Just Accepted Manuscripts
Research Articles

Should I stay or should I go? Tie stalls or loose housing to improve dairy cow welfare

Just Accepted
  • Chiara Mazzocchi,
  • Lorenzo Zanchi,
  • Luigi Orsi,
  • Silvana Mattiello,
  • Monica Battini
Chiara Mazzocchi
University of Milan - Department of Agricultural and Environmental Science, Production, Territory, Agroenergy
Lorenzo Zanchi
University of Milan - Department of Agricultural and Environmental Science, Production, Territory, Agroenergy
Luigi Orsi
University of Milan - Department of Environmental Science and Policy
Silvana Mattiello
University of Milan - Department of Agricultural and Environmental Science, Production, Territory, Agroenergy
Monica Battini
University of Milan - Department of Agricultural and Environmental Science, Production, Territory, Agroenergy
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/rea-15296

Published 2025-02-10

Keywords

  • Sustainable livestock practices,
  • Farmers’ perception,
  • Animal husbandry,
  • Tie-stall housing,
  • Loose housing

How to Cite

Mazzocchi, C., Zanchi, L., Orsi, L., Mattiello, S., & Battini, M. (2025). Should I stay or should I go? Tie stalls or loose housing to improve dairy cow welfare. Italian Review of Agricultural Economics (REA). https://doi.org/10.36253/rea-15296

Copyright (c) 2025 Chiara Mazzocchi, Lorenzo Zanchi, Luigi Orsi, Silvana Mattiello, Monica Battini

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Consumers consider the housing system to be a key factor that influences farm animal welfare (FAW). The European Food Safety Authority’s unfavourable assessment of tie-stall systems may encourage a shift towards adopting loose-housing practices. Several factors impact the likelihood of implementing practices aimed at improving FAW. This study evaluates some variables that affect the adoption of loose housing in Italian dairy farming, where the tie-stall system remains diffuse. We assessed socio-demographic, farm-related, and opinion variables that influence the intention to move from tie-stall to loose-housing system by means of a direct survey of 98 farmers who currently use the tie-stall system. The results indicate that gender, age, and financial considerations significantly influence the intention to adopt a loose-housing system. Additionally, the findings underscore the importance of farmers’ perceptions of improvements in animal welfare. The conclusions highlight the importance of the farmers’ sensitivity to FAW and their demand for subsidies to support structural changes.

Just Accepted

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. Adler F., Christley R., Campe A. (2019). Invited review: Examining farmers’ personalities and attitudes as possible risk factors for dairy cattle health, welfare, productivity, and farm management: A systematic scoping review. Journal of Dairy Science, 102(5): 3805-3824. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15037.
  2. Ahmed H., Alvåsen K., Berg C., Hansson H., Hultgren J., Röcklinsberg H., Emanuelson U. (2021). Assessing animal welfare and farm profitability in cow-calf operations with stochastic partial budgeting. Animals, 11(2): 1-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11020382.
  3. Ajzen I., Fishbein M. (1980). Undestanding attitudes and predicting social behavoir. Prentice hall, Englewood Cliffs, New York.
  4. Alonso M.E., González-Montaña J.R., Lomillos J.M. (2020). Consumers’ concerns and perceptions of farm animal welfare. Animals, 10(3). MDPI AG. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030385.
  5. Anneberg I., Sandøe P. (2019). When the Working Environment is Bad, you Take it out on the Animals – How Employees on Danish Farms Perceive Animal Welfare. Food Ethics, 4(1): 21-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41055-019-00044-6.
  6. Araujo F.S.M., Fantucci H., de Oliveira Lima S.H., de Abreu M.C.S., Santos R.M. (2022). Modeling Canadian farmer’s intention to adopt eco-friendly agricultural inputs and practices. Regional Environmental Change, 22(2): 44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-022-01901-7.
  7. Balzani A., Hanlon A. (2020). Factors that influence farmers’ views on farm animal welfare: A semi-systematic review and thematic analysis. Animals, 10(9): 1-25. MDPI AG. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10091524.
  8. Beaver A., Proudfoot K.L., von Keyserlingk M.A.G. (2020). Symposium review: Considerations for the future of dairy cattle housing: An animal welfare perspective. Journal of Dairy Science, 103(6): 5746-5758. Elsevier Inc. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-17804.
  9. Beaver A., Weary D.M., von Keyserlingk M.A.G. (2021). Invited review: The welfare of dairy cattle housed in tiestalls compared to less-restrictive housing types: A systematic review. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(9): 9383-9417). Elsevier Inc. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19609.
  10. Bechini L., Costamagna C., Zavattaro L., Grignani C., Bijttebier J., Ruysschaert G. (2020). Drivers and barriers to adopt best management practices. Survey among Italian dairy farmers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 245, 118825. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118825.
  11. Benedičič J., Erjavec K., Klopčič M. (2022). Environmental sustainability: farmers’ views of housing systems for cattle. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 21(1): 18-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2021.2005470.
  12. Biasato I., D’Angelo A., Bertone I., Odore R., Bellino C. (2019). Compost bedded-pack barn as an alternative housing system for dairy cattle in Italy: effects on animal health and welfare and milk and milk product quality. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 18(1): 1142-1153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2019.1623095.
  13. Bock B.B., Van Huik M.M. (2007). Animal welfare: The attitudes and behaviour of European pig farmers. British Food Journal, 109(11): 931-944. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700710835732.
  14. Brouček J., Uhrincat M., Mihina S., Soch M., Mrekajova A., Hanus A. (2017). Dairy cows produce less milk and modify their behaviour during the transition between tie-stall to free-stall. Animals, 7: 1-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7030016.
  15. Brouček J., Uhrinčat M., Tančin V., Hanus A., Tongel P., Botto L., Bôžik I. (2013). Performance and behaviour at milking after relocation and housing change of dairy cows. Czech Journal of Animal Science, 58: 389-395. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17221/6938-cjas.
  16. Buddle E.A., Bray H.J., Ankeny R.A. (2021). “Of course we care!“: A qualitative exploration of Australian livestock producers’ understandings of farm animal welfare issues. Journal of Rural Studies, 83: 50-59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.02.024.
  17. Cardoso C.S., Von Keyserlingk M.A.G., Hötzel M.J., Robbins J., Weary D.M. (2018). Hot and bothered: Public attitudes towards heat stress and outdoor access for dairy cows. PLoS ONE, 13(10). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205352.
  18. Cembalo L., Caracciolo F., Lombardi A., Del Giudice T., Grunert K.G., Cicia G. (2016). Determinants of Individual Attitudes Toward Animal Welfare-Friendly Food Products. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 29(2): 237-254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9598-z.
  19. Cornish A.R., Briley D., Wilson B.J., Raubenheimer D., Schlosberg D., McGreevy P.D. (2020). The price of good welfare: Does informing consumers about what on-package labels mean for animal welfare influence their purchase intentions? Appetite, 148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104577.
  20. Croyle S.L., Belage E., Khosa D.K., LeBlanc S.J., Haley D.B., Kelton D.F. (2019). Dairy farmers’ expectations and receptivity regarding animal welfare advice: A focus group study. Journal of Dairy Science, 102(8): 7385-7397. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15821.
  21. European Commission (2023). Special Eurobarometer 533 on Animal Welfare – Report. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2875/872312. European Union.
  22. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2023). EFSA Journal published by Wiley-VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7993open_in_new.
  23. Gaworski M., Boćkowski M. (2018). Method for comparing current versus recommended housing conditions in dairy cattle production. Agricultural and Food Science, 27(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.23986/afsci.65429.
  24. Gorton M., Yeh C.H., Chatzopoulou E., White J., Tocco B., Hubbard C., Hallam F. (2023). Consumers’ willingness to pay for an animal welfare food label. Ecological Economics, 209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107852.
  25. Groher T., Heitkämper K., Umstätter C. (2020). Digital technology adoption in livestock production with a special focus on ruminant farming. Animal, 14(11): 2404-2413. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731120001391.
  26. Hansen B.G., Langseth E., Berge C. (2023). Animal welfare and cow-calf contact-farmers’ attitudes, experiences and adoption barriers. Journal of Rural Studies, 97: 34-46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.11.013.
  27. Hovinen M., Rasmussen M.D., Pyörälä S.P. (2009). Udder health of cows changing from tie stalls or free stalls with conventional milking to free stalls with either conventional or automatic milking. Journal of Dairy Science, 92: 3696-3703. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1962.
  28. Hultgren J. (2002). Foot/leg and udder health in relation to housing changes in Swedish dairy herds. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 53(3): 167-189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5877(01)00279-3.
  29. Hair Jr J.F., Sarstedt M., Hopkins L., Kuppelwieser V.G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging tool in business research. European business review, 26(2): 106-121. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128.
  30. Hyland J.J., Heanue K., McKillop J., Micha E. (2018). Factors underlying farmers’ intentions to adopt best practices: The case of paddock based grazing systems. Agricultural Systems, 162: 97-106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.01.023.
  31. Irico L., Tomassone L., Martano G., Gottardo F., Tarantola M. (2018). Animal welfare and reproductive performance in two Piemontese housing systems. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 17(2): 499-504. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2017.1369181.
  32. Jingjing L., Sghaier C., Moïse K., Santinello M., Bertelli Pflanzer S., Hocquette E., Ellies-Oury M.P., Hocquette J.F. (2023). Consumer perception of the challenges facing livestock production and meat consumption. Meat Science, 200, 109144, ISSN 0309-1740. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2023.109144.
  33. Kahneman D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Eds. Penguin Psycology, UK.
  34. Katzenberger K., Rauch E., Erhard M., Reese S., Gauly M. (2020). Evaluating the need for an animal welfare assurance programme in South Tyrolean dairy farming. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 19(1): 1147-1157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2020.1823897.
  35. Kauppinen T., Vainio A., Valros A., Rita H., Vesala K.M. (2010). Improving animal welfare: Qualitative and quantitative methodology in the study of farmers’ attitudes. Animal Welfare, 19(4): 523-536. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0962728600001998.
  36. Kühl S., Gauly S., Spiller A. (2019). Analysing public acceptance of four common husbandry systems for dairy cattle using a picture-based approach. Livestock Science, 220: 196-204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2018.12.022
  37. Leach K.A., Dippel S., Huber J., March S., Winckler C., Whay H.R. (2009). Assessing lameness in cows kept in tie-stalls. Journal of Dairy Science, 92(4): 1567-1574. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1648.
  38. Li Z., Ding Y., Chen J., Zhao M. (2023). How far are green products from the Chinese dinner table? — Chinese farmers’ acceptance of green planting technology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 410, 137141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137141.
  39. Mattiello S., Arduino D., Tosi M.V., Carenzi C. (2005). Survey on housing, management and welfare of dairy cattle in tie-stalls in western Italian Alps. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica - Section A: Animal Science, 55(1): 31-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09064700510009270.
  40. Mazzocchi C., Borghi A., Monaco F., Gaviglio A., Filippini R., Demartini E., Sali, G. (2019). Land rent values determinants: a Hedonic Pricing approach at local scale. Aestimum, 75: 235-255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13128/aestim-8152.
  41. Mazzocchi C., Orsi L., Zilia F., Costantini M., Bacenetti J. (2022). Consumer awareness of sustainable supply chains: A choice experiment on Parma ham PDO. Science of the Total Environment, 836. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155602.
  42. Mazzocchi C., Sali G. (2022). Supporting mountain agriculture through “mountain product” label: a choice experiment approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(1): 701-723. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01464-3.
  43. Nadlučnik E., Golinar Oven I., Tomažič I., Plut J., Dovč A., Štukelj M. (2022). Discrepancies between farmers’ perceptions and actual animal welfare conditions on commercial pig farms. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.1010791.
  44. Neave H.W., Sumner C.L., Henwood R.J.T., Zobel G., Saunders K., Thoday H., Watson T., Webster J.R. (2022). Dairy farmers’ perspectives on providing cow-calf contact in the pasture-based systems of New Zealand. Journal of Dairy Science, 105(1): 453-467. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2021-21047.
  45. Nguyen N., Drakou E.G. (2021). Farmers intention to adopt sustainable agriculture hinges on climate awareness: The case of Vietnamese coffee. Journal of Cleaner Production, 303, 126828. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126828.
  46. O’Brien R.M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41: 673-690. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6.
  47. Ortega D.L., Wolf C.A. (2018). Demand for farm animal welfare and producer implications: Results from a field experiment in Michigan. Food Policy, 74: 74-81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.11.006.
  48. Perttu R.K., Ventura B.A., Endres M.I. (2020). Youth and adult public views of dairy calf housing options. Journal of Dairy Science, 103(9): 8507-8517. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-17727.
  49. Popescu S., Borda C., Diugan E.A., Niculae M., Stefan R., Sandru C.D. (2014). The effect of the housing system on the welfare quality of dairy cow. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 13(1): 15-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2014.2940.
  50. Regula G., Danuser J., Spycher B., Wechsler B. (2004). Health and welfare of dairy cows in different husbandry systems in Switzerland. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 66(1-4): 247-264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2004.09.004.
  51. Retsinformation (2017). Bekendtgørelse af lov om hold af malkekvæg og afkom af malkekvæg. https://www.retsinformation.dk/
  52. Robbins J.A., Roberts C., Weary D.M., Franks B., von Keyserlingk M.A.G. (2019). Factors influencing public support for dairy tie stall housing in the U.S. PLoS ONE, 14(5). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0216544.
  53. Silva J.S., Tenreyro S. (2006). The log of gravity. The Review of Economics and statistics, 88(4): 641-658.
  54. Schuppli C.A., Spooner J.M., von Keyserlingk M.A.G. (2023). Canadian dairy farmer views about animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2023.32.
  55. Spigarelli C., Berton M., Corazzin M., Gallo L., Pinterits S., Ramanzin M., Ressi W., Sturaro E., Zuliani A., Bovolenta S. (2021). Animal Welfare and Farmers’ Satisfaction in Small-Scale Dairy Farms in the Eastern Alps: A “One Welfare” Approach. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.741497.
  56. Spooner J.M., Schuppli C.A., Fraser D. (2014). Attitudes of Canadian citizens toward farm animal welfare: A qualitative study. Livestock Science, 163(1): 150-158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.02.011.
  57. Starvaggi Cucuzza L., Riondato F., Macchi E., Bellino C., Franco G., Biolatti B., Cannizzo F.T. (2014). Haematological and physiological responses of Piemontese beef cattle to different housing conditions. Research in Veterinary Science, 97(2): 464-469. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2014.08.002.
  58. Tangorra F.M, Zanini L. (2014). I sistemi di mungitura in Lombardia. Supplemento a L’Informatore Agrario. 36/2014.
  59. Tarantola M., Valle E., De Marco M., Bergagna S., Dezzutto D., Gennero M.S., Bergero D., Schiavone A., Prola L. (2016). Effects of abrupt housing changes on the welfare of Piedmontese cows. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 15(1): 103-109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2015.1128691.
  60. Te Velde H., Aarts N., Van Woerkum C. (2002). Dealing with ambivalence: Farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15(2): 203-219. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015012403331.
  61. Unioncamere Lombardia (2023). Analisi congiunturale sull’agricoltura lombarda. L’andamento del settore nel 2° semestre 2022. Milano.
  62. Vanhonacker F., Verbeke W., Van Poucke E., Tuyttens F.A.M. (2008). Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science, 116(1-3): 126-136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.017.
  63. Venkatesh V., Davis F.D. (2000). Theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2): 186-204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
  64. von Keyserlingk M.A.G., Hötzel M.J. (2015). The Ticking Clock: Addressing Farm Animal Welfare in Emerging Countries. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(1): 179-195. Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9518-7.
  65. Yunes M.C., Von Keyserlingk M.A.G., Hötzel M.J. (2017). Brazilian citizens’ opinions and attitudes about farm animal production systems. Animals, 7(10). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7100075.
  66. Zuliani A., Romanzin A., Corazzin M., Salvador S., Abrahantes J.C., Bovolenta S. (2017). Welfare assessment in traditional mountain dairy farms: Above and beyond resource-based measures. Animal Welfare, 26(2): 203-211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.26.2.203.