Millennial Generation: Their Understanding of and Need for Information on Farm Animal Welfare

Travis Jansen (20415495)

Honours Thesis

Professor Von Massow

April 20, 2015

2

Table of Contents

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................p. 3

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................p. 4

Literature Review .....................................................................................................................................p. 5

Animal Welfare............................................................................................................................p. 5

Public Knowledge of Farm Animal Welfare.................................................................................p. 9

Farmer Perception of Farm Animal Welfare..............................................................................p. 12

The Millennial Generation.........................................................................................................p. 14

Gestation Stalls as a Case Study.................................................................................................p. 18

Materials and Methods..........................................................................................................................p. 20

Results.....................................................................................................................................................p. 23

Is the Millennial Generation Interested in Farm Animal Welfare? ...........................................p. 23

Does the Millennial Generation Access Information on Farm Animal Welfare? ......................p. 24

Where and how does the Millennial Generation get Information on Farm Animal Welfare? .p. 25

What does the Millennial Generation do with Information on Farm Animal Welfare? ...........p. 27

How does the Millennial Generation want to learn about Farm Animal Welfare? .................p. 29

Discussion...............................................................................................................................................p. 32

References .............................................................................................................................................p. 39

3

ABSTRACT

It is critical for Canadian livestock producers to understand the attitudes and beliefs of today’s

consumers. The last ten years has shown an increase in the number of exposé videos that target

Canadian livestock producers. With these videos tarnishing the reputation of Canadian farmers, it

becomes increasingly important for the food industry to educate the public on mainstream farming

practices. In order to develop effective teaching programs, this industry will need to identify the

information needs of their various consumers. This quantitative survey study was done to identify the

Millennial Generation’s understanding of and need for information on farm animal welfare in Canada.

The Millennial Generation is an important population for the food industry as they represent the future

consumers of livestock products. This population is very different from previous generations and will

require specific education strategies that meet their unique needs. This study was aimed at answering

five key questions about this population: Is the Millennial Generation interested in farm animal welfare?

Does the Millennial Generation access information on farm animal welfare? If they access this

information, where and how does the Millennial Generation get it? What does the Millennial Generation

do with information on farm animal welfare? How does the Millennial Generation want to learn about

farm welfare? One hundred participants filled out the survey over two days of data collection at the

University of Waterloo Student Life Center. Millennials care about farm animal welfare, had accessed

information on the topic and wanted to learn more about it. The most popular way for participants to

access information about farm animal welfare was online through websites and social media. Most of

the information being provided to participants was published by animal welfare organizations and news

agencies. A surprising number of participants provided others with information on farm animal welfare

or had made suggestions to others about meat consumption based on farm animal welfare. Most

participants were interested in having more information about farm animal welfare available to them

and they wanted to learn about this subject by visiting a farm and by learning about it in a classroom.

4

INTRODUCTION

Livestock producers must continue to address the changing needs that consumers have for

information on farm animal welfare. The industrialization of Canadian agriculture presents ethical

challenges to consumers, producers and governing organizations. This efficient model of production has

created an unquestioning demand for cheap livestock products; including but not limited to meat, eggs

and milk. Furthermore, larger farms, fewer farmers and increasing urbanization are making it harder and

harder for people to learn about the way that their food is produced. Combining this demand with a

population that is increasingly separated from agriculture develops a strong disconnect between the

consumer and how their food is produced. Despite this growing separation, exposé videos and recent

media publications from outside of the farming community are beginning to introduce the public to the

negative side of some livestock practices.

The Canadian food industry is being presented with the challenge of teaching people about the

constantly evolving work that they do. In comparison to other industries, agriculture and food are

unique because of the role that live animals play in providing products to our communities. In addition

to these exposé videos, Hughes (1995) outlines how urbanization and other factors have led to a change

in the type of relationship that most people have with animals. These changes have led to an increase in

public interest regarding the well being of all animals including pets, farm animals and wild animals. As a

result, consumers of animal products are concerned about more than just the price, appearance and

health of the meat and other products that they buy. Farm animal welfare is becoming increasingly

relevant as consumers and governments demand a higher level of care from producers. Given this

concern, it will become increasingly important for the food industry to help people understand the way

that their food is made. This means that the food industry must work to understand the needs of

different consumers and they way they take in information.

5

The Millennial Generation is a consumer group of particular concern to the food industry. This

population reflects the parents and primary consumers of livestock products for the future. Presently,

post secondary students are representative of the Millennial Generation and the purpose of this study is

to develop an understanding of this population and the needs that they have for information on farm

animal welfare. Understanding this population will help the food industry modify their education

programs to better accommodate this population’s need for information. This will ensure that

Canadians understand the true way that farm animals are raised in their country. In return, farmers can

adapt their practices to ensure that they are raising livestock in a way that everyone is comfortable with.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Animal Welfare

Historically, there have been two approaches to evaluating animal welfare, the ethical approach

and the scientific approach. Fraser (1999) outlines the interconnected role that these two disciplines

share in addressing problems with animal welfare. He argues that despite sharing similar goals, these

two groups have often worked separate from one another. This disjointed effort has led to the work of

one discipline creating barriers for the other discipline and vice versa. An example of this is that ethical

writing tends to focus on the individual animal. This becomes a problem when the well being of one

animal begins to interfere with the well being of another. In contrast, animal welfare scientists must try

to address these ethical concerns while balancing the well being of entire populations. Despite these

challenges, Fraser argues that we are moving towards a more integrated field of research that

emphasizes effective communication between ethicists and scientists. This will allow ethicists to frame

their work in a manner that can be empirically addressed by the work of animal welfare scientists. A

collective effort towards improving animal welfare should improve the consistency of information that

the public is receiving on this topic.

6

However, ethical heuristics still drive public concern about farm animal welfare. Fraser, Weary,

Pajor and Milligan (1997) outline three of the most common ethical frameworks from which animal

welfare is evaluated. The first is the belief that animals should lead a natural life and perform the

activities that they were designed to do (Rollin, 1993). The second is the belief that the animals

shouldn’t experience negative feelings such as fear or stress (Duncan, 2005). The third is the belief that

the animal should have access to food, water and shelter such that their biological needs are met

(2005). Vanhonacker, Verbeke, Van Poucke and Tuyttens (2008) highlight the different value that

farmers and citizens place on these concepts. Farmers tend to focus more on the biological needs of

animals. This is because they have physically seen what happens when the biological needs of these

animals are not met. Citizens, on the other hand, can only think about animal welfare conceptually. As a

result, they tend to focus more on the animal’s ability to be happy and live a natural life. While all three

of these approaches may seem intuitive, Fraser et al (1997) argue that they do not properly guide

research about farm animal welfare. This is because of the inverse relationship that these variables can

have with one another. For example, if I raise my pigs outdoors to try and provide them with a more

natural life, I am putting their biological needs at risk due to the increased chance of them getting sick.

The relationship between different ethical concerns has led to a number of definitions of farm

animal welfare. Duncan and Fraser (1997) suggest that these definitions have guided the different ways

that experts perform research and interpret their results. Fraser (2008) outlines how this diversity can

confuse the public as they look for definitive answers about animal welfare. He uses the example of how

two governments came to different conclusions about whether or not gestation stalls improve the

welfare of sows in pig barns. In light of public concern over the use of gestation stalls, experts in both

Europe and Australia were tasked with determining whether or not these crates should be removed

from farms. Experts in Europe concluded that gestation stalls reduce animal welfare while Australian

experts suggested that gestation stalls improve animal welfare. Based on this information, the public

7

may interpret the results of these studies as being inconclusive. However, Fraser explains that the

different conclusions were a result of the different values each group used to evaluate animal welfare.

Experts from Australia emphasized the importance of biological functioning whereas European experts

placed greater emphasis on the affective states of the animal and its ability to carry out natural

behaviour. It is important for the public to understand that even at the highest level; conclusions about

farm animal welfare are not objective as they depend on the subjective value that people place on

either the biological, affective or natural well being of the animal

An alternative to balancing these ethical concerns is to place them in a hierarchy where

biological functioning comes first, followed by the animal’s affective state and then by their natural

behaviour. Dawkins (1990) offers a possible method of identifying the demand that an animal has for

things in its life. Using principles from economic analysis, Dawkins suggests that animals display inelastic

demand for biological needs. This means that the animal will continue to endure elevated levels of

suffering to have these needs met. For research, this suffering can be presented in the form of an

obstacle, barrier or deterrent that the animal must overcome. The work or suffering that an animal is

willing to endure for biological needs can then be compared to the work that they are willing to do for

other things. For example, if an animal is willing to endure the same amount of suffering to reach a

companion as it does to get food, then it is very important for the animal to have a companion. Dawkins

argues that the animal is willing to endure this suffering up until the point where it is equal to the

marginal benefit the animal receives. Similar to how companies hire to their marginal product of labour,

animals will only suffer to a point where their suffering results in pleasure that is equal to or greater

than the suffering they experience. However, Dawkins outlines several problems with this approach. The

first problem is that animals display different levels of desire at different stages in their lives. She uses

the example of a hen that is willing to endure a high amount of suffering in order gather materials for

her nest. However, she only displays this type of behaviour leading up to the point when she lays her

8

eggs. Therefore, this type of research must be conducted over a long period of time in order to discover

how the needs of animals change. A second problem is that animals often make decisions that are not

beneficial to their long term well being. In light of these concerns, Dawkins emphasizes that these

principles should only be taken into consideration when discussing ideal living spaces for animals and

not be relied upon independently.

As an alternative to using the three ethical frameworks mentioned above, Fraser et al (1997)

provide an approach that focuses on the animal’s adaptations. This approach suggests two ways that

adaptations influence the welfare of farm animals. The first approach focuses on adaptations that

animals have developed but no longer require for survival. The problem with these adaptations is that

some of them come in the form of having a strong desire to perform certain behaviours. If this

behaviour cannot be performed it can lead to a decrease in the animal’s welfare. The example provided

is of calves that have developed the strong urge to suck in order to get milk from their mother’s udder. If

the calf is not required to suck in order to receive milk then it experiences a decrease in welfare. This

may happen if a farmer puts the calf’s milk in a pail. The second approach focuses on animals that are

placed in an environment that damages their health because they don’t have the necessary adaptations.

The example used is of pigs that are raised in barns where they are exposed to elevated levels of

ammonia gas. For most of its life the animal will show little or no sign of suffering despite the ammonia

causing significant damage to its respiratory system. The ideal environment would then be one where

the animal has the adaptations that correspond to the challenges that it faces. In this environment, the

animal should experience positive feelings because it has the tools to cope with its problems and by

using these tools the animal is expressing natural behaviour. Continued efforts should be made by the

food industry to facilitate an understanding of the different approaches that researchers take to

evaluate the welfare of animals.

9

Public Knowledge of Farm Animal Welfare

If the food industry is going to effectively communicate information to the public they will need

to learn about the understanding that people have of how animals are raised and their perceptions, if

any, on their welfare. Efforts should be made to identify the public’s level of concern, how much they

want to know and the challenges of providing information to them.

While people generally care about farm animal welfare, their levels of interest vary depending

on the situation that they are in. Grunert (2006) outlines the conceptual relationships that people have

with farm animals and how this can shape their level of interest in animal welfare. As ethical people,

many believe that it is important to treat animals with kindness. However, when ethical people enter

the grocery store, animal welfare becomes less important as they tend to buy meat that is cheaper,

looks better and tastes better (McEachern, & Schröder, 2002; Vermeir, & Verbeke, 2006). Grunert

believes that this behaviour is a result of the two relationships that humans have with farm animals. The

first relationship is with the live animal and the second is with the meat that this animal provides.

Grunert describes how individuals switch from citizen to consumer without considering how their

actions as consumers can affect the well being of farm animals. Attempts to identify those who are

consistently concerned about farm animal welfare have taken a number of forms. One possible

suggestion is that conscious consumers are more concerned about farm animal welfare than others.

Vermeir and Verbeke (2006) identify the conscious consumer as being middle aged, having a high

income and above average education. Hughner, McDonagh, Prothero, Shultz and Stanton (2007) provide

a description of the organic consumer who is generally older, has children and is more likely to be

female. While organic consumers are not the same as ethical consumers, the requirements for organic

livestock often align with the welfare attributes that consumers tend to value (Hughner et al, 2007;

Vanhonacker, Verbeke, Van Poucke, & Tuyttens, 2008). Experiences and values also play a role in

creating the conscious consumer. Meuwissen, Van Der Lans and Huirne (2007) identified that those who

10

are concerned about the environment, their health or animals in general are more likely to pay for meat

that is raised under improved welfare standards. Vanhonacker, Verbeke, Van Poucke and Tuyttens

(2007) also found that an individual’s job and experiences influence the meat that they buy. For

example, consumers who have jobs that involve livestock production are less likely to consider animal

welfare when buying livestock products. An alternative to this method of evaluating interest in animal

welfare is to analyze the amount of effort that people put into researching this topic. Verbeke (2009)

suggests that those who are more concerned about other characteristics of meat, such as health and

safety, will also be more likely to research information on farm animal welfare. Categorizing the public

into different segments is useful in directing communication provided by the food industry. Verbeke

(2009) indicates that if farm animal welfare is going to improve then it will be important to motivate

Grunert’s concerned citizens to evolve into concerned consumers. Vermeir and Verbeke (2006) suggest

that this can be done by providing more information to consumers that is directed at increasing citizen

involvement, increasing the availability of this type of meat and increasing the perceived effectiveness

of consumer behaviour in changing farm practices.

One of the challenges with providing this information is that ninety percent of Europeans

believe that they don’t receive sufficient information about farm animal welfare (European Commission,

2006). This presents a huge task to the food industry as they work to provide consistent and accurate

information to such a large population. What makes this task so difficult is that the literature on farm

animal welfare is generally confusing and difficult to access. As a result, Verbeke (2005) explains that

the public is often left to rely on the media for this type of information. Consumers then make

purchasing decisions that don’t necessarily reflect accurate information about farming. As a result, their

consumption patterns may change which may lead to modifications in the way that animals are raised.

This suggests a need for the food industry to provide more information to the public about the

way that animals are treated on farms. However, there are a number of challenges with presenting

11

information to such a large number of people. For example, Thompson (2001) describes how

information about animal welfare must compete against other facets of meat production in an attempt

to gain attention from consumers, researchers and farmers. Characteristics such as human safety and

price are often given much more attention than the welfare of animals. Additionally, Duffy, Fearne and

Healing (2005) explain the significant costs that come with trying to reach such a large group of people.

In the past, high profile television shows and news programs were the only way to gain this type of

coverage. Verbeke (2005) suggests that this is a problem because the media and the public are generally

only interested in hearing about the ways that farming may have a negative impact on their lives. A

potential alternative to television is social media sites such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter which

offer unique opportunities for more economic methods of effectively spreading information (Goodwin,

& Rhodes, 2009). However, this does not solve the problem outlined by Duffy et al (2005) where the

food industry does not collectively work to educate the public about farm animal welfare. Mainstream

and niche producers are constantly trying to undermine the welfare claims made by one another in an

attempt to protect their market share in the meat industry.

These challenges with delivering information are further exacerbated by the public’s selective

preference for accessing and absorbing information. Duffy et al (2005) outline how people are not

interested in learning about farm animal welfare and they ignore the information that is currently

available to them (Salaün, & Flores, 2001). McCluskey and Swinner (2004) provide the hypothesis of

consumers being “rationally ignorant” to try and explain the public’s lack of interest in food production.

This hypothesis suggests that people are only able to take in a certain amount of information so they

only look for information that is important to them. Applying this theory to farm animal welfare, we can

hypothesize that the benefits consumers experience from this information are not worth the time and

energy that it takes to get it. However, Verbeke (2005) explains that consumer interest in farm animal

welfare is dynamic and new information can have a significant effect on consumers, regardless of

12

whether this information is true. Because the media generally publishes negative information about

farming, the food industry must work provide information that restores, maintains and builds public

trust in their practices. However, Verbeke warns that providing too much information may lead to

information overload. This can cause the public to feel indifferent about farm animal welfare and

decrease the confidence that they have in the information that the food industry provides.

Information overload will often be the result of a reaction that the food industry has had to

negative media attention. Verbeke (2009) emphasizes the importance of being proactive when

providing information about farm animal welfare. It becomes much more difficult to regain public trust

if the public is exposed to negative information about farming without having any base knowledge on

the subject. Hughes (1995) suggests that we should be educating people about food production as early

as public school. This would provide individuals with the information they need to make educated

purchasing decisions from a very early age. Despite the benefits that this solution provides, it does not

address the need to educate current consumers. Verbeke (2009) suggests the food industry focuses on

categorizing its consumers to try and find ways to provide the right amount of information, to the right

people, through the right medium.

Farmer Perception of Farm Animal Welfare

We can see that public knowledge and consumer behaviour can have a large impact on the way

that farmers raise their livestock. However, it is important to remember the role that farmers play in

improving the welfare of their animals. Meeting the different needs of farmers will be an important part

of implementing timely and effective improvements to farm animal welfare. There are a number of

factors that farmers consider when dealing with the welfare of their animals. In their article on farmer

participation in quality assurance schemes, Hubbard et al (2007) outline how farmers consider moral

obligation, financial incentives and legal requirements when making decisions about how they care for

their animals. However, there is extensive research to suggest that the best way to motivate farmers to

13

improve the welfare of their animals is to provide them with an economic incentive (Bock, & Van Huik,

2007; Hubbard et al, 2007; Menghi, 2007). This economic incentive can be separated into two different

parts. At a base level, farmers must meet the minimum welfare requirements to gain market access for

their products. It is generally accepted that even farmers who are only meeting the minimum welfare

requirements still believe that by treating their animals better, the animal will perform better which will

result in increased profit (Bock, & Van Huik, 2007; Hubbard et al, 2007). However, Bock and Van Huik

(2007) suggest that farmers who are not receiving an economic incentive that is specifically related to

animal welfare tend to perceive animal welfare only in terms of biological health. When discussing

animal welfare they focus on providing food, water, and safety for their livestock. The second economic

incentive that comes from improving animal welfare is that it can provide access to niche markets. In

niche markets consumers are willing to pay extra for meat that comes from animals that are raised with

an increased focus on animal welfare (Hubbard et al, 2007; Bock, & Van Huik, 2007). Bock and Van Huik

(2007) highlight how farmers that sell meat within these markets focus more on things like the animal’s

comfort and their ability to express natural behaviour. Based on this information, it can be seen that

farmers who receive this second economic incentive tend to approach animal welfare in a manner

similar to the public. This suggests the possibility that other farmers may be willing to modify their

approach to animal welfare if they are provided with this additional incentive as well. Therefore, the

food industry should work towards convincing the public of the influence that they can have through

their consumption behaviour. This may cause an increase in purchasing from niche markets which will

provide more farmers with access to this economic incentive. However this suggestion is based on two

assumptions: 1the reason farmers focus on these welfare attributes is because of the economic incentive

that they provide and 2the welfare of animals will increase if the farmer focuses on their comfort and

ability to express natural behaviour.

14

A good example of the relationship between the behaviour of farmers and consumers comes

from comparing two countries whose citizens have different levels of interest in farm animal welfare.

The Netherlands is generally quite concerned about the treatment of farm animals in their country. This

is proven by the country having a political party specifically devoted to animal welfare that has won

seats in their federal election (Bock, & Van Huik, 2007). Because of this, farmers in the Netherlands are

required to join quality assurance programs that guarantee the proper treatment of their animals.

Participation in these programs is what provides these farmers with market access for their animals

(Hubbard et al, 2007). Menghi (2007) discusses how a lack of public concern about farm animal welfare

in Italy influences farmers’ interest in the idea. In comparison to the Netherlands, Menghi (2007)

outlines how pig farmers in Italy are generally unaware of any quality assurance schemes and three

quarters of them have never considered joining a program that provides accountability for the well

being of their animals. This comparison suggests that an increase in public interest leads to an increase

in farmer participation in animal welfare assurance programs and ultimately an increase in farm animal

welfare.

Millennial Generation

A general approach to categorizing any population is to separate them into generations.

Defining generations can be useful when trying to understand trends in their behaviour. Separating

groups of people based on their shared life experiences can be helpful in understanding what they do,

how they do it and why they do it. While this generalization can be helpful, it is important to remember

that there are vast differences between individuals in any “defined” generation and researchers should

be careful making absolute conclusions about such a large group (Taylor, 2005; Bolton, Parasuraman,

Hoefnagels, Migchels, Kabadayi, Gruber, & Solnet, 2013).

There are several defining characteristics of the Millennial Generation that separate them from

their predecessors, Generation X and the Baby Boomers. The first is the year they were born. While the

15

exact year that the Millennials were born is loosely defined by a number of scholars, it can be

generalized as between the year 1979 and 2000 (Downing, 2006; Papp, 2010; Chaudhuri, & Ghosh 2012;

Boltonl et al, 2013). The food industry should be particularly concerned about this generation as they

represent the parents of the next few decades and by extension the primary consumers of livestock

products. Sweeney (2006) describes the effects of being raised within this time frame and how

technology has had a large impact on the Millennials’ behaviour, perceptions and preferences. He

believes that Millennials are impatient, feel entitled, expect instant gratification for their efforts, are

comfortable with technology and are highly adaptive. Consistent with Sweeney’s description, Papp

(2010) outlines the increasing preference of Millennials to perform a large number of activities online, at

their own convenience. These include tasks such as taking virtual tours, shopping, learning and

socializing. The amount of time that Millennials spend online has led to extensive research discussing

the Millennials’ online experience. Examples of this research include the way that Millennials access

information online (JISC, 2008; Considine, Horton, & Moorman, 2009), the way they use social media

(Bolton et al, 2013), and how technology has changed the way that Millennials get involved in their

communities (Bennett, 2007).

There are several characteristics of the Millennials that warrant attention when it comes to the

way that they access information. Downing (2006) outlines how Millennials prefer the quick speed of

the internet when doing research. He suggests that they are willing to sacrifice the quality of their

results for the convenience that the internet provides. This is consistent with the characteristics of being

impatient and expecting instant gratification as described by Sweeney (2006) and Taylor (2005). The

Joint Information Systems Committee (2008) describes how this impatience extends beyond simply

choosing the internet to find information but also to how Millennials scan the internet for content. They

believe that Millennials skim through webpages very quickly and if they aren’t satisfied with what they

find then they move on to the next website or article. The major concern of this committee is that

16

because Millennials are quickly jumping between information pages, they aren’t spending very much

time analyzing the information or evaluating the credibility of its source (2008). Considine et al (2009)

present an additional problem by outlining how the internet has blurred the lines between publishers

and consumers of information. This makes it difficult to know what is fact and what is opinion. While

Millennials have extensive access to information, Considine et al (2009) warn that “hands on isn’t the

same as heads on” (p. 472). Additionally, the Joint Information Systems Committee (2008) suggests that

the amount of time the Millennials spend online has created a dangerous illusion of Millennials being

competent at using the internet to access information. They believe that Millennials have a tough time

evaluating information, don’t realize that they have a problem and actually think that they are proficient

at examining online content (2008). This makes them incredibly vulnerable to deceit through

misinformation. The food industry must be conscious of these characteristics as it affects the way that

Millennials will access information about farm animal welfare. Millennials may be easily convinced that

inhumane practices are standard in Canadian agriculture and will not take the time to evaluate the

information they receive. This becomes even more concerning given the ability of Millennials to share

information with one another online.

Papp (2010) outlines how one of the biggest changes for the Millennial Generation is their

ability to live within virtual words through online communication systems. Bolton et al (2013) describes

how Millennials spend a large portion of their time living online through social media sites. They use

these sites to develop and present a profile of themselves that they are comfortable sharing with the

world (2013). As a follow up to the Millennials’ susceptibility to manipulation through misinformation,

Bolton et al (2013) outlines how social media may further exacerbate this problem as it has increased

the power of “word of mouth” communication. Considine et al (2009) describes how Millennials

generally trust the information that they read on the internet, despite there being no filters on social

media sites regarding the truth of its content. Individuals generally trust their peers which could result in

17

widespread dissemination of misinformation about farm animal welfare. In addition to social media

providing information, Bolton et al (2013) describe how Millennials use these sites to build personal

capital through establishing and maintaining relationships online. A problem with social media being

used to build personal capital is that the Millennial Generation gravitates towards collective

identification (Bennett, 2007). This means that as information becomes more and more popular, more

people want to get involved. Pairing this desire with not taking the time to evaluate information can

lead to widespread acceptance of misinformation and its resulting externalities.

This increased access to the internet makes it easier for Millennial to connect with others about

shared values and interests (Considine et al, 2009). This translates into them feeling more capable of

inducing change through their routine actions and behaviours in contrast to traditional civil duties such

as voting and being informed about elections (Bennett, 2007). The Millennials are experiencing a much

different reality then their parents did while growing up. Having two parents who worked meant that a

lot of their supervision has come from daycares and television (Taylor, 2005). Taylor (2005) describes

how these experiences have taught Millennials to fend for themselves from a very early age. This, in

partnership with the uncertainty that Millennials face with the job market and a struggling global

economy has made Millennials self reliant and confident in their capacity to shape their life (2007).

Bennett (2007) describes Millennials as finding satisfaction through personal citizenship such as

volunteer activities, consumer choices and joining different organizations. Bennett’s conclusions are

consistent with the recent increase in action that Canada has seen from organizations that support the

welfare of farm animals. Bennett (2007) outlines how Millennials have very little faith in the government

to meet the needs of their citizens. Organizations protesting against the treatment of farm animals are a

good example of Millennials trying to cause change through personal action instead of relying on

political figures to meet their needs. The food industry should look to find similar participation from

18

Millennials who are interested in supporting and educating people about the way that their food is

produced and the way that farm animals are treated.

Gestation Stalls as a Case Study

Trying to understand all of the interesting and confusing dynamics involved with assessing and

implementing farm animal welfare is incredibly difficult. While each of the livestock production sectors

face unique animal welfare scenarios, it can be helpful to look at one specific debate to try and

understand the process involved. Recently, there has been an increase in public concern over the way

that sows are raised on pig farms. These concerns reflect negatively on the food industry and are

changing the way that some farmers approach raising pigs. The debate is about the use of gestation

stalls to house pregnant sows.

Presently, concern over gestation stalls is one of the most controversial topics in pork

production (Fraser, 2008; Tonsor et al, 2009a). A typical gestation stall is an individual crate with a feed

trough, a cement floor with slats and is about two feet wide by seven feet long. In their article on the

performance of gestating sows, Lammers et al (2007) outline some of the benefits and disadvantages of

these stalls. The advantages to this type of set up are that it makes it easy to remove manure, monitor

the sow, regulate feeding and protect the sows from one another. In this way, gestations stalls make it

easier for the farmer to protect the biological health of the sow and its fetuses during pregnancy. From a

biological standpoint, gestation stalls provide a high level of welfare for the sow. However, gestation

stalls also make it difficult for the sow to lie down and the limited space affects their ability to carry out

natural behaviour. From the standpoint of meeting affective needs and performing natural behaviour,

gestation stalls provide a very low level of welfare to the sow. These physical limitations have made

gestation stalls a popular concern among animal rights activists, the public and an increasing number of

governments (Moynagh, 2000; Tonsor et al, 2009b).

19

A popular alternative to gestation stalls is housing sows together in larger pens (Spoolder et al,

2009; Barnett et al, 2000). These sows are perceived to have improved welfare because of their ability

to carry out natural behaviour. However, one of the biggest concerns with housing sows in groups is that

they will display aggressive behaviour towards one another. This aggression may harm the animal or

compromise the sow’s pregnancy (Arey, & Edwards, 1998). Despite these challenges, in their review of

the literature on gestation stalls, McGlone et al (2004) suggest that these risks can be mitigated through

proper care and management from the farmer. In addition to welfare, there has also been a strong

debate about the success of these sow’s pregnancies within different housing systems (Bates et al, 2003;

Harris et al, 2006). Studies have indicated differing results in the performance of pregnant sows. Some

studies suggest lower sow productivity when kept in groups (den Hartog et al, 1993; Barabri, 2000) while

others suggest similar or improved performance of sows kept in groups (Bates et al, 2003; McGlone et

al, 2004; Lammers et al 2007). With inconclusive performance results, the improvement in welfare that

comes from keeping sows in pens should bring an increase in the number of farms that house them this

way. When making these decisions it is important to consider the financial and spatial constraints of

housing pigs in larger pens and in groups. Switching from gestation stalls to group housing requires

significant modifications to barns. However, Harmon et al (2004) indicate that hoop barns are becoming

an increasingly viable option for raising pigs. These large tent-like structures are cheaper to build which

makes it easier to justify providing more space for the sows. The challenge will be incorporating these

facilities into the colder climates of Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec where so much of Canada’s pork is

produced.

In addition to debates between researchers, Goodwin and Rhoades (2009) provide an

interesting article explaining this debate on a public level. They indicate that those who do not support

gestation stalls use social media sources like YouTube to gain public support. Goodwin and Rhoades

discuss the effectiveness of these mediums as they meet the specific needs that Millennials have for

20

accessing information. Not only are these mediums effective but they are also popular with the public,

cheap and can easily reach a large number of people. In their study, Goodwin and Rhodes focused

specifically on YouTube content relating to Proposition 2 in California. This proposition called for an

increase in the space given to animals on farms. At the end of their study, Goodwin and Rhodes

concluded that the food industry had very little presence on YouTube in comparison to other

organizations that were supporting Proposition 2. The preferences of Millennials mean that they will

continue to use sites such as YouTube to learn about farm animal welfare. To ensure Millennials are

having a balanced discussion about livestock farming, agriculture organizations need to be using these

mediums as well. It is the responsibility of these groups to provide information on topics such as

gestation stalls as they are the ones who are in the best position to provide accurate information.

Without this, individuals have little to weigh against the information they receive from animal welfare

organizations. In California, Proposition 2 has been passed and the food industry is being forced to make

significant changes to the way they raise animals. Had the public been provided with more information

from the food industry, they may have gained a greater understanding of these spatial constraints and

the vote could have gone the other way. As technology, consumers and research continue to change,

the food industry must look to find new ways to effectively communicate with the public.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The purpose of this study was to determine the Millennials need for information about farm

animal welfare. Research was performed using a survey to collect data from a representation of the

Millennial Generation. This method was chosen for two reasons. The first was that surveys allow for a

large sample size to be collected. Larger sample sizes provide a more accurate representation of the

desired population. The second reason was that the survey asked questions about animal welfare.

21

Because animal welfare is a sensitive topic, these types of questions are more prone to create a

response bias from participants. This means that participants answer questions differently in order to

appear more normal to the researcher. Using an anonymous survey helps to eliminate response bias by

separating the researcher from the participant and separating the participant from their answers. This

ensured that participants answered the survey in a way that accurately reflected their feelings.

A convenience sample of one hundred participants was acquired over two consecutive days of

data collection. A booth was set up in the University of Waterloo’s Student Life Center in a high traffic

area. Anyone walking by the booth could fill out the survey in exchange for a three dollar “Tim Card”.

The survey consisted of thirty four questions including multiple choice, open-ended and Likert-type

questions. Due to the length of the survey, a table and chairs were provided for participants to

encourage participation. A summary of the sample collected is outlined in Table 1. From this table we

can see that the sample is mostly limited to students between the ages of eighteen and twenty three,

from the University of Waterloo, who grew up in Ontario. Given this information, the recommendations

provided from this study are specific to this subgroup of the Millennial Generation. However, the results

of this study do provide insight into the entire he entire Millennial Generation and whether or not there

is a need for more research on this population and their need for information on farm animal welfare.

Table 1: Sample Summary

Sample Characteristics Amount

Sample Size 100

Male – Female 41 – 58

University of Waterloo Student 89

Grew up in Ontario 84

Age 18 to 23 86

22

Once the one hundred surveys were completed the data from the hard copy surveys was

transcribed into an Excel file. Participant’s answers for questions were assigned a number based on their

order of occurrence in the survey. For example, participants were asked what gender they identified

themselves as being. The second option provided for this question was “Female”. If the participant

answered that they were “Female” then a “2” was placed into the Excel sheet for that person’s

response. At the beginning of the survey students were asked to provide only one answer for the

questions unless otherwise stated. For questions where multiple answers were provided, the response

from that participant was not included in the data analysis for that question. However, this did not

exclude the participant’s responses to other questions. As such, analysis was done by comparing

percent of responses and not response frequency.

Initial analysis was performed by controlling for certain participant responses and comparing

results between these groups. Controlling for participant characteristics revealed different patterns

between sample subgroups. These patterns helped to answer the five research questions outlined in the

purpose of the study: Is the Millennial Generation interested in farm animal welfare? Do they access

information on farm animal welfare? If they access this information, where do they get it from and how

do they get it? What does the Millennial Generation do with this information? And what is the best way

to educate them about farm animal welfare? Once a pattern was identified between certain sample

groups, a Mann Whitney U Test was performed to identify whether or not patterns were statistically

significant. The Mann Whitney U Test was chosen for this data set as the data was discrete, the

responses did not show normal distribution and the research attempted to conclude whether different

groups within the sample were statistically different. This test was done with an alpha level of 0.05. In

the results section a p-value will be provided in brackets next to this value. A p-value that is lower than

0.05 indicates that groups are statistically different from one another.

23

RESULTS

Does the Millennial Generation care about farm animal welfare?

Table 2 outlines different sample groups and the percent of these groups that care about farm

animal welfare. Sixty eight participants answered agree or strongly agree when asked if farm animal

welfare was something that was important to them (68%). Results indicate that female participants are

more likely to think farm animal welfare is important than males (α= 0.05, p = 0.016). The bottom three

rows of Table 2 indicate that having more firsthand experience on farms increases the likelihood that

the participants believe farm animal welfare is important. Results suggest that those who have worked

on livestock farms are more likely to think farm animal welfare is important than those who have only

visited farms. However, this relationship could not be proven statistically significant due to the low

proportion of participants who had worked on livestock farms. Those who have visited farms are more

likely to think that farm animal welfare is important in comparison to those who haven’t visited farms

(α= 0.05, p =0.0088).

Similar results were achieved when participants were asked if they wanted to have more

information available to them about farm animal welfare. Sixty six participants answered agree or

strongly agree when asked if they would like to have more information (66%). Thirty participants were

neutral about the idea (30%) while only four participants were not interested in having more

information on farm animal welfare available to them (4%). Females were more interested in learning

about farm animal welfare than males (α= 0.05, p = 0.022). Those who had visited farms were more also

more interested in learning about farm animal welfare than those who had not visited farms (α= 0.05,

p = 0.0043).

24

Table 2: Characteristics of Participants who Stated that they “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” with the Statement:

Farm Animal Welfare is Something that is Important to You.

Characteristic Frequency Agree or Strongly Agree Percent

Total Sample 100 68 68%

Male 41 20 49%

Female 58 47 81%

Worked on a Livestock Farm 11 10 91%

Visited a Farm 48 30 62%

Not visited a farm 29 14 48%

Does the Millennial Generation access information on farm animal welfare?

Fifty nine participants had been presented with information on farm animal welfare (59%). Nine

of them went looking for the information (15%), thirty five came across it randomly (59%) and fifteen

said they came across this information in an “other” way (25%). Those who had been presented with

information on farm animal welfare were more likely to say that farm animal welfare was something

that was important to them (α = 0.05, p = 0.0013). They also rated their knowledge of farm animal

welfare higher than those who had not been presented with information on farm animal welfare (α =

0.05, p = 0.00034). However, when asked three knowledge-testing questions about farm animal welfare

there was no statistical difference between the answers provided by those who had been presented

with information on farm animal welfare and those who had not. These participants were also asked

how much attention they give to information about farm animal welfare. Twenty one respondents said

that they read all of the information (36%), twenty said that they read the information until they

understand the message (34%), fourteen said that they scan the information (24%) and only two

participants said that they ignore the information (3%).

25

All participants were asked what stops them from learning about farm animal welfare. The most

popular response for those who had accessed information on farm animal welfare was that the

information was conflicting (α = 0.05, p = 0.024). For those who hadn’t accessed information on farm

animal welfare the most popular response was that the information was difficult to access (α = 0.05, p =

0.0058). However, a relatively low number of participants highlighted these challenges as the obstacle

that keeps them from learning about farm animal welfare.

Where and how does the Millennial Generation get information on farm animal welfare?

Initially, participants were asked to identify the group that first provided them with information on

farm animal welfare. Eighteen participants said a friend or family member (36%), eleven participants

said in school (22%) and eight participants said in the news, a documentary or a television show (16%).

Only four participants first learned about farm animal welfare from a farmer (8%) and only two

participants first learned about it from a farming organization (4%). These results only include data from

participants who had previously been presented with information on farm animal welfare.

Participants were then asked to identify the source that they use the most to find information on

farm animal welfare. Thirteen participants said a news agency, documentary or television show (25%),

twelve said an animal welfare organization (23%) and eight said the government (15%). Only five

participants identified farmers as their ongoing source for information about farm animal welfare (9%)

and four identified farming organizations as their ongoing source (8%).

Graph 1 compares participants’ initial and ongoing source for information on farm animal welfare.

Results indicate that after participants first learn about farm animal welfare, they tend to use a different

source for providing them with ongoing information (α=0.05, p=0.0022). While the majority of

participants first learn about animal welfare from a friend or family member, very few go back to these

26

people for more information. The opposite is true for the government, news agencies and animal

welfare organizations.1

The second set of questions for this section was designed to determine how Millennials get

information on farm animal welfare. The first question asked all participants which medium they

thought was the most reliable for providing information on farm animal welfare. The most popular

response was that academic journals were the most reliable. However, only thirty five participants

provided this answer (41%) while fourteen answered face to face interactions (16%) and eleven

answered social media (13%).

1 Note on Graph 1: “In school” and “A professor or expert” only have one data set because these options were not

provided for both questions. These responses were designed to be a close substitute for one another given the context of the questions. All other groups were provided as options for both questions.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Graph 1: Percent of participants who identified these groups as their initial and ongoing source for information on farm animal welfare

First Source

Ongoing Source

27

The next two questions focused only on participants who had been exposed to information about

farm animal welfare. The first question asked participants about the way that they first learned about

farm animal welfare. Nineteen of them said that the first learned about it through a face to face

interaction (38%), twelve said social media (24%) and ten said the television (20%). Participants were

they asked how they usually access information on farm animal welfare. Twenty three said that they

accessed this information through websites (43%), thirteen through face to face interactions (25%) and

eight through social media (15%).

Graph 2 compares the media that participants think are the most reliable to the ones that they

first used to the ones that they continue to use to find information on farm animal welfare. This

comparison indicates that participants prefer to use websites despite very few of them believing that

this is the most reliable medium. Furthermore, very few participants ever access information from

academic journals despite the majority of them believing that this is the most reliable source for

information on farm animal welfare. These findings suggest that Millennials are willing to sacrifice

reliability for convenience. In an effort to reach the Millennial Generation, experts on farm animal

welfare should look to use a broad range of media when publishing their research.

What does the Millennial Generation do with information on farm animal welfare?

Several survey questions were designed to determine how participants react to having received

information on farm animal welfare. The first question asked participants about their interest in farm

animal welfare after having learned about it. Thirty one participants said that learning about farm

animal welfare did not change their interest in the subject (53%) and sixteen said that they now actively

search for information on farm animal welfare (28%). Only nine participants said that they now try to

avoid information on farm animal welfare after having learned about it (16%).

28

The second set of questions was directed at all participants. The first question asked if

participants had ever provided others with information about farm animal welfare. Twenty eight

participants have provided information to others about farm animal welfare (28%). The second question

asked if participants had ever made suggestions to others about meat consumption based on

information about farm animal welfare. Twenty nine participants had made suggestions to others about

meat consumption based on this information (29%). Combining the responses of these two questions, a

total of forty one participants had either provided others with information about farm animal welfare or

had made suggestions to others about meat consumption based on this information (41%). Of these

participants, only nine of them rated their knowledge of farm animal welfare as good or very good

(22%). Furthermore, eleven of these participants claim to have never been presented with information

on farm animal welfare (27%).

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Television Social Media

Face to Face

Website Academic Journal

Other

Graph 2: Percent of participants who identified these mediums as their initial, ongoing and most reliable medium for providing information on farm

animal welfare

First Medium

Ongoing Medium

Most reliable medium

29

How does the Millennial Generation want to learn about farm animal welfare?

After determining the way that Millennials access information on farm animal welfare, survey

questions attempted to determine how this population wants to learn about the subject. The first

question asked participants who they thought should be responsible for providing information on farm

animal welfare. Participants were given one hundred points to distribute between the groups shown in

Graph 3. The average scores for each group were then converted into percentages for comparison

between other questions. It is important to note that this was the only question that collected

continuous data. Therefore conclusions drawn from comparison with other questions should be limited

to speculation and will require further research to determine their true relationship. Participants

believed that eighteen percent of the information should be provided by the government, seventeen

percent from farmers and sixteen percent from farming organizations. Graph 3 outlines the amount of

information on farm animal welfare that other groups should be providing.

18%

17%

7%

16%

12%

8%

10%

12%

Graph 3: Percent of total information each group should be responsible for providing on farm animal welfare

Government

Farmer

Food Retailer

Farm Organizations

Animal Welfare Organization

News

Third Party Certification

Public Education System

30

The responses for this question were then compared to the responses provided from

participants when asked which source they use the most for information about farm animal welfare

(Graph 4). Despite the limitations associated with comparing discrete and continuous data, this

comparison suggests that there is an imbalance between who is providing Millennials with information

on farm animal welfare and who Millennials think should be responsible for providing this information.

Participants tend to gather information on farm animal welfare from news agencies and animal welfare

organizations but believe that farmers and farming organizations should be responsible for providing

more of this information to the public.

The next question asked participants how they wanted to learn about farm animal welfare.

Participants were provided with seven education strategies and the option of writing down their own

preferred method of learning about farm animal welfare. Seventy three participants said that they agree

or strongly agree that they would like to learn about farm animal welfare by visiting a farm (73%).

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Graph 4: Comparing who should be responsible for providing information on farm animal welfare to the groups that are used the

most for accessing this information

Percent of information each group should be providing on farm animal welfare

Group that participants use the most for finding information on farm animal welfare

31

Seventy two participants showed interest in learning about the topic in an elementary or high school

class (72%) and sixty four were interested in government education programs (64%). Graph 5 displays

participants’ responses when asked: I would like to learn about farm animal welfare in the following

way.” Despite a strong interest in all of the education strategies provided, twenty five participants

indicated that they were not interested in learning about farm animal welfare from a movie or television

show (25%) and twenty two participants felt similarly about news and social media as a method of

learning about farm animal welfare (22%).

The majority of participants showed a strong interest in the education programs provided.

However, interest in these programs did vary depending on whether or not participants had been

presented with information on farm animal welfare. Of the participants who had been presented with

information on farm animal welfare, forty eight of these participants were interested in visiting a farm

(81%), forty eight were interested in learning about it in an elementary or high school class (81%) and

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Graph 5: Participants' answers to the statement: I would like to learn about farm animal welfare in the following way:

Agree - Strongly Agree

Neutral

Strongly Disagree - Disagree

32

forty two were interested in government education programs (71%). Participants who have not been

presented with information about farm animal welfare showed less of a preference for certain

education strategies. The least preferred method was through personal research (40% interested) while

the most preferred methods were through an elementary or high school class, visiting a farm and

through news or social media. Twenty four of these participants identified that they would be interested

in each of these three programs (60%).

DISCUSSION

This study was conducted to develop an understanding of the Millennial Generation and their

need for information on farm animal welfare in Canada. Over the next decade, the primary consumers

of livestock products will shift from Generation X to the Millennial Generation. Information provided

from this study can be used by the food industry to determine if this generation is important to them, if

current education programs address the needs of this generation and how the food industry can change

their education programs to better suit the needs of this population.

Five of Canada’s major livestock industries are controlled under a supply management system

(Duren, & Sparling, 1998). This means that Canadian’s consumption of livestock products is vital to the

success of our country’s food industry. Unlike other countries, Canada cannot afford to rely on exports

to support this market. Given the potential influence that perceived farm animal welfare can have on

meat consumption, addressing the public’s concern about this topic is necessary for the continued

success of our country’s food industry. The results of this study indicate that members of the Millennial

Generation eat a lot meat. Furthermore, this population has a strong tendency to provide suggestions to

others about meat consumption based on farm animal welfare. Moving forward, this data suggests that

33

the food industry must continue to meet the information needs of this population in order to protect

the success of their market.

While the food industry certainly has education programs in place, this study suggests that these

programs are not effectively reaching the Millennial Generation. Results indicate that this may be

because their programs do use media that accommodates this younger population. By comparison,

animal welfare organizations and news agencies do a much better job of providing accessible and

engaging information on farm animal welfare. This warrants concern from the food industry for several

reasons. The first is that animal welfare organizations and news agencies generally provide information

that discredits the way that livestock is raised on Canadian farms (Verbeke, 2005). While some animal

welfare organizations do promote alternative rearing practices, many high profile organizations such as

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) advocate against livestock rearing all together.

Furthermore, news agencies are unlikely to publish information about farm animal welfare unless they

discover an issue that is relevant to the public. As outlined in the literature review, once Millennials

develop a negative impression of livestock farming it becomes difficult for the food industry to gain their

trust. If the food industry continues to ignore this population, more and more consumers will develop a

negative impression of Canadian livestock farming. This will make it harder and harder to regain public

trust and regaining this trust will require more expensive and intensive farm education programs.

Campaigns that react to negative media coverage are less effective and more expensive for the food

industry. Farmers and farming organizations should work towards proactive education strategies that

teach Millennials about farm animal welfare from a very young age.

The second problem is that Millennials are not receiving balanced information on farm animal

welfare. Despite there being significant research to suggest that this topic is both confusing and

conflicting, less that forty percent of participants said it was conflicting while only thirteen percent said

34

it was confusing (Rollin 1993; Dawkins 1990; Duncan 2005; Fraser et al 2007; Fraser 2008). While it is

possible that participants are experts in farm animal welfare, the more likely explanation for this clarity

is that they aren’t receiving enough information to understand the complexity of this topic. Survey

results indicate that participants may perceive this information as clear and simple because they are

only hearing one side of the farm animal welfare story. This is an important issue for the food industry

as information about farm animal welfare can lead to changes in the consumption of livestock products.

Therefore it becomes incredibly important to ensure that consumers have accurate information about

the welfare of farm animals in Canada.

In recent years industrialization has led to people leaving rural areas in favour of larger cities. As

a result, consumers are becoming increasingly separated from the way that their food is produced.

However, animal welfare organizations and news agencies have begun to raise public awareness about

food production. This information has been beneficial as it allows consumers to make purchasing

decisions that better reflect their values with regards to farm animal welfare. According to consumer

behaviour, farmers can then modify their rearing practices to meet the demand for livestock raised

under a certain standard of care. However, this system of supply and demand will only be effective if

consumers have a well balanced understanding of farm animal welfare.

In order for this to happen, consumers need to be learning about both the benefits and

problems with current livestock rearing practices. With animal welfare organizations and news agencies

tending to focus on the problems with these practices, it is the responsibility of the food industry to

highlight some of the welfare benefits that these practices offer. Without this balance, animal welfare

organizations and news agencies have the potential to control changes to the livestock industry based

on the information that they provide. This puts livestock producers at the mercy of these groups without

giving producers the chance to justify what they do. The food industry must work to provide the

35

Millennial Generation with a more balanced understanding of farm animal welfare in Canada. This will

ensure that consumers make purchasing decisions that accurately reflect their values so producers can

modify their rearing practices to meet this demand.

The Millennials’ preference for information from animal welfare organizations and news

agencies is not surprising. Participants’ prefer to access information online which confirms the work of

Papp (2010) and Sweeney (2006). In comparison to farmers and farm organizations, news agencies and

animal welfare organizations have a much stronger online presence. While websites are common in the

food industry, Rhoades and Aue (2010) describe how members of the agriculture community might lack

the technological skills to effectively engage the public with their content. Where animal welfare

organizations and news agencies provide videos and interactive media, very few farmers and farming

organizations even have Youtube account (2010). However, this preference for accessing information

online warrants concern from the food industry. Considine et al (2009) warn that even if Millennials do

read the information thoroughly, this does not mean that they are skilled at evaluating the quality of the

source or the information being provided. This point is further reinforced by the finding that thirteen

percent of participants believe social media is the most reliable medium for providing information on

farm animal welfare. This response is even more troubling given that academic journals was provided as

an alternative answer for the question.

Of the participants who use animal welfare organizations as their primary source for information

about farm animal welfare, over three quarters of them access this information via websites or social

media. Given this information, concern from the food industry should be twofold. Not only is this

information discrediting Canadian livestock production, but Millennials also have trouble determining

what information is actually true and what isn’t. This system of education leaves the Millennial

36

Generation vulnerable to misinformation about farm animal welfare and as a result the food industry

becomes vulnerable to the consumers’ accompanying changes in purchasing behaviour.

Based on this information, the food industry should be making changes to the education

programs that they have in place. Despite the challenges that Millennials face, online information

provides a convenient way to teach this population about farm animal welfare. At a minimum, the food

and agriculture industry should work to build a stronger online presence. However, building this

presence will involve much more than increasing the amount of online information that they publish.

The food industry must work to provide information that is interactive, engaging and relevant. This type

of information will help the food industry balance the discussion on farm animal welfare which is

currently saturated with emotionally charged media that undermines the Canadian food industry.

However, the food industry should not work to simply replicate the education strategies of

animal welfare organizations and news agencies. The Millennial Generation doesn’t just want to learn

about farm animal welfare online. Results indicate a strong preference for education through visiting

farms and learning about farm animal welfare in the classroom. This presents an opportunity for the

food industry and government to collaborate on an education program for farm animal welfare in

Canada. This program should be proactive, include an online component and involve a farm visit through

a classroom setting. This method will accommodate the needs of Millennials while allowing farmers to

share their story about farm animal welfare.

One option is to incorporate virtual farm tours into the classroom. Food production is currently

a neglected topic within the Ontario public education system and a class that focuses specifically on

Canadian food production would offer a number of benefits to the public and the food industry. To

begin, this plan is proactive and will build public trust in the food industry from a very young age. This

will save the food industry time and money as it will reduce the need for expensive campaigns that react

37

to negative media attention. This class should show videos about farm animal welfare that are published

by the food industry, animal welfare organizations and news agencies. This will allow the students to

learn about both sides of the debate while providing them with the opportunity to ask their teacher

questions about the issue. As a result, Canadians will learn about livestock farming from a very young

age and will be able to make appropriate purchasing decisions according to this information. For

Millennials, the benefit of these tours is that they are online and can be accessed at the convenience of

the viewer. Online farm tours also offer several benefits to the farmers. Unlike actual tours, online tours

will eliminate biosecurity risks and minimize the time required from farmers to teach the public about

what they do. They are also cheap to produce, easy to share and allow the public to gain firsthand

experience with work on a Canadian livestock farm.

There are several challenges with bringing the public into Canadian farms. However, online tours

overcome these challenges and offer a realistic way to welcome the public into livestock barns so that

they can learn about what farmers do, why they do it and how their food is produced. This education

program is proactive, safe, time efficient and accommodating to the Millennials and the way they access

information. Online tours could also be extended to other sectors of food production including meat

processing, meat packaging and even vegetable farming. Bridging this gap between consumers and food

from an early age will build trust in food industry. As Canadians begin to gain a better understanding of

farm animal welfare, they will make purchasing decisions accordingly which will allow farmers to raise

livestock in a way that all parties can be proud of.

Despite the conclusive results of this study there are several constraints that limit the

generalizing capabilities of this research. Given the time constraints of this project, only one hundred

participants were studied as a sample of the entire Millennial Generation. This sample primarily

consisted of students from the University of Waterloo who grew up in Ontario and were between the

38

ages of eighteen and twenty three. Future research should collect a sample that includes Millennials of

all ages, who are from all over Canada and who have different levels of education. This will help the food

industry to gain a better understanding of the entire Canadian millennial population. As a result the data

collected will be better at helping the food industry design education programs that accommodate the

information needs of these consumers.

Future survey designs should also attempt to provide uniform questions. Data from several

questions in this survey were compared to hypothesize about consumer information needs. However,

some of options provided to participants were different for different question. To improve the

generalizing power of this study, questions that will be compared should provide the exact same

answers to participants. Additionally, questions that are being compared should be collecting the same

type of data; either nominal or ordinal. For this study comparing ordinal and nominal data did provide

some insight into the Millennial Generation (Graph 4). However, the definitiveness of these insights

would have been further reinforced had the data type been the same.

In conclusion, this data identifies a need for the food industry to modify its public education

strategies. Future programs should look to do a better job of accommodating the needs of the Millennial

Generation. This study suggests that these programs be proactive, available online, in a classroom

setting and include a farm tour. It is important to note that the recommendations provided are based on

the Millennial Generations need for information on farm animal welfare and the potential market

implications that may ensue. Future studies should attempt to quantify the impact that these education

programs have on the Millennials generations’ purchasing behaviour. This will help the food industry

determine the economic benefit of teaching Millennials about farm animal welfare. Pairing this type of

research with the research presented above will help the food industry develop an education program

that optimizes trust, knowledge, profits and above all farm animal welfare.

39

References

Arey, D. S., & Edwards, S. A. (1998). Factors influencing aggression between sows after mixing and the

consequences for welfare and production. Livestock Production Science, 56(1), 61-70.

Barbari, M. (2000). Analysis of reproductive performances of sows in relation to housing systems.

In Swine housing. Proceedings of the First International Conference, Des Moines, Iowa, USA, 9-

11, October, 2000. (pp. 188-196). American Society of Agricultural Engineers.

Barnett, J. L., Hemsworth, P. H., Cronin, G. M., Jongman, E. C., & Hutson, G. D. (2000). A review of the

welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing. Crop and Pasture Science, 52(1), 1-28.

Bates, R. O., Edwards, D. B., & Korthals, R. L. (2003). Sow performance when housed either in groups

with electronic sow feeders or stalls. Livestock Production Science, 79(1), 29-35.

Bennett, W. L. (2007). Civic learning in changing democracies: Challenges for citizenship and civic

education. Young citizens and new media. London, UK: Routledge.

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.

Bolton, R. N., Parasuraman, A., Hoefnagels, A., Migchels, N., Kabadayi, S., Gruber, T., & Solnet, D. (2013).

Understanding Generation Y and their use of social media: a review and research agenda.

Journal of Service Management, 24(3), 245-267.

Considine, D., Horton, J., & Moorman, G. (2009). Teaching and reaching the Millennial Generation

through media literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(6), 471-481.

Chaudhuri, S., & Ghosh, R. (2012). Reverse Mentoring A Social Exchange Tool for Keeping the Boomers

Engaged and Millennials Committed. Human Resource Development Review, 11(1), 55-76.

Dawkins, M. S. (1990). From an animal's point of view: motivation, fitness, and animal welfare.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13(1), 1-9.

Den Hartog, L. A., Backus, G. B. C., & Vermeer, H. M. (1993). Evaluation of housing systems for

sows. JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE-MENASHA THEN ALBANY THEN CHAMPAIGN

ILLINOIS, 71, 1339-1339.

Downing, K. (2006). Next generation: What leaders need to know about the millennials. Leadership in

Action, 26(3), 3-6.

Duncan, I. J., & Fraser, D. (1997). Understanding animal welfare. In: Appleby, M.C, Hughes, B.O. (Eds.),

Animal Welfare. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.

Duncan, I. J. (2005). Science-based assessment of animal welfare: farm animals. Revue scientifique et

technique-Office international des epizooties, 24(2), 483-492.

40

Duffy, R., Fearne, A., & Healing, V. (2005). Reconnection in the UK food chain: bridging the

communication gap between food producers and consumers. British Food Journal, 107(1),

17-33.

Duren, E., & Sparling, D. (1998). Supply Chain Management and the Canadian Agri‐food Sector. Canadian

Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, 46(4), 479-489.

European Commission. (2006). Special Eurobarometer 238 “Risk Issues”. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Fraser, D., Weary, D. M., Pajor, E. A., & Milligan, B. N. (1997). A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal welfare, 6, 187-205.

Fraser, D. (1999). Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 65(3), 171-189.

Fraser, D. (2008). Understanding animal welfare. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 50(Suppl 1), S1.

Gentry, J. G., & McGlone, J. J. (2003, April). Alternative pork production systems: overview of facilities, performance measures, and meat quality. In 3rd International Meeting on Swine Production, Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro.

Goodwin, J., & Rhoades, E. (2011). Agricultural Legislation: The Presence of California Proposition 2 on YouTube. Journal of Applied Communications, 95(1), 22-35.

Grunert, K. G. (2006). Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regard to meat consumption. Meat Science, 74(1), 149-160.

Harmon, J., Honeyman, M. S., Kliebenstein, J. B., Richard, T., & Zulovich, J. M. (2004, September). Hoop barns for gestating swine. Midwest Plan Service, 1-20.

Harris, M. J., Pajor, E. A., Sorrells, A. D., Eicher, S. D., Richert, B. T., & Marchant-Forde, J. N. (2006). Effects of stall or small group gestation housing on the production, health and behaviour of gilts. Livestock Science, 102(1), 171-179.

Hubbard, C., Bourlakis, M., & Garrod, G. (2007). Pig in the middle: farmers and the delivery of farm animal welfare standards. British Food Journal, 109(11), 919-930.

Hughes, D. (1995). Animal welfare: the consumer and the food industry. British Food Journal, 97(10), 3-7.

Hughner, R. S., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., Shultz, C. J., & Stanton, J. (2007). Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6(2‐3), 94-110.

41

Joint Information Systems Committee. (2008). Informaiton behaviour of the researcher of the future.

Retrieved November 10, 2014. from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes

/reppres/gg_final_keynote_11012008.pdf

Lammers, P. J., Honeyman, M. S., Mabry, J. W., & Harmon, J. D. (2007). Performance of gestating sows in

bedded hoop barns and confinement stalls. Journal of Animal Science, 85(5), 1311-1317.

McCluskey, J. J., & Swinnen, J. F. (2004). Political economy of the media and consumer perceptions of

biotechnology. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(5), 1230-1237.

McEachern, M. G., & Schröder, M. J. (2002). The role of livestock production ethics in consumer values

towards meat. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15(2), 221-237.

McGlone, J. J., Von Borell, E. H., Deen, J., Johnson, A. K., Levis, D. G., Meunier-Salaün, M., & Sundberg, P.

L. (2004). Review: Compilation of the scientific literature comparing housing systems for

gestating sows and gilts using measures of physiology, behavior, performance, and health. The

Professional Animal Scientist, 20(2), 105-117.

Menghi A. (2007). Italian pig producers’ attitude toward animal welfare. British Food Journal, 109(11),

870-878.

Meuwissen, M. P., Van Der Lans, I. A., & Huirne, R. B. (2007). Consumer preferences for pork supply

chain attributes. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 54(3), 293-312.

Moynagh, J. (2000). EU regulation and consumer demand for animal welfare. Journal of

Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics, 3(2), 107-114.

Papp, R. (2010). Virtual worlds and social networking: reaching the millennials. Journal of Technology

Research, 2(1), 1-15.

Rhoades, E., & Aue, K. (2010, February). Social agriculture: Adoption of social media by agricultural

editors and broadcasters. In Proceedings of the SAAS Agricultural Communications Section

Annual Meeting.

Rollin B. E. (1993). Animal welfare, science, and value. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,

6(2), 44-50.

Salaün, Y., & Flores, K. (2001). Information quality: meeting the needs of the consumer. International

Journal of Information Management, 21(1), 21-37.

Spoolder, H. A. M., Geudeke, M. J., Van der Peet-Schwering, C. M. C., & Soede, N. M. (2009). Group

housing of sows in early pregnancy: A review of success and risk factors. Livestock

Science, 125(1), 1-14.

Sweeney, R. (2006). Millennial behaviors and demographics. Newark: New Jersey Institute of

Technology, 12(3), 1-10.

42

Taylor, M. (2005). Generation NeXt: Today’s postmodern student—meeting, teaching, and serving. A

collection of papers on self-study and institutional improvement, 2, 99-107.

Thompson, P. B. (2001). Animal welfare and livestock production in a postindustrial milieu. Journal of

Applied Animal Welfare Science, 4(3), 191-205.

Tonsor, G. T., Olynk, N. & Wolf, C. (2009a) Consumer preference for animal welfare attributes: The case

of gestation crates. Journal of Agriculture and Applied Economics, 41(3), 713-730.

Tonsor, G. T., Wolf, C., & Olynk, N. (2009b). Consumer voting and demand behavior regarding swine

gestation crates. Food Policy, 34(6), 492-498.

Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., & Tuyttens, F. (2007). Segmentation based on consumers’

perceived importance and attitude toward farm animal welfare. International Journal of

Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 15(3), 91-107.

Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., & Tuyttens, F. (2008). Do citizens and farmers interpret

the concept of farm animal welfare differently?. Livestock Science, 116(1), 126-136.

Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude–

behavioral intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(2), 169-194.

Verbeke, W. (2005). Agriculture and the food industry in the information age. European Review of

Agricultural Economics, 32(3), 347-368.

Verbeke, W. (2009). Stakeholder, citizen and consumer interests in farm animal welfare. Animal

Welfare, 18(4), 325-333.