reducing the sample to 3,051 surveys. Additionally, in section ii (Perceptions on AW), section iii (knowledge on milk production), and section iv (Purchasing behaviour about AW), participants who reported not purchasing animal-based products and/or not consuming dairy products (n = 156) were excluded from the analysis. The final sample analysed for these three sections was n = 2,895. Results are presented separately for each of the five survey sections (Tables 1–3 and Figs 1–3).
Answers to the question “Do you consider animal welfare when purchasing animal products?” stratified by gender, age group, and connection to the agricultural sector. Different subscripts within the same bars indicate statistically significant differences between groups.
Answers to the question “If you had a choice, would you prefer to consume dairy products?” stratified by gender, age group, and connection to the agricultural sector. Different subscripts within the same bars indicate statistically significant differences between groups.
Answers to the question “How much more would you pay for a dairy product that certifies animal welfare?” stratified by gender, age group, and connection to the agricultural sector. Different subscripts within the same bars indicate statistically significant differences between groups.
Sociodemographic information of the total surveyed population (n = 3,051)
a Diet that excludes meat, fish, and seafood but may include animal-derived products such as dairy, eggs, and honey.
b Diet exclusively based on plant-based foods, excluding all animal-derived products.
Consumer's knowledge on milk production among respondents not connected to the agricultural sector (n = 1,372)
Views on production system and animal welfare among people connected to the agricultural sector (n = 1,523)
F = female, M = male, O = other.
Different subscripts within the same row indicate statistically significant differences between groups.
Sociodemographic information
Table 1 shows the sociodemographic information of the surveyed population. Forty-three percent of respondents were between 18 and 30 years old, and 94.3% of respondents were consumers of animal products. Approximately half of the respondents (48.7%) reported having no connection to the agricultural sector.
Perceptions on animal welfare
These questions were answered by the group of respondents who reported buying animal products and/or consuming dairy products (n = 2,895). Most respondents (99%) believe that cows feel pain, 85% believe they have emotions, and 86% believe that cows in Argentine dairy farms experience suffering (slight, moderate, high or very high suffering). Regarding questions 11 and 12, which asked: “Do you believe that access to pasture improves AW?” and “Do you believe that improving AW enhances product quality?”, 91% and 93% responded affirmatively. As for question 13: “How important is AW to you?”, 85% of participants indicated that AW is important or very important to them, whereas only 4% responded that it is not important to them.
Knowledge of milk production
Table 2 shows the results of questions related to knowledge on milk production, which were answered only by those who reported having no connection to the agricultural sector (n = 1,372).
Purchasing behaviour concerning animal welfare
These questions were answered by all respondents who reported buying animal products and/or consuming dairy products (n = 2,895). Among them, 58% stated that they consider AW when purchasing animal-based products (Fig. 1). Furthermore, 70% of consumers reported being willing to pay a premium (10%, 20% or more than 30%) for products with AW certification (Fig. 3). In terms of production system preference, 73% expressed a preference for grazing systems, while only 19% indicated no preference regarding the type of production system. Fig. 2 shows consumer preferences by gender, age group, and agricultural sector connection. For question 19, “Do you consider AW when purchasing animal-based products?”, significant differences emerged based on gender (p < 0.001) and agricultural sector connection (p < 0.001) (Fig. 1). Women and respondents with an agricultural connection considered AW more frequently when buying animal-based products compared to men and those without an agricultural connection (p < 0.001).
Women and individuals not connected to the agricultural sector showed a stronger preference for grazing systems. In contrast, men and those with an agricultural background placed comparatively less emphasis on the cow housing system when considering dairy products. Women demonstrated a significantly higher willingness to pay a premium for products with AW certification compared to men (p < 0.001, Fig. 3).
Views on production systems and animal welfare
These questions were answered only by participants connected to the agricultural sector (n = 1,523). Within this group, 80% replied that cows experience higher AW (housing, feeding, health, comfort, and ability to express species-specific behaviours) when they are on grazing systems compared with confined systems. The majority of participants, 77% and 79%, believe that grazing systems provide better health and comfort for dairy cows, respectively. Nearly all respondents (95%) agree that cows are better able to express their natural behaviours in grazing systems. When asked, “Where do you think cows’ feeding is better?”, 51% of respondents selected grazing systems, while 47% chose indoor confinement systems.
Table 3 shows that among individuals connected to the agricultural sector, gender had a significant effect (p < 0.001) on four out of the five questions of Table 3, thus, women placed greater value on the benefits of grazing systems for dairy cow welfare compared to men, particularly in terms of feeding, comfort, and the ability for cows to express natural behaviours. A similar pattern emerged across age groups, with older individuals (>46 years) assigned greater importance to the benefits of grazing access, particularly for cow feeding and health, compared to younger respondents (18–30 years) (p < 0.001).
Discussion
This study investigated the perception, knowledge, and preferences of Argentine consumers regarding AW on grazing and confinement dairy production systems. This work is particularly relevant given the growing social concern about AW in agricultural production, as reported in various regions worldwide, including Latin America (Vargas-Bello-Pérez et al., Reference Vargas-Bello-Pérez, Riveros, Köbrich, Álvarez-Melo and Lensink2015; Estévez-Moreno et al., Reference Estévez-Moreno, Miranda-de la Lama and Miguel-Pacheco2022).
Previous studies on perceptions and preferences regarding AW on dairy farms have primarily focused on European consumers (Pejman et al., Reference Pejman, Kallas, Dalmau and Velarde2019; Jackson et al., Reference Jackson, Doidge, Green and Kaler2022) and North American consumers (Cardoso et al., Reference Cardoso, Hötzel, Weary, Robbins and von Keyserlingk2016; Ventura et al., Reference Ventura, von Keyserlingk, Wittman and Weary2016; Ritter et al., Reference Ritter, Hötzel and von Keyserlingk2022). In Latin America, the literature on AW remains limited compared to more developed regions, with only one study reporting Argentine consumer perceptions of AW (Estévez-Moreno et al., Reference Estévez-Moreno, Miranda-de la Lama and Miguel-Pacheco2022).
Sociodemographic information
The sociodemographic profile of respondents offers a relevant framework for interpreting consumer perceptions of AW in dairy production in Argentina. Most participants were young (42.9% aged 18–30) and evenly distributed by gender. This age predominance may reflect both demographic trends and a higher willingness among younger individuals to engage with online surveys, as well as a growing interest in AW issues, as reported in previous studies (Vargas-Bello-Pérez et al., Reference Vargas-Bello-Pérez, Miranda-de la Lama, Teixeira, Enríquez-Hidalgo, Tadich and Lensink2017; Estévez-Moreno et al., Reference Estévez-Moreno, Miranda-de la Lama and Miguel-Pacheco2022). The use of digital platforms likely increased participation among younger respondents but potentially limited access for older age groups. Younger consumers have shown greater sensitivity to ethical concerns related to animal-based food, and are more likely to modify their consumption habits in favour of sustainability and AW (Spooner et al., Reference Spooner, Schuppli and Fraser2014; Busch et al., Reference Busch, Weary, Spiller and von Keyserlingk2017). The fact that 94.3% of respondents declared to consume animal-based products, underpins the relevance of this study for the dairy industry.
Previous studies and our findings indicated that people connected to the agricultural sector tend to evaluate AW through a more technical and productivity-oriented lens, often prioritizing indicators such as animal health, hygiene, and performance (Cardoso et al., Reference Cardoso, von Keyserlingk and Hötzel2019; Sirovica et al., Reference Sirovica, Ritter, Hendricks, Weary, Gulati and von Keyserlingk2022). This contrasts with the views of consumers not involved in agriculture, who typically rely more on emotional or ethical criteria. They often associate good welfare with more “natural” conditions, such as access to pasture, freedom of movement, and perceived happiness of animals, considering these systems more respectful and ethical (Busch et al., Reference Busch, Weary, Spiller and von Keyserlingk2017; Estévez-Moreno et al., Reference Estévez-Moreno, Miranda-de la Lama and Miguel-Pacheco2022).
Perceptions on animal welfare
Argentine consumers widely recognized the ability of animals to experience pain and emotions, aligning with scientific evidence demonstrating that animals possess a developed nervous system that enables them to feel pain and experience emotional states such as fear, anxiety, and pleasure (Coria-Avila et al., Reference Coria-Avila, Pfaus, Orihuela, Domínguez-Oliva, José-Pérez, Hernández and Mota-Rojas2022). Given the high percentage of consumers (86%) who believe that dairy cows in Argentina experience suffering, future research should further investigate the underlying reasons for this perception, distinguishing between misinformation about dairy production and concerns based on knowledge of practices that negatively impact AW.
This perception may be partially explained by studies that report that herd management and handling practices can influence animal emotions and welfare (Jurkovich et al., Reference Jurkovich, Hejel and Kovács2024). In Argentina, practices such as early cow-calf separation, dehorning without anaesthesia and/or analgesia (Caffarena et al., Reference Caffarena, Riet-Correa and Giannitti2018), and limited investment in infrastructure to mitigate heat stress(Lazzarini et al., Reference Lazzarini, Llonch and Baudracco2024) may contribute to the public perception that dairy cows experience poor welfare conditions. Additionally, previous studies indicate that a lack of knowledge about livestock production systems among consumers plays a key role in shaping these perceptions (Cardoso et al., Reference Cardoso, von Keyserlingk and Hötzel2019). In our study, among consumers who declared no connection to the sector, fewer than half were aware that in Argentina, dairy cows spend most of their time on pasture. Since the absence of pasture is often perceived as unnatural (Jiang et al., Reference Jiang, Sharma, Bryant, Mohan, Al-Marashdeh, Harrison and Torrico2021) this may contribute to concerns about AW.
Consistent with previous studies in various countries, Argentine consumers perceive that pasture access enhances both cow welfare and milk quality (Jiang et al., Reference Jiang, Sharma, Bryant, Mohan, Al-Marashdeh, Harrison and Torrico2021). While prior research suggests discrepancies in farmers´ perceptions of the impact of grazing, in our study, the majority acknowledged its positive effect on both AW and product quality. In Argentina, despite the gradual increase in confinement-based systems, 80% of dairy farms still rely on grazing, positioning the country as a potential model for balancing productive efficiency with societal expectations for natural conditions, greater freedom, and outdoor access for animals.
Knowledge of milk production
Consumers tend to overestimate the physical and psychological stress associated with milking, likely due to limited exposure to actual production environments (Cardoso et al., Reference Cardoso, von Keyserlingk and Hötzel2019). Similar misconceptions have been reported in our study showing that public understanding of dairy production often diverges from reality. As an example, 81% of respondents either overestimated or were uncertain about the duration of milking. Furthermore, 48% assumed that cows are milked three or more times a day, whereas in practice, most cows are milked twice daily.
Forty-five percent of respondents believed that dairy cows in Argentina spend most of their time grazing, while 48% assumed they are primarily housed in outdoor pens or barns. This reflects an incomplete understanding of the production system, as grazing remains the predominant management strategy in Argentina (Lazzarini et al., Reference Lazzarini, Llonch and Baudracco2024). Such misconceptions may stem from the increasing global adoption and visibility of confined dairy systems, which could lead consumers to generalize these practices to the Argentine context, despite the predominance of pasture-based production.
Limited or inaccurate knowledge about dairy farming can have significant implications for the industry. As consumer concerns about AW continue to grow (Spooner et al., Reference Spooner, Schuppli and Fraser2014), misinformation may erode public trust, influence purchasing decisions, and drive regulatory pressures on farmers. Previous studies suggest that individuals unfamiliar with dairy production often envision more adverse conditions for animals than those that exist (Cardoso et al., Reference Cardoso, von Keyserlingk and Hötzel2019). This underscores the need for targeted educational initiatives that enhance transparency, correct misinformation, and foster more informed consumer engagement with dairy production systems.
Purchasing behaviour in relation to animal welfare
A significant finding from this study is that 70% of respondents indicated a willingness to pay a premium for dairy products certified for AW, corroborating results from previous research (Miranda-de la Lama et al., Reference Miranda-de la Lama, Estévez-Moreno, Sepúlveda, Estrada-Chavero, Rayas-Amor, Villarroel and María2017; Vargas-Bello-Pérez et al., Reference Vargas-Bello-Pérez, Miranda-de la Lama, Teixeira, Enríquez-Hidalgo, Tadich and Lensink2017; Carnovale et al., Reference Carnovale, Jin, Arney, Descovich, Guo, Shi and Phillips2021). This confirms consumer interest in product origin, a trend also observed in other Latin American countries (Cardoso et al., Reference Cardoso, von Keyserlingk and Hötzel2019). However, a mistrust in product labels (Estévez-Moreno et al., Reference Estévez-Moreno, Miranda-de la Lama and Miguel-Pacheco2022) may reduce the impact of certifications in the dairy market.
Our study revealed that women exhibit a greater preference than men to pay a premium for AW-certified products. This agrees with findings by Cornish et al. (Reference Cornish, Raubenheimer and McGreevy2016), who reported that public concern for AW often correlates with demographic and social characteristics. Future research should explore consumers’ willingness to pay for AW-certified dairy products more comprehensively, investigating whether this intention translates into actual purchasing behaviour, such as studies with the methodology of experimental auctions applied by Habiyaremye et al. (Reference Habiyaremye, Mtimet, Ouma and Obare2023).
In Argentina, where dairy farming is predominantly pasture-based, our findings highlight the importance of maintaining pasture-based systems as a key market distinction. As confinement practices become more prevalent to meet increasing production demands, the dairy industry must consider consumer perceptions on AW and integrate strategies to address these concerns. Implementing robust and clear AW certifications could satisfy consumer concerns regarding production ethics and enhance the value of Argentine dairy products in international markets, where ethical production is increasingly valued (Vargas-Bello-Pérez et al., Reference Vargas-Bello-Pérez, Riveros, Köbrich, Álvarez-Melo and Lensink2015).
Despite these insights, this study had some limitations. The online survey format may have introduced a bias toward a younger and more digitally engaged demographic. Although our sample broadly represents Argentine consumers, future research should further explore the impact of socioeconomic factors on AW perceptions to develop a more comprehensive understanding of consumer attitudes.
Views on production systems and animal welfare
Our findings on the perception of production systems (grazing vs. confinement) and respondents’ connection to the agricultural sector agree with previous studies indicating that grazing systems are associated with enhanced AW and product quality. Cardoso et al. (Reference Cardoso, Hötzel, Weary, Robbins and von Keyserlingk2016) reported that consumers often link grazing systems with superior product quality and flavour, with sentiments such as, “Grass-fed cows produce products with better flavour” and “Cows should be treated well, in freedom, not confined for their whole lives. Good milk comes from happy cows”.
Furthermore, a positive correlation has been identified between access to pasture and consumer perception of naturalness (Ventura et al., Reference Ventura, von Keyserlingk, Wittman and Weary2016; Kühl et al., Reference Kühl, Gauly and Spiller2019), highlighting the potential appeal of grazing systems.
Interestingly, consumer attitudes towards feeding practices based on system type varied across age. Younger consumers showed a more positive view of confinement systems in our study (Table 3), possibly due to greater familiarity with modern agricultural practices. Confinement systems are often perceived as more nutritionally efficient, particularly in regions with seasonal pasture availability (Arnott et al., Reference Arnott, Ferris and O'Connell2017).
Conclusion
Most Argentine consumers recognize cows’ ability to experience pain (99%) and emotions (85%). They showed a clear preference for pasture-based systems, with 91% stating that pasture access improves cow welfare and 93% considering it beneficial for milk quality. This perception was reinforced by the belief that pasture-based systems are associated with a more natural behaviour. However, only 45% of respondents were aware that most Argentine dairy farms rely on grazing systems, highlighting a gap in knowledge about actual production practices. Regarding consumption habits, 94.3% of participants reported consuming animal-based products, and 70% expressed a willingness to pay a premium for AW-certified products. This predisposition was significantly higher among women and younger consumers, groups that have demonstrated greater sensitivity to ethical issues in food consumption. These results highlight the importance of improving communication and education about dairy practices to align consumer perception with production realities. Furthermore, implementing AW certification programs provides a competitive advantage for the Argentine dairy sector in both domestic and international markets.
Supplementary material
The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029925101398.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank all individuals who voluntarily participated in the survey and generously shared their valuable insights. The authors also acknowledge the support of the Committee of Ethical and Experimental Work Safety (CEYSTE, CONICET) for the ethical approval of this study. This research was supported by the National Agency for the Promotion of Research, Technological Development and Innovation (Agencia I+D+i), through the Scientific and Technological Research Fund (FONCYT), under project PICT-2019-01776. The doctoral fellowship of the first author was also funded by Agencia I+D+i through FONCYT.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
