Information and Acceptance: The Role of Argument Persuasiveness on Consumer Perceptions of Calf Rearing Systems
Description
Public concern over farm animal welfare has grown in recent years. In dairy farming, the practice of early cow–calf separation, followed by individual housing of calves, is increasingly criticized. This study examines how different arguments influence public acceptance of four calf rearing systems: individual housing, early group housing, foster cow rearing, and dam rearing. An online survey with 779 German citizens provided standardized information and visual depictions of each system. Acceptance was measured at three points: after neutral information, after all systems had been presented and compared, and after the advantages of each system were shown in direct comparison. Results indicate that dam rearing consistently achieved the highest acceptance, reflecting public preference for systems perceived as more natural and ethically aligned. Individual housing was least accepted, while group housing and foster cow rearing received moderate support. Arguments presented to respondents were perceived as similarly convincing across systems. However, noticeable influence on acceptance was limited to the “compromise systems” of group housing and foster cow rearing, with little effect on the overall societal ranking of systems. The findings suggest that information can influence public perception, particularly for systems that require more explanation, such as foster cow rearing and early group housing. Nevertheless, moral intuitions may play a stronger role than factual explanation. Communication strategies should therefore emphasize the advantages of such systems and explore formats that encourage more deliberative thinking. About this data: A total of 807 citizens participated in the survey. Skipped questions were treated as missing and participants were excluded from further analysis due to inconsistent responses, straight-line answering patterns, or survey completion in less than 30% of the median time of 5 minutes (n=28). After their removal the sample included in the analysis consisted of n=779 participants.