Dairy farmer practices and attitudes relating to pasture-based and indoor production systems in Scotland.

This study assesses the practices and views of Scottish dairy farmers relating to pasture-based and indoor systems. There are the debates about the environmental, economic and animal welfare implications of these systems. Indoor dairy farming is a contentious practice among the public. While this controversy is sometimes represented as a lack of public understanding, there is a need for more research on farmers' views to facilitate discussion in the industry. A survey was posted to 909 dairy farmers in Scotland with questions about their grazing practices and attitudes to grazing and indoor systems. 254 surveys were completed, online and in paper form. There was a 26% response rate to the paper version of the survey. The results showed that 19% of respondents housed some or all the cows all year-round. 68% agreed or strongly agreed that cows should graze for part of the year and 51% agreed or strongly agreed that welfare was better if cows grazed for part of the year. These views coexisted with the view that management was more important than the type of system for determining profitability or welfare outcomes (83% and 82% strongly agree or agree respectively). Respondents whose system involved grazing and respondents who had spent longer in farming were moderately more likely to agree that cows should have access to pasture, and slightly less likely to agree that management was more important than system for determining welfare outcomes. The results indicate that the picture is more complicated than the public rejecting indoor dairy farming and those in the industry accepting it. The results showed that a majority preference for cows to graze co-existed with the view that management was more important than system. In terms of industry and policy recommendations, the research suggests that measures should be taken to safeguard farmers' ability to graze through for instance research and advisory support on grazing; ensuring different systems are not penalised in the development of dairy sector environmental measures and recommendations; and potentially supply chains that financially rewards farmers for grazing.

Introduction

Dairy farming in industrialised countries has undergone a process of consolidation for decades with fewer, larger and more productive herds [1]. Grazing and forage feeds have decreased in importance with more non-forage feedstuffs such as concentrate and cereals used to increase yields [2]. The number of dairy farms where cattle graze and the amount of time cows spend grazing has declined in recent decades in countries in Europe, including the UK [3]. There has been public opposition to the consolidation of the dairy sector in the UK and the year-round housing of cows [4]. Research has been carried out with the public on views about indoor dairy farming in the UK [5-7], and UK industry stakeholders [8] but none with dairy farmers themselves. It is important to understand dairy farmer attitudes and practices in order to incorporate their views into debates about controversial areas within agriculture [9].

The terms ‘pasture-based’ or ‘grass-based’ system are used in this paper to refer to systems where cows graze for part of the year. These systems may involve year-round grazing but usually involve a period of housing cows in winter in temperate countries. An indoor system means that the cows are housed all year-round and do not graze. Scotland is an interesting case study to explore farmer attitudes to pasture-based and indoor systems because the Scottish dairy sector is characterised by a diversity of systems [10]. And Scotland’s dairy industry is moving towards fewer, larger herds [11]. There is a correlation between larger herds and year-round housing [12] and smaller herds can save costs by operating a grazing system [13]. Thus, questions around grazing and housing have a bearing on the future structure of the Scottish dairy industry. Findings from this research can also provide insights for other countries in the UK and countries with diverse grazing and housing practices.

Around a third of farmers in the UK use the traditional system of summer grazing and winter housing, whereas the rest are housing or feeding cows indoors for more of the year [12]. Estimates of dairy farmers housing all or some of the cows in the UK range from 16% [12] to 23% [14]. Grass is becoming less important in the production of milk in the UK: a survey with 2000 farms in the UK showed that milk yield from grazed grass had decreased between 2009 and 2019 [13]. Year-round housing allows farms to expand beyond the limits of their grazing platform, to increase yields through feeding more energy dense feed indoors and/or to have greater oversight of the health and activities of the cows [15].

There has been debate about the animal health and welfare implications of housing cows all year-round. Evidence has suggested that indoor dairy farming can result in worse health outcomes for cows including lameness and mastitis [16, 17] and cows show some preference for spending time outside when given the choice [16, 18]. A study suggested grazing was beneficial for cows’ emotional wellbeing [19], and another that cows within the same herds had better welfare when they were grazing in summer compared to being housed in winter [20]. It is claimed that year-round housing can also be detrimental for welfare because it does not allow cows to express natural grazing behaviour and can stifle social behaviours [21]. These claims are disputed within the dairy industry, with qualitative research showing key industry stakeholders claimed welfare outcomes were not predicated on the type of system, but management and facilities were more important [8].

The environmental aspects of pasture-based and indoor systems are also debated. It is claimed that systems involving a high proportion of grass in the diet have lower greenhouse gas emissions per litre of milk because of carbon sequestered in grassland [22, 23]. There have been criticisms from the media and charities that purchased feed for livestock is an inefficient use of resources and leads to environmental degradation in its location of production [24].

In defence of the environmental credentials of high-feed-input systems, others point out that intensification through more bought in feed could reduce emissions per litre of milk: as production per cow increases, greenhouse gases per litre of milk may decrease because fewer cows are needed to produce the same amount of milk, meaning a relative reduction in methane emissions [25].

A report in 2021 by the Scottish Dairy Sector Climate Change Group detailed actions to lower greenhouse gas emissions across different types of systems in the Scottish dairy sector [26]. In relation to grazing the report suggested better grass management in terms of use of cover crops, legumes, high sugar grasses and avoiding soil compaction, rather than a system change through increasing the proportion of grazed grass in the diet.

In relation to the economic aspects of systems that involve grazing or no grazing, the dominant view among key stakeholders in the UK is that economic outcomes are not determined by the type of system, but management plays a more important role [8]. A government-industry report about the future of the dairy industry from 2014 states: “Our evidence shows that system and herd size are not predictors of profitability. Any system of any size, run well, can be profitable and sustainable.” (20 p.14). Qualitative research with key stakeholders found that there was a marginal view in the UK favouring the economic benefits of systems that aim to maximise milk production from grass, because grass is the lowest cost feedstuff [8].

Research has shown that the majority of the public in the UK are opposed to indoor dairy farming. Ellis et al. (2009) found that 95% of public respondents stated that they did not think it was acceptable to keep cows inside all year-round; a YouGov poll commissioned by the non-governmental organisation World Animal Protection found that 86% of respondents agreed that cows should graze [7]; and a YouGov poll carried out by the Free Range Dairy Network found 74% of respondents were prepared to pay more in coffee shops for milk from cows that had spent time outdoors [27]. A study with UK citizens found that they ranked access to grazing, cow comfort; and health and welfare as their top priorities [5]. Within the dairy industry in the UK it is stated that public opposition may stem from a lack of understanding and familiarity with indoor dairy farming [28]. A qualitative study of the views of key stakeholders found that the dominant discourse in the mainstream UK dairy industry was that system differences did not matter for determining economic, animal welfare and environmental outcomes, but rather on-farm management was seen as key [8].

There has been research with farmers in Germany, Denmark and Canada about their attitudes towards grazing, both countries where the majority of farms house cows all year-round [29-32]. These studies found that farmers whose system involved grazing had more positive attitudes towards grazing, emphasising lower feed costs, lower labour input, improvements in cow health and fertility [30], public image [31] and suitability to the local climate and existing infrastructure, better animal welfare, easier management outdoors and a price premium based on pasture access [32]. Respondents whose system did not involve grazing had more negative attitudes towards grazing, emphasising lower yields, lower profits and difficulties in grazing a larger herd [30-32] and adverse climate conditions [32]. Another study in Germany found that older farmers had more negative attitudes towards grazing than younger farmers [29]. Research has found differences between the views of farmers and citizens on the issue of grazing or year-round housing. A qualitative study in Brazil compared the views of farmers, agricultural advisors and farmers on their ideas of an ideal dairy farm [33]. Use of pasture was part of the ideal dairy farm for the three groups, but for different reasons: for economic reasons for the farmers and advisors and animal welfare reasons for the citizens. Similarly, a survey study in Belgium found that citizens rated outdoor access and ability to express natural behaviour as more important than did farmers [34]. A study in Canada with citizens, producers, vets, animal advocates and students found a high level of support among dairy producer respondents for access to pasture, though producers only made up 8.7% of their sample [35].

Initiatives have been started in the UK to market milk based on grazing credentials, including The Pasture Fed Livestock Association and the Free Range Dairy Network [36, 37]. Several supermarkets sell liquid milk only from grass-fed cows such as Marks and Spencer, Waitrose and the Co-op, as well as a ‘Pasture Promise’ label in Asda. Qualitative research with key stakeholders in the UK dairy sector showed some reluctance to market milk based on grazing credentials because it was seen to divide the industry, promote grazing systems over indoor systems and cause confusion among consumers [8].

The future role of grazing and indoor systems in the marketing of Scottish milk is unclear. The Scottish Dairy Review: ‘Ambition 2025’ and the Dairy Action Plan sets targets for increasing milk production by 50% over 10–12 years, ensuring the resilience and profitability of the Scottish dairy industry, and establishing a distinct market identity for Scottish dairy produce [38]. A Scottish dairy brand was launched in 2015 to differentiate Scottish produce on domestic and export markets [39]. The messaging around the brand did not focus on the provenance of dairy production in terms of grazing or not grazing, rather emphasising added value processed produce, and aiming to capitalise on Scotland’s reputation for quality food production (10).

The purpose of this study is to establish up to date evidence about the types of systems farmers are operating in Scotland; to explore their reasons for choosing systems and their attitudes towards indoor and pasture-based systems, in order to inform government and industry policy. Within Scotland, given the diversity of production systems and the dominant discourse that systems differences are not the most important factor for determining outcomes [8] it was hypothesized that the majority of respondents would not endorse the view that cows should graze for part of the year. The aim of the project in addressing these research questions was achieved.

Methods

Data collection

The survey included questions about farmer demographic details, including gender, time in farming and ownership structure. Questions about production system included whether the farm was organic, number of cows, area of land, milk yield, calving practices, grazing and housing practices, number of labour units, age of buildings, whether the farm expanded production since 2015 and whether there were plans to expand in the near future. Farmers who had expanded and/or planned to expand were asked about the means of expansion. Those who operated a year-round housing system were asked to rank why they had chosen to this system. The survey is included as supporting information S1 Text.

Attitudinal questions covered attitudes to welfare, environmental and economic aspects of pasture-based and indoor systems using a Likert scale with strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree or strongly agree options. Respondents were also asked to rate their satisfaction with profitability and work life balancing using a Likert scale of very satisfied, satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, dissatisfied and very dissatisfied. There was a question ranking challenges facing the dairy sector and an open question for respondents to leave any additional comments. Ethical approval for the study was gained from the James Hutton Institute research ethics committee. The survey was pilot tested with stakeholders in the Scottish dairy sector.

Contact details for Scottish farmers were obtained from the Scottish government. A paper copy of the survey was posted to 909 dairy farms in Scotland in September 2018 with a cover letter explaining the purpose of the survey and a prepaid return envelope. There was also an online version of the survey which was disseminated on social media and the link was included in the letter posted to farmers. A donation of £2 was made to a charity supporting farmer wellbeing for every survey completed, as a gesture of goodwill for farmers who completed the survey. The paper copies of the survey were entered into the online survey platform by a data entry company.

Data analysis

Data was cleaned to by assessing continuous variables (i.e., number of cows, amount of land, milk yield and number of labour units) graphically for the presence of outliers by means of boxplots that highlighted the presence of high numbers considered to be anomalies (not consistent with the overall population) that were obvious consequences of input errors and therefore were removed. Descriptive statistical analysis of farmer demographic and attitudinal data was carried out using Stata 15.0 [40]. In order to assess whether there were underlying groups of farmers with similar demographics and attitudinal responses, cluster analysis was run using R 4.0.3 [41]. Gower distance was used to account for the different types of variables (categorical, ordinal and numerical) in the data set. Subsequently, to determine the specific factors affecting answers to attitudinal questions about pasture-based and indoor systems, ordinal regression models were fitted using Stata 15.0. Calving pattern was included as a variable in the models because it is an important aspect of the farm system with different calving patterns associated with different levels of cost, farmer workload and lifestyle, farm facilities, milk contract and farmer mindset [42], and has the potential to influence farmer opinions on the attitudinal questions.

Multicollinearity diagnostics were run to complete the selection of farmer demographic and farming system variables to include as independent variables in the models. The final candidate models were compared using AIC to ensure the response to our original hypothesis is both informative and parsimonious, and a 5% significance level was the threshold for statistically significant contributions.

Results and discussion

A total of 254 surveys were completed. There were 237 responses to the postal survey out of 909 posted to farmers (26% response rate; additional surveys were filled in online which for the target population and a 95% confidence level leads to a 5.22% margin of error in our results) and 11 surveys were returned stating that the dairy farm was no longer in business. A charitable donation of £508 was made to the Royal Scottish Agricultural Benevolent Institute. The data are available to view on the UK Data Service [43].

Descriptive statistics of demographic and farm system variables are shown in Table 1. The respondent median herd size was 160 cows. The average herd size in Scotland is currently 201 cows [11], which is similar to the mean of 206 in the sample. The sample average milk production per cow per year was very similar to the national average: 7966 litres compared to the UK average of 7825 litres [44] (when Scottish figures are not available, figures for the UK dairy industry will be used). Respondent calving pattern was similar to the UK dairy farmer population: 80% of respondents carried out year-round calving compared to 79% of the UK dairy population [42].

Table 1

Respondent descriptive statistics.

Responses (n)	Gender (%)		Time in farming (%)
	Male	Female	<10 years	10–20	20–30	>30
254	96	4	4	8	21	67
Cow numbers (n)
Median	Mean	Max	Min	IQR
160	206	1300	29	240–120
Milk yield (litres)
Median	Mean	Max	Min	IQR
8000	7966	16000	3000	9000–68000
Education (%)
GCSE equivalent	A-level equivalent	Certificate	Diploma	Degree	Postgraduate degree
23	11	20	25	19	1
Ownership structure (%)
Owner	Manager	Employee	Family	Partner	Other
92	2	<1	<1	5	<1
		Full time labour units
Organic (%)	Conventional (%)	Median	Max	Min	Interquartile range (IQR)
6	94	3	17	0.5	4–2
Land owned
(n)	Median (ha)	Max (ha)	Min (ha)	IQR (ha)
222	141	809	9	200–98
Land rented
(n)	Median (ha)	Max (ha)	Min (ha)	IQR (ha)
159	70	600	2	120–30
Total land
(n)	Median (ha)	Max (ha)	Min (ha)	IQR (ha)
247	180	1293	18	280–120
Calving pattern (%)
Year-round calving	Spring calving	Autumn calving	Spring and autumn calving
80	5	5	10
Expanded since 2015 (%)	Plan to expand in future (%)
51	33
	Means of expansion since 2015 (%)
More land	More cows	More concentrate	Different breeds	Change calving	Change grass management	Improve health/ fertility	Partnership
23	84	20	3	9	24	40	0
	Means of future expansion (%)
14	77	17	5	5	24	54	4
	Housing and grazing system (%)
Year-round grazing	Summer grazing, winter housing with minimal additional feed	Summer grazing, winter housing with additional feed	Year-round housing some lactating cows	Year-round housing all lactating cows	Year-round housing all cows (including followers)
2	38	41	4	12	3

Very few farms, 2%, grazed cows all year around. The most common housing and grazing practice was ‘summer grazing, winter housing with additional feed’ operated by 41%, followed by ‘summer grazing, winter housing with minimal additional feed’, operated by 38% of farms. 51% of farms had expanded since 2015 and 33% planned to expand in the near future. This accords with the trend in Scotland of a continuing increase in farm size [45]. By far the most commonly reported route to past and future expansion was increasing cow numbers (84% for past expansion, 77% for future expansion), followed by improving and health and/or fertility (40% for past expansion, 54% for future expansion).

Of the respondents, 19% housed some or all of the cows for all of the year. This figure is similar to previous studies for the UK, which showed 16% [12] and 23% [14] housed all or some of the cows all year round. Farmers who housed some or all of the cows all year-round were asked to rank the first, second and third reasons for doing so (Fig 1). ‘Increasing production through feeding higher energy density feed’ was the highest ranked reason, followed by ‘because it was possible through the purchase of a robotic milking system’, and ‘too far for the cows to walk to the parlour’.

Fig 1

Reasons for housing cows all year-round.

Logistics, including the distance cows have to walk from the parlour to the field, is cited in the literature as an important reason for why farmers move production indoors [15]. Research has also shown that being a high producing farmer is part of what it means to be a ‘good farmer’–it bestows status in the farming community and is taken as a demonstration of skill [46]. Further research could explore the specific reasons for pursuing production increases through an indoor system: for instance, was increasing production seen as a matter of survival, a strategy to increase profits, a challenge, or a preference for a modern and progressive system?

The survey was conducted in 2018 when poor spring weather and a drought in summer put strain on dairy farmers and led them to feed more concentrate [47]. Thus, the number who fed additional feed may have been higher than if the survey was conducted in another year. The categories of grazing with minimal or additional concentrate feed may have been interpreted by farmers differently. This classification method was used in order to allow farmers to classify their own system and to make the survey easier to fill out rather than asking farmers to provide data of concentrate use per cow per year which they might not have had ready access to while filling in the survey. In addition, farmers change concentrate feeding year on year based on weather and milk prices, so asking for concentrate use in one year may not be useful measure [48].

A summary of the responses to attitudinal questions on different production systems is shown in Fig 2. Respondents were asked to indicate how much they agreed with the statement ‘Cows should have access to pasture for at least part of the year’ and 68% agreed (strongly 43% and agreed 25%). Respondents were asked to respond to the statement ‘Animal welfare is better if cows have access to pasture for part of the year’ and 51% agreed (strongly 31% and agreed 20%). Few respondents saw animal welfare as better on indoor systems: 15% agreed (4% strongly agree, 11% agree). Most respondents endorsed the statement ‘The farmer’s stock keeping skills are more important than the type of system (indoor or pasture-based) for animal welfare’: 82% (strongly agree 47% and agree 35%). Few respondents endorsed the statement ‘Indoor dairy farms are better for the environment compared to a pasture-based system’: 15% agreed (9% strongly agree, 6% agree).

Fig 2

Attitudes towards production systems.

The figure of 68% of respondents who strongly agreed or agreed that cows should have access to pasture was lower than surveys with the public [6, 7, 27]. The endorsement of access to pasture among respondents was nevertheless surprisingly high given the dominant discourse in the UK industry that it does not matter if cows graze or not, but economic, environmental and animal welfare outcomes depend on management rather than system [8]. This view that management is more important than system for welfare outcomes was strongly endorsed by respondents. However, this emphasis on the importance of management did co-exist with the majority view that cows should have access to pasture, and half of respondents agreed welfare was better in a grazing system. In the past, the question of public opposition to year-round housing of dairy cows has been framed as the industry accepting indoor dairy farming and the practice being rejected by the public because of a deficit in information [28]. The results from this study suggest that the picture is more complicated. Previous surveys on farmer’s attitudes towards grazing in Germany and Denmark focused on the advantages and disadvantages of grazing and did not ask a normative question about whether cows should graze [29-31]. Studies which compared the views of farmers and citizens found that citizens cared more about cows grazing than did farmers [33-35]. The results of this study are therefore novel in showing that the majority of farmer respondents agreed cows should graze and over half agreed welfare was better if cows graze.

Agricultural organisations and policy makers should take into account that grazing is important to a large proportion of Scottish farmers. This could be done through measures to safeguard farmers’ ability to graze through research and advice about grazing in the face of the climate crisis which will make grazing more challenging [3]. Ensuring that environmental assessments of dairy farmers are not calculated in such a way that they penalise farmers who graze [26]. And safeguarding farmers’ ability to keep grazing in the face of ongoing restructuring where smaller farms may leave the industry and remaining farms tend to get bigger. This could be done through for instance supply chains which market grazed milk and pay farmers a premium for grazing. There are concerns within the dairy industry in the UK that the marketing of dairy produce based on access to pasture will divide the sector and lead to the further vilification of indoor farming among the public [8]. The results in this survey suggest that there are differences of opinion in the dairy sector in Scotland, indicating that valued based discussion addressing indoor and pasture-based systems could serve to ameliorate rather than exacerbate tensions [49]. Given that more respondents agreed cows should have access to pasture than agreed that animal welfare was better if cows had access to pasture, this suggests that the farmers’ views go beyond animal welfare concerns. Other values could be at play including the importance of tradition, landscape, agricultural heritage, aesthetics and connection to the natural world.

The variables selected for the cluster analysis were those that were directly relevant to the research question and had a small number of missing values, including: time in farming, educational level, ownership, number of cows, total land operated, yield (l), number of labour units, calving pattern, grazing system, attitudinal questions about grazing; welfare in a grazing system; welfare in an indoor system; welfare outcomes being independent of system; and the environmental sustainability of an indoor system. Results from the cluster analysis showed two main clusters of farmers (cluster 1 with 164 farms, and cluster 2 with 89 farms) which were significantly different in terms of their time in farming (p<0.001), their education levels (p<0.001) and their views on whether welfare was better if cows graze (p-value = 0.029) and whether welfare outcomes depend more on management than a grazing or indoor system (p-value = 0.021). Farmers in cluster 2 had spent more time in farming, they reached lower education levels, and they were moderately more likely to agree or strongly agree that welfare was better if cows had access to pasture, and slightly less more to disagree or strongly disagree that management was more important than system for determining welfare outcomes (see Table 2 for percentages in each of the response categories for those variables with statistically significant differences between the two clusters). Farmers who had spent longer in farming are more likely to be older farmers, who may be more in favour of a ‘traditional’ practice such as grazing. This is not consistent with findings from Germany where older farmers were less likely to have a positive attitude towards grazing [29].

Table 2

Pasture and system welfare responses according to cluster membership (%*).

Education (%)	GCSE equivalent	A-level equivalent	Certificate	Diploma	Degree	Postgraduate degree
Cluster 1	2.0	6.5	26.0	35.7	27.9	1.9
Cluster 2	68.6	22.9	7.1	1.4	0.0	0.0
Time in farming (%)	<10 years	10–20	20–30	>30
Cluster 1	6.7	11.6	27.4	54.3
Cluster 2	0.0	1.1	7.9	91.0
Pasture welfare (%)	Strongly agree	Agree	NA/ND	Disagree	Strongly disagree
Cluster 1	27.16	19.14	29.63	14.20	9.88
Cluster 2	38.64	21.59	22.73	11.36	5.68
System welfare (%)	Strongly agree	Agree	NA/ND	Disagree	Strongly disagree
Cluster 1	53.09	30.86	9.88	4.32	1.85
Cluster 2	36.78	41.38	13.79	5.75	2.30

*Percentages might not add up to 100% due to rounding.

A model was fitted to assess which factors have an effect on responses to the statement ‘Cows should have access to pasture for at least part of the year’ (Table 3). Respondents who operate a system involving grazing, as opposed to an indoor system, and respondents who had spent longer in farming were significantly more likely to agree, and respondents with higher yields were significantly more likely to disagree. This accords with finding with German [30], Danish [31] and Canadian [32] farmers, that people whose system involved grazing were more likely to have more positive attitudes towards grazing. The result of the model that farmers who have spent longer in farming are more likely to agree that cows should have access to pasture accords with the findings of the cluster analysis.

Table 3

‘Cows should have access to pasture for at least part of the year’–ordinal model summary results.

	Estimate (SE)	z value	Pr(>|z|)	95% Confidence interval
Calving (Year-round contrast)
Spring calving	-0.523 (0.797)	-0.66	0.512	-2.0850, 1.039
Autumn calving	1.180 (0.704)	1.68	0.094	-0.198, 2.560
Spring & autumn calving	-0.208 (0.492)	- 0.42	0.673	-1.174, 0.758
Calving ‘other’	13.792 (928.829)	0.01	0.988	-1806.679, 1834.264
Grazing (System involves grazing contrast)
Indoor system	1.557 (- 0.451)	-3.45	0.001	-2.441, -0.673
Yield (l)	<0.000 (<0.000)	-3.30	0.000	-0.001, 0.000
Cows	-<0. 000 (<0.000)	-0.16	0.871	-0.001, 0.002
Time farming	-0.479 (0.166)	2.89	0.004	0.154, 0.805
Education	-0.026 (0.099)	-0.26	0.791	-0.219, 0.167
Goodness of fit
Deviance (df = 190)				517.752
AIC				474.680

One third of the farmers (32%) agreed with the statement that it was easier to turn a profit on a pasture-based compared to an indoor farm (strongly 6% and agreed 26%) while 10% agreed (strongly 1% and agreed 9%) that it was easier to turn a profit on an indoor system. The majority of respondents endorsed the view that profitability was more about management than system type, 83% agreed (strongly agreed 36% and agreed 47%) with the statement ’Neither system is more profitable, but profitability depends on management’. As described in the introduction, there is a marginal view in the UK industry that grass-based systems are lower cost and easier to manage than higher feed input and indoor systems [8], which was echoed by the 32% of respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that it’s easier to turn a profit on a pasture based farm. But respondents overwhelmingly agreed that management was more important than systems differences, echoing the mainstream view from the industry [8].

A model was fitted to assess which factors have an effect in the responses to the statement ‘It’s easier to turn a profit on a pasture-based farm than an indoor farm’ (Table 4). Farmers who operated a system involving grazing were significantly more likely to strongly agree or agree with the statement. This accords with research that farmers are more likely to endorse the benefits of the system they operate [29-32].

Table 4

‘It’s easier to turn a profit on a pasture-based farm than an indoor farm’–ordinal model summary results.

	Estimate (SE)	z value	Pr(>|z|)	95% Confidence interval
Calving (Year-round contrast)
Spring calving	0.001 (0.751)	-0.25	0.804	-1.659, 1.285
Autumn calving	-0.087 (0.571)	-0.15	0.878	-1.206, 1.031
Spring & autumn calving	0.968 (0.492)	2.01	0.044	0.025, 1.911
Calving ‘other’	1.662 (1.631)	-1.02	0.308	-1.534, 4.858
Grazing (System involves grazing contrast)
Indoor system	-1.194 (0.440)	-2.72	0.007	-2.056, -0.332
Yield (l)	-<0. 000 (<0.000)	-0.15	0.882	<0.000, <0.000
Cows	-<0. 000 (<0.000)	-1.00	0.315	-0.001, 0.001
Time farming	0.139 (0.167)	0.83	0.407	-0.189, 0.467
Education	0.071 (0.095)	0.75	0.456	-0.115, 0.257
Goodness of fit
Deviance (df = 192)				572.105
AIC				528.906

Over half of respondents were either very satisfied (5%) or satisfied (47%) with how profitable their dairy farm is (Fig 3). Profitability is an issue in the Scottish dairy sector: a report by the Dairy Sector Climate Change Group states that in 2018–2019 only around 50% of Scottish dairy farms were profitable without subsidy, and with subsidy around 60% of farms were profitable, meaning the remaining 40% did not return a profit even with subsidy payment [26]. More than a third of respondents were either very satisfied (2%) or satisfied (33%) with their work life balance. More respondents were dissatisfied than satisfied (29% dissatisfied and 10% very dissatisfied) with their work life balance. This accords with findings that farmers in Scotland, and particularly livestock farmers, work longer hours than the average worker [50].

Fig 3

Satisfaction with profitability and work life balance.

Models were fitted to assess which factors have an effect on satisfaction with profits and work life balance (Table 5). None of the factors were found to have a statistically significant effect on satisfaction with profit at 5% significance level. Respondents who operated an autumn and spring calving system were significantly more likely to be satisfied with work life balance. The levy body the Agricultural and Horticulture Board Dairy have outlined the lifestyle benefits of block calving [42], which may be borne out by these results.

Table 5

Satisfaction with profit (left) and with work life (right)–ordinal model summary results.

	Satisfaction with profit				Satisfaction with work life
	Estimate (SE)	z value	Pr(>|z|)	95% Confident interval	Estimate (SE)	z value	Pr(>|z|)	95% Confidence interval
Grazing (System involves grazing contrast)
Indoor system	0.096 (0.415)	0.23	0.818	0.909, 0.718	0.579 (0.425)	1.36	0.172	-1.411, 0.259
Calving (Year-round contrast)
Spring calving	0.356 (0.697)	0.51	0.610	1.722, -1.010	-0.086 (0.695)	-0.12	0.902	-1.447, 1.276
Autumn calving	0.036 (0.549)	0.07	0.947	1.108, -1.035	0.116 (0.561)	0.21	0.836	–-0.98, 1.215
Spring & autumn calving	0.889 (0.524)	1.69	0.090	1.916, -0.139	1.568 (0.514)	3.05	0.002	–0.560, 2.576
Calving ‘other’	-1.432 (1.617)	-0.89	0.376	1.738, -4.602	-15.138 (664.531)	-0.02	0.982	-1317.597, 1287.321
Yield (l)	0.000 (0.000)	1.32	0.186	<0.000, <-0.000	0.000 (0.000)	1.45	0.147	<-0.001, <0.001
Cows	0.001 (0.001)	0.56	0.576	0.003, -0.002	0.002 (0.001)	1.70	0.089	0.0035, <-0.001
Time farming	0.014 (0.163)	0.09	0.931	0.333, -0.305	0.152 (0.151)	-1.01	0.313	-0.449, 0.144
Education	0.010 (0.094)	1.07	0.287	0.284, -0.084	-0.067 (0.092)	-0.73	0.466	-0.247, 0.113
Goodness of fit					Goodness of fit
Deviance (df = 191 | 191)				603.421				604.251
AIC				560.285				561.116

Overall, there is a significant moderate positive correlation (r = 0.5351 p<0.001) between satisfaction with profitability and work-life balance. This may be because more profitable farms also involved a better work life balance for the respondent. Or because it’s a self-reporting measure it may be a reflection of the respondents’ perspective: those who were more satisfied with profits were also more satisfied with work life balance.

Respondents were asked about the biggest challenge facing dairy farmers (Fig 4). The most commonly first ranked challenge was low milk prices (48%). The second most common challenge ranked first was high costs (17%). High costs were the most commonly ranked second biggest challenge (41%) followed by low milk prices (17%). Concerns about costs and prices echo media and industry discourse: the National Farmers Union of Scotland released a briefing stating that processors had an unequal amount of power in the dairy supply chain and risks and rewards were unfairly distributed [51]. The Scottish Government commissioned a report on dairy contracts in Scotland and recommended measures to increase farmer representation power and reduce the volatility of milk prices [52].

Fig 4

Ranking of challenges facing dairy farmers.

Conclusion

This paper assessed the views and practices of Scottish dairy farmers relating to grazing and indoor systems. Over two thirds of respondents agreed cows should graze for part of the year and over half agreed welfare was better if cows grazed. These views co-existed with views that profitability and animal welfare were more dependent on stock keeping and management than the type of system. The endorsement of grazing is nevertheless surprisingly high given previous research showed that UK dairy industry stakeholders maintained that differentiating between dairy systems based on whether they grazed or not was not helpful.

The results showed that respondents whose system involved grazing and respondents who had spent longer in farming were more likely to believe that cows should have access to pasture, and less likely to agree that management was more important than the system for determining animal welfare outcomes. This suggests that respondents were more likely to endorse a system that they operate and are more familiar with.

In terms of industry and policy recommendations, the research suggests that measures should be taken to safeguard farmers’ ability to graze through for instance research and advisory support on grazing; ensuring different systems are not penalised in the development of dairy sector environmental measures and recommendations; and potentially supply chains that financially rewards farmers for grazing.

Survey posted to Scottish dairy farmers.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

30 Apr 2021

Submitted filename: Reviewer comments PlosOne.docx

Click here for additional data file.

27 Sep 2021

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Luis Alonso Villalobos

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Dr Orla Shortall

We have received the comments from the reviewers and because the document needs to be improved is that I am suggesting a major revision. Besides the comments of the reviewers (shown below in this email), I am also giving some suggestions and edits from myself. Overall, the manuscript provides information that can be of potential use for the Scottish Dairy Sector, however, the importance of your findings needs to be addressed in the document and, especially, in the conclusions.

My comments are:

L45: period of housing cows in winter for temperate countries. An indoor...

L54: ....cows indoor for most of the year

L61: The current debate about the animal...

L62:...round, is explained by evidence suggesting that indoor dairy farming....

L86-91: very long sentence.

L140: ....why they had chosen this system.

L182: ....were asked the first, second and third reasons for moving production indoors all-year round (Fig. 1)

L185:...acquiring more land. (delete the rest of the sentence)

L191-193: wording

L194-201: this should be above the text about Fig. 1

L198: .....in farm size (40). The most commonly...

L199: ...and future expansion was by far increasing cow ...

L204-205: in what sense what this interpreted differently by farmers?

L213: ...and 68% agreed (strongly 43% and agreed 25%)

L215:...and 51% agreed (strongly 31% and agreed 20%)

L218:... 82% (strongly agree 47% and agree 35%)

L236: Scotland, indicating that valued based....

L242-250: very long sentence

L250: .....or indoor system (p-value=0.021). Farmers in cluster 2 had spent...

L260:.....at least part of the year (Table3). Respondents

L270-274: One third of the farmers (32%) agreed to the statement that it was easier to turn a profit on a pasture-based compared to an indoor farm (strongly 6% and agreed 26%) while 10% agreed (strongly 1% and agreed 9%) that it was easier to turn a profit on an indoor system. The majority of the respondents endorsed the view that profitability was more about management than system type (strongly agreed 36% and agreed 47%) with the statement 'Neither system is more profitable but profitability depends on management'.

L276: As it was described...

L276-277: data cited are not shown

L281: ...than an indoor farm' (Table 4). Farmers....

L288: At least half of respondents were either...

L289: ...farm is (Fig. 3). More than one third of respondents were either....

L292:...than the average worker (44). Delete the following sentence.

L295: ...balance (Table 5). None of the ...

L298: avoid the use of acronyms

L302:....This may be a reflection of the farm that more profitable....

L306: Respondents were asked to rank the biggest challenge facing dairy farmers (Fig 4). The most commonly...

L306-309: This part should be further discussed as both factors coincide as the main concerns of farmers.

Conclusions: Conclusions should not include references. Also, the conclusions should be more concise and be summarized so as not to repeat the same aspects that the discussion.

L316-321: both sentences were mentioned earlier

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 5 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper addresses a current topic with a keen approach. The issue that is questioning livestock in the most acute way, its carbon footprint, is only slightly addressed; however, I have no doubt that these results will become one of the guidelines for a very up-to-date discussion in many countries. Other comments are included in the attached file.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript is based on collecting responses from dairy farmers on their practices and attitudes relating to type of dairy production systems. The paper is well-written. Here are my comments and suggestions:

My concern with this study is the representatives of the data generated. Since the response rate was only 26%, how can this represent every kind of farmer?

The introduction is well written, and authors come directly to the point about the necessity to have farmers opinion about grazing vs indoor dairy production systems. I would also like to see what authors would like to achieve with the responses observed in this study. In other words, why is this study important?

Conclusion should state the implications of the findings of this study. Getting producer responses is great but what is the use of this? To further discussion? Policy changes? This will also show the impact these kind of studies have in changing

public perception.

L170-171: Why do we have line about charitable donation? Are we missing the context?

L181-182: When citing UK references, please specify if similar questions were asked in UK survey. Does 16 and 23 % year-round housing meant it included both “All cows” and “some cows” in the options?

L185: Please explain what Rank 1, 2, and 3 meant since all the ranks include similar explanations. It will be easier if explained in the manuscript.

L193: With the existing data available, can authors speculate why Scottish dairy farmers are pushing for production increases through an indoor system?

L197: Aren’t factors including more concentrate, different breeds are included in more cows? How are they different?

L194: is there a reason some values are presented in percent while others (means of expansion) are presented as just simple numbers since percent values are discussed in the manuscript (L199).

L220: The impact of dairy production systems on environment needs background information on greenhouse gas emissions, soil C sequestration, etc. I am not sure getting responses without sharing the context serves the purpose. What are the implications of these responses when some farmers may not have enough knowledge on how to estimate environmental footprint?

L242: How are these clusters different? Like which cluster had higher education level, number of cows etc. I didn’t see this data in the table. It will be good for readers to compare the observations in Table 2 with Cluster characteristics.

L263: Indoor system was also significant in this table. It goes well with yield. Please discuss this variable as well.

L271: Please rephrase these lines because it shows that 32% and 10% strongly agreed not 6 and 1%.

L280: How does calving time influence whether or not farmers agree on profits from pasture-based farm. Please explain the rationale of this question in the survey.

Conclusion:

L212-214: This is not in agreement with the study objectives. While the general impression shared here is from public, this study is focused more on producer responses. More appropriate way would be to share views from previous producer surveys.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Comments to the Authors.docx

Click here for additional data file.

27 Oct 2021

Dear Dr Orla Shortall

We have received the comments from the reviewers and because the document needs to be improved is that I am suggesting a major revision. Besides the comments of the reviewers (shown below in this email), I am also giving some suggestions and edits from myself. Overall, the manuscript provides information that can be of potential use for the Scottish Dairy Sector, however, the importance of your findings needs to be addressed in the document and, especially, in the conclusions.

Thank you for this point. We highlighted the importance of the study further in the results/discussion and the conclusion.

My comments are:

L45: period of housing cows in winter for temperate countries. An indoor...

Added.

L54: ....cows indoor for most of the year

We haven’t changed ‘more’ to most’ as suggested, because ‘most’ suggests more than half of the year, which isn’t indicated in the paper referenced.

L61: The current debate about the animal...

L62:...round, is explained by evidence suggesting that indoor dairy farming....

We haven’t changed this sentence because we don’t think that the debate is explained by these papers. Debate suggests two sides and we wanted to show the reader that some sections of the industry contest the scientific evidence.

L86-91: very long sentence.

We shortened the sentence. There is still a long sentence there, but it is a list of findings with semi-colons separating them, so we think it is readable.

L140: ....why they had chosen this system.

Changed.

L182: ....were asked the first, second and third reasons for moving production indoors all-year round (Fig. 1)

Changed.

L185:...acquiring more land. (delete the rest of the sentence)

Changed.

L191-193: wording

Wording was changed.

L194-201: this should be above the text about Fig. 1

Text was moved.

L198: .....in farm size (40). The most commonly...

Changed.

L199: ...and future expansion was by far increasing cow ...

We would like to keep the current wording as we feel it reads better. Putting ‘by far’ just in front of ‘increasing cow numbers’ might read as if the ‘by far’ is part of the ‘increasing cow numbers’ clause, and it might take the reader a moment to digest the intended meaning.

L204-205: in what sense what this interpreted differently by farmers?

Farmers might have interpreted the amount of concentrate that is ‘minimal’ or ‘additional’ differently.

L213: ...and 68% agreed (strongly 43% and agreed 25%)

Changed.

L215:...and 51% agreed (strongly 31% and agreed 20%)

Changed.

L218:... 82% (strongly agree 47% and agree 35%)

Changed.

L236: Scotland, indicating that valued based....

Changed.

L242-250: very long sentence

Sentence was broken into two.

L250: .....or indoor system (p-value=0.021). Farmers in cluster 2 had spent...

Changed.

L260:.....at least part of the year (Table3). Respondents

Changed.

L270-274: One third of the farmers (32%) agreed to the statement that it was easier to turn a profit on a pasture-based compared to an indoor farm (strongly 6% and agreed 26%) while 10% agreed (strongly 1% and agreed 9%) that it was easier to turn a profit on an indoor system. The majority of the respondents endorsed the view that profitability was more about management than system type (strongly agreed 36% and agreed 47%) with the statement 'Neither system is more profitable but profitability depends on management'.

Changed.

L276: As it was described...

We’d prefer to keep this wording as it is. We think that ‘As described in the introduction’ is acceptable English.

L276-277: data cited are not shown

This refers to data cited in the paragraph above. This was clarified.

L281: ...than an indoor farm' (Table 4). Farmers....

Changed.

L288: At least half of respondents were either...

Changed.

L289: ...farm is (Fig. 3). More than one third of respondents were either....

Changed.

L292:...than the average worker (44). Delete the following sentence.

Changed.

L295: ...balance (Table 5). None of the ...

Changed.

L298: avoid the use of acronyms

Changed.

L302:....This may be a reflection of the farm that more profitable....

Changed.

L306: Respondents were asked to rank the biggest challenge facing dairy farmers (Fig 4). The most commonly...

Changed.

L306-309: This part should be further discussed as both factors coincide as the main concerns of farmers.

Costs and prices were discussed further.

Conclusions: Conclusions should not include references. Also, the conclusions should be more concise and be summarized so as not to repeat the same aspects that the discussion.

L316-321: both sentences were mentioned earlier

We shortened the conclusion and took out references. We also included policy and industry recommendations. There is a degree of repetition with the discussion, but we consider the function of the conclusion to communicate to the reader the key take home messages.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

We checked PLOS ONE’s style requirements.

2. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 5 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

A reference was put in the text to Table 5.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

A caption for the supporting information file was included at the end of the manuscript and the in-text citation was updated.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

The survey data was accepted by the UK Data Service so a reference was included for the data.

________________________________________

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper addresses a current topic with a keen approach. The issue that is questioning livestock in the most acute way, its carbon footprint, is only slightly addressed; however, I have no doubt that these results will become one of the guidelines for a very up-to-date discussion in many countries. Other comments are included in the attached file.

Comments to “Dairy farmer practices and attitudes relating to pasture-based, high- input and indoor production systems in the UK and Ireland”.

This paper addresses a current topic with a keen approach. The issue that is questioning livestock in the most acute way, its carbon footprint, is only slightly addressed; however, I have no doubt that these results will become one of the guidelines for a very up-to-date discussion in many countries.

Line 18: and many others following below; lack of consistency, in some lines “year round” is used and in others “year-round”.

Thank you, all instances were changed to “year-round”.

Line 30: should be “Scotland,”

The space after the comma was removed.

Lines 57 to 63: this contradiction should not be left unsolved (lines 57 -60) “Year-round housing allows farms to … have greater control over the health … the cows; and (line 62) “Evidence has suggested that indoor dairy farming can result in worse health outcomes for cows”.

We see your point that this could be seen as a contradiction. Though we think claims to greater control over health through more human interventions in the cows’ health don’t necessarily contradict claims that year-round housing can cause more health problems compared to grazing. But to simplify we’ve changed the wording to ‘oversight of the health and activities of the cows.’

Lines 64 and 65: “cows’ emotional wellbeing” is more accurate than “cows’ subjective wellbeing”.

Changed.

Lines 67 and 68: “many call for more up to date research and greater understanding of the implications of year-round housing for animal health and welfare” Leaving this assessment unchallenged apparently ignores findings in the last few years based on solid research demonstrating the benefits to animal welfare from the access to pasture (e.g. Arnott G., Ferris C. P. &O’Connell N. E. (2017). Review: welfare of dairy cows in continuously housed and pasture-based production systems. Animal (2017), 11, 2: 261–273 doi:10.1017/S1751731116001336. Burow E., Rousing T., Thomsen P. T., Otten N. D. & Sørensen J. T. (2013). Effect of grazing on the cow welfare of dairy herds evaluated by a multidimensional welfare index. Animal 7:5, pp 834–842 doi:10.1017/S1751731112002297 Mee J. F. & Boyle L. A. (2020). Assessing whether dairy cow welfare is “better” in pasture-based than in confinement-based management systems. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 68,3: 168-177.)

That’s a fair point, ending the paragraph on that sentence could be misleading. We’ve changed it to a reference to a qualitative study with key industry stakeholders where they denied the existence of welfare differences between systems. The point isn’t to put the research and industry claims on equal footing, but to show the reader the parameters of the debate. Thank you for the Burow et al. and Mee and Boyle reference which we have included.

Lines 74 to 77: greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural and transport systems involved in making feedstuffs available to housed cattle should not be excluded from such estimates, which otherwise are biased.

We don’t want to get too bogged down in arbitrating on the different arguments made. The point of including them is not to highlight to the reader which is true of false, but to show the parameters of the debate in academia and the industry more widely. The Gerber et al. study referenced did include the production and transportation of feed in the life cycle analysis.

Line 156-157: I appraise that the answer of the authors given to Reviewer #2 on this issue is uncomplete, since there are well accepted methods used to remove outliers.

The continuous variables in our data sets (number of cows, amount of land, milk yield and number of labour units) were assessed for the presence of outliers graphically through the use of boxplots that highlighted the presence of anomously high numbers (not consistent with the overall population) that were obvious consequences of input errors. A small number of errors were removed: maximum 6 per variable.

Line 289: “farm is. 35% of” should be “farm is; 35% of”

This was already changed in line with the editor’s suggestion.

Line 328: “they are operate” should be “they operate”.

Changed.

Line 362: should be “Gonzalez-Mejia”

Changed.

Line 430: should be “in biophysical”; should be of spring.

Changed.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript is based on collecting responses from dairy farmers on their practices and attitudes relating to type of dairy production systems. The paper is well-written. Here are my comments and suggestions:

My concern with this study is the representatives of the data generated. Since the response rate was only 26%, how can this represent every kind of farmer?

When designing our survey’s sampling strategy on the basis of the size of our target population (909 as provided by the Scottish government) we aimed to achieve a realistic margin of error between 5% and 6% at a 95% confidence level, and we are satisfied with the achieved 5.22%. These figures were included in the results section. The response rate of 26% is consistent with the typical response rates of 20% to 30% reported in the survey literature (Yammarino et al, 1991) and with the fact that response rates to mail-based surveys have been reported to be declining in recent decades, and survey response rates for farmers have been acknowledged to be low overall (Glas et al, 2019, Pennings et al, 2002). Declining response rates have been reported by UK government agencies too (e.g., by the Wales Government in their Survey of Agriculture and Horticulture: https://gov.wales/june-survey-agriculture-and-horticulture-quality-report-html).

We are also confident the sample demographics reflect well those of the general Scottish farming population as shown by our descriptive statistics of the sample in the second paragraph of the results and discussion section.

References:

Joost M. E. Pennings, Scott H. Irwin and Darrel L. Good. (2002) Surveying Farmers: A Case Study. Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 266-277.

Yammarino, F.J., Skinner, S.J. and Childers, T.L. (1991). Understanding Mail Survey Response Behavior: a Meta Analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly 55, 613-639.

Glas, Z.E., Getson, J.M., Gao, Y., Singh, A.S., Eanes, F.R., Esman, L.A., Bulla, B.R.,

and Prokopy, L.S. (2019). Effect of Monetary Incentives on Mail Survey Response Rates for Midwestern Farmers. Society & Natural Resources, Volume 32, pp. 229-237.

The introduction is well written, and authors come directly to the point about the necessity to have farmers opinion about grazing vs indoor dairy production systems. I would also like to see what authors would like to achieve with the responses observed in this study. In other words, why is this study important?

Conclusion should state the implications of the findings of this study. Getting producer responses is great but what is the use of this? To further discussion? Policy changes? This will also show the impact these kind of studies have in changing public perception.

We recognise that more discussion of the importance of the study was needed. To this end policy and industry recommendations were included in the discussion, conclusion and abstract.

L170-171: Why do we have line about charitable donation? Are we missing the context?

The charitable donation was a gesture of goodwill for people giving up their time to complete the survey, and an incentive to do so. This information was included.

L181-182: When citing UK references, please specify if similar questions were asked in UK survey. Does 16 and 23 % year-round housing meant it included both “All cows” and “some cows” in the options?

Thanks, that’s a good point, I indicated that the percentages from other studies are of all or some of the cows.

L185: Please explain what Rank 1, 2, and 3 meant since all the ranks include similar explanations. It will be easier if explained in the manuscript.

The wording used in the question was included in the text to make the differences clearer.

L193: With the existing data available, can authors speculate why Scottish dairy farmers are pushing for production increases through an indoor system?

I don’t think we can speculate with the existing data. Increasing production is multifaceted because it includes economic, cultural and logistical factors. This type of question is more suited to qualitative research.

L197: Aren’t factors including more concentrate, different breeds are included in more cows? How are they different?

We think they are separate because farmers could feed more concentrate to increase yields from their existing cows. They could also change to a different breeding strategy to for instance include more high yielding Holstein genetics without increasing the herd size.

L194: is there a reason some values are presented in percent while others (means of expansion) are presented as just simple numbers since percent values are discussed in the manuscript (L199).

I assume that refers to Table 1. That was a mistake, thanks for spotting it, % was included in the row on means of expansion.

L220: The impact of dairy production systems on environment needs background information on greenhouse gas emissions, soil C sequestration, etc. I am not sure getting responses without sharing the context serves the purpose. What are the implications of these responses when some farmers may not have enough knowledge on how to estimate environmental footprint?

This question was to assess farmers’ beliefs rather than their knowledge. Looking back, it would’ve been better to include environmental questions about grazing systems and the same question that environmental impact was more dependent on management than system, as was done for economics and animal welfare. We didn’t do this in order to reduce the length of the survey, because the shorter it is the more likely people are to finish filling it out. I (the main author) come from a school of social sciences that maintains views about scientific questions (and indeed the production of science itself), aren’t just informed by empirical knowledge but by cultural and social factors, identity and networks, among other things. So in that respect we see the question about the environment as no different from questions about animal welfare and economics: they can be assessed through different empirical means, but we were interested in the farmers’ views rather than their knowledge. We think that the environmental impacts of dairy farming are currently widely debated and while farmers will have different levels of knowledge, this doesn’t preclude them from having opinions, as is the case for their views on economics and animal welfare. If they didn’t have a definite opinion they could answer ‘neither agree nor disagree’.

L242: How are these clusters different? Like which cluster had higher education level, number of cows etc. I didn’t see this data in the table. It will be good for readers to compare the observations in Table 2 with Cluster characteristics.

We have added frequencies to the table for the responses to education level and time in farming, which were the other variables on which the clusters significantly differed. We have not reported summaries for those variables included in the cluster analysis for which there were not statistical differences amongst clusters and therefore did not add relevant information. We have tried to make this clearer in the text too.

L263: Indoor system was also significant in this table. It goes well with yield. Please discuss this variable as well.

The significance of indoor systems was noted in the statement “Respondents who operate a system involving grazing”. It was specified in the text “as opposed to an indoor system”. This variable was discussed in relation to the findings of the studies by Becker et al. and Kristensen et al.

L271: Please rephrase these lines because it shows that 32% and 10% strongly agreed not 6 and 1%.

This was rephrased in line with the editor’s suggestion.

L280: How does calving time influence whether or not farmers agree on profits from pasture-based farm. Please explain the rationale of this question in the survey.

I didn’t quite understand this point. Did you mean justifying the inclusion of the calving variable in the models? We consider calving pattern as an important element of the farm system. We explained why in the methods section under ‘data analysis’. (Qualitative interviews carried out after the survey confirmed the importance of calving pattern. People operating a spring calving pattern saw themselves as in a different ‘camp’ with different beliefs and networks compared to all year round calvers. We haven’t published from this work yet so can’t include that.)

Conclusion:

L212-214: This is not in agreement with the study objectives. While the general impression shared here is from public, this study is focused more on producer responses. More appropriate way would be to share views from previous producer surveys.

We changed the conclusion to make it shorter and better highlight the importance of the study and these lines were removed.

Submitted filename: Reply to reviewers comments.docx

Click here for additional data file.

21 Dec 2021

Dairy farmer practices and attitudes relating to pasture-based and indoor production systems in Scotland

PONE-D-21-13820R1

Dear Dr. Shortall,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Luis Alonso Villalobos

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear author

We appreciate the timely manner in which you sent the revised version. The reviewers have recommended that your manuscript fulfills the criteria of PLOS ONE and it can be published. The reviewers acknowledged that you incorporated their suggestions and comments in the revised version of the manuscript.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: You have addressed properly my comments and those issued by Reviewer Number 2 and the Editor, hence I consider that you have made the manuscript acceptable for publication.

Reviewer #2: I appreciate authors addressing all of my comments. This paper has good information and will be very useful for readers.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

25 Jan 2022

PONE-D-21-13820R1

Dairy farmer practices and attitudes relating to pasture-based and indoor production systems in Scotland

Dear Dr. Shortall:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Luis Alonso Villalobos

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE