Animal 19 (2025) 101380 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Animal The international journal of animal biosciences Public acceptance of microbiome management strategy in dairy calves: a European survey on colostrum, probiotic provision and prolonged cow- calf contact ⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail address: amer.ait-sidhoum@luke.fi (A. Ait Sidhoum). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2024.101380 1751-7311/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Animal Consortium. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). A. Ait Sidhoum a,⇑, a Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Business Economics, Latokartanonkaari 9, FI-00790, Helsinki, Finland A. Stygar a , F. Bedoin b , b Institut de l’élevage, France J.K. Niemi a a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Received 21 December 2023 Revised 13 November 2024 Accepted 15 November 2024 Available online 28 November 2024 Keywords: Animal health Beneficial bacteria Citizen survey Gut flora Public approval The microbiome plays a crucial role in the calves’ early stages of life. Several management practices can be considered to enhance the development and composition of the microbiome in calves. However, their social acceptance is largely unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the public acceptance of innovative microbiome management practices aimed at improving the health and welfare of calves and to assess the factors influencing these levels of acceptance. Data used in the analysis were obtained from an online survey conducted in July 2023. The final sample consists of 3 220 citizens from four EU countries (Finland = 813, France = 803, Ireland = 801 and Poland = 803). Participants were asked to assess four management practices designed to improve calves’ health and welfare: (1) using colostrum, (2) pro- viding mix probiotics powder, (3) providing probiotics as yogurt or kefir and (4) prolonged cow-calf con- tact. Participants were provided with different levels of information: one group received only a short description of the intervention, while the other group received both the intervention description and information on aspects such as potential costs and environmental impact of the intervention. Participants were asked to rate the acceptance on a standardised scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 indi- cating ‘‘strongly agree” and 5 indicating ‘‘strongly disagree”. Additionally, the participants were ques- tioned about their socio-demographic background (e.g. age, education). They were also asked to provide their perspectives on various dimensions concerning familiarity with farming and microbiome, food safety, environmental awareness, cost consideration, and cultural perspective of consuming dairy products. Obtained data were analysed using the ordinary least squares regression model. The findings reveal that prolonged cow-calf contact was the most acceptable measure among tested interventions in all countries (79% of responders agreed or strongly agreed). Attitudinal and socio-economic variables were found to have a differential effect across the studied management strategies. For instance, individ- uals with greater familiarity with farming systems and microbiomes were more inclined to accept all four interventions, while women, compared to men, showed higher acceptance of prolonged cow-calf contact. Results also indicate that the provision of additional information to the participants was associated with a decrease in the acceptance of the measures. In conclusion, the public’s perceptions regarding microbiome management strategies in dairy calves are shaped by complex factors. Also, our discussion emphasises the importance of clarity and transparency of messages, ethical dissemination of scientific knowledge, and the necessity for balanced and coherent communication. © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Animal Consortium. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Implications The gastro-intestinal microbiome is essential to ensure optimal growth, health, and welfare of calves. Several early life practices, such as the use of colostrum, the provision of probiotics, and pro- longed cow-calf contact, can help maintain a balanced microbiome in calves. Our results show that prolonged cow-calf contact was the most endorsed microbiome management practice among the respondents. Providing more information about microbiome man- agement strategies, even when presented clearly and concisely, may not be sufficient to change public acceptance. Since different microbe strategies may have different target audiences, it is essen- http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.animal.2024.101380&domain=pdf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2024.101380 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ mailto:amer.ait-sidhoum@luke.fi https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2024.101380 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/17517311 A. Ait Sidhoum, A. Stygar, F. Bedoin et al. Animal 19 (2025) 101380 tial to further personalise campaigns aimed at enhancing the sus- tainability of animal production. Introduction In recent years, the microbiome research in human observa- tional studies has received growing attention in scientific journals and newspapers (Prados-Bo and Casino, 2021). At the same time, the global market for products containing live microorganisms has been growing rapidly and reached approximately $58 billion in 2022 (Markets and Markets, 2024). However, as discussed by Bimbo et al. (2017), many products will be withdrawn from the market due to a lack of focus on consumers’ acceptance and pref- erences during the product development phase. There is an increasing number of studies investigating the implementation of microbial management strategies with the goal of improving the welfare and health of livestock (Peixoto et al., 2021) and dairy calves in particular (Malmuthuge and Guan, 2017). These microbial management strategies for calves may include, but are not limited to, the use of pre- and probiotics (Cangiano et al., 2020), colostrum supplementation (Lopez and Heinrichs, 2022) or vertical microbial transfer through prolonged cow-calf contact (e.g. Wenker et al. (2022)). At the same time, farm management practices related to calf rearing are not well-known among the public. For instance, as documented by Placzek et al. (2021), approximately 65% of consumers are unaware of the cow-calf separation procedure. Consumers become more attentive towards farm animal welfare (Blanc et al., 2020) and there is a growing level of concern among EU citizens regarding the wellbe- ing of dairy calves, coupled with a compassionate attitude towards these animals (Herrler et al., 2023). Therefore, in response to public expectations, there is a pressing need for both farmers and policy- makers to recognise and recommend a sustainable approach to managing calves (Mikuš et al., 2020). Since consumers’ environ- mental awareness and health considerations are changing, the demand for dairy products originating from alternative production systems is likely to increase (European Commission, 2021). There- fore, gaining more insight into consumers’ preferences may benefit both dairy manufacturers and consumers (Bimbo et al., 2017). While there has been extensive research on consumer acceptance for various product types containing microbiomes (e.g. yogurts) for human nutrition (Annunziata and Vecchio, 2013; Conti-Silva and Souza-Borges, 2019), to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is limited evidence on how various microbiome management approaches in dairy calves are perceived by Europeans. Public acceptance of new agrifood strategies is influenced by a range of psychological factors, as well as the ‘temporal context’ in which these strategies were introduced (Frewer, 2017). Previous studies demonstrated that the level of information may influence consumer choices as discussed, for example by Siegrist and Hartmann (2020), for instance, the provision of accurate consumer information was crucial for the widespread adoption of foods mod- ulating gut microbial in the human diet (Stanton et al., 2001). Therefore, we hypothesised that the provision of additional explanatory information may play a role in shaping the public’ per- spectives concerning various microbiome management options in dairy calves. Given the above, the aims of this study were twofold: (1) to quantitatively investigate the public’ acceptance of micro- biome management practices aimed at improving the health and welfare of calves; (2) to assess the factors influencing these accep- tance levels. This study was conducted within an international project (HoloRuminant), which aims to elucidate the role of ruminant- associated microbiomes and their interplay with the host animal in its early life (see Morgavi (2023) and Scully et al. (2023)). Within 2 study, four management practices were evaluated; (1) using colos- trum as additional treatment for diarrhoea or respiratory disease; (2) providing mix probiotics powder to improve calves’ digestion, support immune function, and prevent disease in calves; (3) pro- viding probiotics as yogurt or kefir to enhance the health of ani- mals and (4) prolonged cow-calf contact with their mothers or with nurse cows until they are 3 months old to enhance the health and welfare. The selected microbial management strategies clearly differ in terms of their prevalence in commercial farms. For instance, many dairy farmers use probiotics for various reasons, including more effective calf rearing (Várhidi et al., 2022) and the use of ‘‘direct-fed microbials” in calves is well-documented in the literature (Yáñez-Ruiz et al., 2015). The use of colostrum to improve calf health has a long history. However, colostrum man- agement programmes can vary between farms (Godden et al., 2019). In contrast, using kefir or yogurt to improve calf health is a relatively new concept (Fouladgar et al., 2016). Additionally, while the majority of EU farms separate calves from their dam shortly after birth, there is a growing interest in extending cow- calf contact (Eriksson et al., 2022). These strategies also vary in terms of implementation costs. For instance, prolonged cow-calf contact may be fairly expansive due to substantial changes in labour inputs and buildings (Alvåsen et al., 2023), whereas probi- otic supplementation might offer a more cost-effective approach to microbiome management with minimal changes needed in feeding practices (Cangiano et al., 2020). Thus, the implementation of these microbiome management strategies may have conse- quences not only for animals and farmers but also for consumers (e.g. increased cost of dairy products), which may be reflected in the acceptance level of microbiome management practices. Material and methods An online survey instrument was developed, tested and refined to collect data among a sample of citizens in four EU member states (Finland, France, Ireland and Poland). Data were collected in July 2023 by using a survey, which examined four innovative interventions affecting animal health and welfare that are studied by a European project HoloRuminant. The data were collected through an online panel by a market research company Talous- tutkimus Ltd., which was connected to a network of online citizen panels in many countries (Moss et al. (2023) for an overview on market-research panels). It is highlighted that collecting data with- out access to a consumer panel presents significant challenges. Given a target of a maximum 2% error margin and 95% confidence level, our data collection was determined by two main factors: the length of the questionnaire and the available budget. Given these constraints, we negotiated with the market research company to obtain the largest sample possible (as representative as possible in relation to demographic variables) given our budget and ques- tionnaire. However, due to budgetary and contextual limitations, we were unable to fully ensure the randomness of the sample. The survey was developed in English, translated into Finnish, French and Polish and back-translated into English to ensure con- sistency between different language versions. The survey was available to the respondents in these four languages. Data collec- tion was compliant with applicable laws, and followed the Interna- tional Code of Marketing and Social Research Practice (ICC/ ESOMAR, 2016) and ISO 20252 guidelines (International Organization for Standardization, 2019). The ICC/ESOMAR is a benchmark in the market research industry, setting the standards for ethical and professional conduct for the global community involved in data and research. Before starting the data collection, the questionnaire was tested in a small number of persons and refined based on their feedback. Finally, potential respondents in A. Ait Sidhoum, A. Stygar, F. Bedoin et al. Animal 19 (2025) 101380 Table 1 Description of interventions presented to commercial consumer panels in four EU countries (Finland, France, Ireland and Poland). Intervention Description Using colostrum Colostrum is the first milk produced by a lactating mammal. It contains high levels of antibodies and nutrients that are important for the health and development of newborn animals, including calves. Some research suggests that colostrum can also be used as an additional treatment for certain diseases in calves, such as diarrhoea and respiratory infections. Providing mix probiotics powder Probiotics are live microorganisms that can have beneficial effects on the health of animals. Providing probiotics to calves in the form of a powder mixed with their milk can improve calves’ digestion, support immune function, and prevent disease in calves. Adding probiotics as yogurt or kefir Providing probiotics to calves by adding yogurt or kefir (fermented milk prepared by the farmer) to calves’ milk can enhance the health of animals. Yogurt and kefir can improve digestion, support immune function, and prevent disease in calves. Adding yogurt or kefir to calf’s milk could be a less expensive alternative when compared to using commercially produced probiotics. Prolonged cow-calf contact Keeping calves with their mothers or with nurse cows until they are 3 months old rather than separating them shortly after birth, which is a common practice in some farming systems, can enhance the health and welfare of both the calf and the mother. This practice allows the calf to receive important nutrients and immunity-boosting substances from its mother’s milk. the citizen panel received an email that invited them to respond to the survey. While respondents were not directly paid for their par- ticipation, they received ’points’ for completing the survey. Once a respondent accumulated enough points from various surveys, they could redeem them for vouchers or gift cards. The value of these rewards varied by country but remained small, typically less than one euro per respondent per survey. While we do not know the exact value of the rewards, in our opinion, they were modest and unlikely to substantially influence participation. Data collection was continued in each country until the target sample size was achieved. A privacy notice was presented, and an informed consent was required before the respondent was able to answer the survey. The sample of respondents (N = 3 220, at least 800 respondents per country) was representative of gender, age and region of resi- dency of the adult population (18–65 years) in each country. In each country, the respondents of the online survey were recruited from a large internet panel which is expected to produce a repre- sentative sample of the population of each country in terms of dif- ferent socio-demographic indicators (age, education, language, professional status, household characteristics). The invitations were sent to the members of the panel by email, and responses were collected until 800 responses per country were reached. The representativeness of sample in each country in relation to gender, age and region of residency of adult population was ensured by using quotas that corresponded to each groups’ distri- bution of citizens in the country (Moss et al., 2023). Based on the sample size calculation, the targeted overall sample size had less than a 2% error margin and a 95% confidence level. At the level of individual country, the error margin was between 3.6 and 5% depending on the question. At this point, we offer three cautions to be taken into account when interpreting the results. First, the representativeness of sam- ple for variables other than those mentioned above was not ensured during data collection. Retrospectively, some overrepre- sentation of university-educated people in the data was detected. Moreover, a rank test was used to check that respondents’ atti- tudes towards the four studied interventions were not biased, ensuring that, for example, the most negative views were not accu- mulated earlier than the positive ones. Second, information about the overall response rate was not available. However, the total sample size was predetermined when the order was placed with the market research company, so the response rate does not reflect the level of active participation in the survey. Third, caution is needed as internet panel surveys might exclude segments like those with limited internet access or low digital literacy. A random sampling approach would have been preferable as it would have given every individual in the target population an equal chance of being selected, reducing the risk of self-selection bias. The key differences between our sample and a true random sample lie in the method of participant selection and potential biases introduced by using an online panel, such as the overrepresentation of digi- tally active or university-educated individuals. Random sampling would have provided a more accurate representation of the broader population by including individuals less likely to partici- pate in online panels. However, in studies like ours, which assess public preferences and perceptions of farming practices, using online panels is common. This approach is often chosen due to the challenges in accessing the respondents, higher costs, and longer timeframes associated with conducting true random sam- pling. Online panels offer a practical, cost-effective solution that still allows researchers to gather data on key demographic vari- ables such as age, gender, and region. The survey design comprised three distinct sections. The first section aimed to evaluate the microbiome interventions, the sec- ond to assess associated attitudinal variables and the third to pro- vide basic socio-demographic information. The survey was 3 completed by 3 220 respondents. Before answering to the survey questions, the participants were required to provide an informed consent via an online form. In the first section of the survey, participants were asked to indicate their level of acceptance of four interventions on a stan- dardised Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating ‘‘strongly agree” and 5 indicating ‘‘strongly disagree”. There was also an option for responders who were unsure could choose to answer ‘‘I do not know”. A Likert scale is a prevalent psychometric tool often employed in surveys, especially within educational and social sciences, designed to quantify an individual’s level of agree- ment or disagreement with a specific statement (Joshi et al. (2015) for more details). The interventions and their descriptions are pre- sented in Table 1. In order to test the impact of people’s knowledge on decisions about livestock production practices, 50% of the samples in each country were randomly selected to receive additional information (additional to information presented in Table 1) about possible impact of the intervention on calf health and welfare, the quality of milk and meat products, environmental effects, effect on pro- duction and costs of milk and dairy products for citizens (for details, please see the supplementary material). This division allowed us to analyse whether more informed persons made dif- ferent choices compared to those with limited information. How- ever, the sampling method used does not allow us to assess whether the responses are unbiased. The survey’s next section focused on attitudinal variables with the goal of evaluating respondents’ perspectives on various dimen- sions. Attitudinal variables were grouped into seven topics: (1) familiarity with farming and microbiome, (2) food safety, (3) envi- ronmental awareness, (4) animal welfare, (5) costs considerations, (6) cultural perspective of consuming dairy products and (7) gen- eral concerns related to dairy production. Familiarity with the farming and microbiome summarises the information related to farm visits, understanding microbiota’s role, and awareness of food A. Ait Sidhoum, A. Stygar, F. Bedoin et al. Animal 19 (2025) 101380 Table 2 Statements that were considered as part of respondents’ attitude factors in this study. Attitudes statements Factors I have visited a farm and seen first-hand how cattle are raised. Familiarity with farming and microbiome I understand the role of microbiota in human health and well-being. I understand the benefits and challenges associated with the food production and sustainability in the livestock sector. It is important for me to consume food products that are safe for me. Food safety I take the time to read the labels and packaging information (e.g. allergens) to ensure food I purchase is safe to consume. I believe that food producers have an ethical responsibility to provide safe food products to consumers. I consider the environmental impact of a product before making a purchase Environmental awareness I frequently recycle and make an effort to reduce my waste I frequently buy products that are labelled as antibiotic-free I try to reduce my carbon footprint by walking, biking, or taking public transit when possible I actively seek out information about animal welfare standards of companies before purchasing animal derived products. Animal welfare I am willing to pay more for products that are produced using high animal welfare practices. I support animal welfare organizations and donate to their causes. I prioritize buying organic food, even if it is more expensive. Conscientious consumption preferences I am willing to pay more for products that are sustainably sourced and produced. I am willing to pay more for food produced using high animal welfare standards. I am willing to pay a premium price for food products that are guaranteed to be free from harmful contaminants and residues. Cultural perspective of consuming dairy products I feel that consuming dairy products is necessary for balanced nutrition and healthy life. I feel that it is important to purchase dairy products to support the dairy industry and local farmers. Consuming dairy products is a traditional and cultural practice that should be continued. production dynamics. The factor related to food safety indicated whether citizens prioritise their own safety by reading labels care- fully and expecting food producers to act responsibly. Environmen- tal awareness factor represented environmentally conscious behaviours and a commitment to sustainable practices. Another factor reflected a commitment to animal welfare, as indicated by participants’ preferences for seeking information before purchas- ing, willingness to pay for ethical products, and supporting related organisations. A factor of conscientious consumption preferences reflected participant’s willingness to prioritise ethical and quality food choices, even if it involves higher costs, encompassing prefer- ences for organic, sustainably sourced, high animal welfare, and contaminant-free products. The cultural perspective of consuming dairy products was represented by various aspects of dairy con- sumption, including its perceived role in nutrition, support for local industries, and its cultural significance. Finally, general con- cerns related to dairy production represented potential concerns, such as antimicrobial resistance and climate change. To derive a quantitative measure of the attitudinal variables, a five-point Lik- ert scale from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ was used. A list of 34 statements covering a range of attitudes was given to the respondents. Furthermore, to ensure a comprehensive understand- ing of our respondents, socio-economic information was also col- lected. This included a range of demographic data that provided insights into the social and economic contexts that might influence participant’s perceptions and attitudes. A copy of survey questions is in the supplementary material (Section 1). Data analyses Statistical models were used to explain the association between acceptance of an intervention and different factors. To reduce the number of statements and to improve the discriminatory power of the resulting models, a principal component analysis (PCA) on 34 attitudinal variables was performed first. PCA results were used to reveal that the underlying structure of the attitudinal variables can be largely explained by six independent components: familiar- ity with farming systems and microbiome, food safety, environ- mental awareness, animal welfare, cost-conscious preferences, and social norms. Only the statements with a factor loading (mag- 4 nitude of the correlation between the attitudinal variables and the identified components) above 0.4 were retained for the analysis (Maskey et al., 2018) (Table 2). Each component was quantified by summing the score points of the corresponding items to obtain six continuous variables. For example, we have three statements that were loaded on the ’Food safety’ component. Then, for Person A, who scored 4 for the first statement, 5 for the second statement, and 3 for the third statement, we quantify the ‘‘Food safety” com- ponent for that Person A by summing the scores of these three statements: 4 + 5 + 3 = 12. This process was repeated for each respondent across the six components, resulting in six new interval-scale variables that summarise the original attitudinal data in a more compact form. Hence, the result was an index that was measured by using a linear scale. Detailed results of the PCA are shown in the supplementary material (Section 2). Next, an Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression model was used to identify the socio-economic factors and respondents’ atti- tudes that underlie the variation in the acceptance of interven- tions. The regression procedure was expressed by the following model: Yi b0 b1Ai b2Si b3Di i 1 where represents the outcome variable or response variable for the h intervention, is an intercept, representing the expected value of when all other predictor variables were held constant, i represents the effect of attitudinal variables on Y he esti- mated parameter is associated with the attitudinal variables, indicating how a unit change i affec Yi. The parame b2 quantifies the effects of the socio-economic variables on while captures the effect of dummy variables on Y hese dummy variables can represent categorical distinctions such as country of residence, consumption habits, or level of information provision (bi- nary variable). stands for the error term, representing the unob- served factors, random noise, and measurement errors that contribute to the variability in Y at is not explained by the predic- tor variables in the model. The model (1) has been estimated in four specifications, each of which has a different outcome variable (in- tervention), but independent variables are the same. We present SEs corrected for heteroscedasticity. The SEs are robust, ensuring reliable statistical inference and providing valid results even when Yi i-t b0 Yi i. Tb1A Ai b1 tsn Ai ter Yi, i. Tb3 Di i i th A. Ait Sidhoum, A. Stygar, F. Bedoin et al. Animal 19 (2025) 101380 the error distribution deviates from normality (White, 1980). Although we found non-normality in the residuals (Supplementary Figure S1), it is important to note that the normality of errors is not a requirement for OLS estimators to remain unbiased (Gelman and Hill, 2006; Wooldridge, 2002). We used the method proposed by Weisberg and Cook (1982) to detect potential influential data points (e.g. observations with Cook’s distance > 0.5), but none of the obser- vations exceeded this threshold. Table 3 contains summary infor- mation on the variables used in the analysis. To validate the stability of our findings, we further explored alternative models, such as non linear probability models, includ- ing ordinal probit models. Following Angrist and Pischke (2009), we favour the linear probability model as our principal approach due to its advantages in the straightforward interpretation of the coefficients and the challenges presented by alternative models (Breen et al., 2018). Results Sample socio-demographics characteristics In Table 4, a comprehensive breakdown of socio-demographic characteristics across the four surveyed European countries, Fin- land, France, Ireland, and Poland, is presented. Gender distribution was balanced in Finland, France and Poland. In contrast, 59.8% of respondents in the sample of Ireland were women. Education levels differed among the countries. In Finland and Ireland, the majority of respondents had a university education (52.6 and 58.1%, respectively). In contrast, a substantial percentage of respondents in Poland had a secondary education (43%). Poland had the highest percentage of respondents with income under €10 000 and the lowest percentage with income of at least €150 000. While 52.9% of respondents in Poland were from house- holds with an income of a maximum €20 000 per year, 36.6% of respondents’ households in France, 63.0% in Finland and 58.7% in Ireland had an income of more than €40 000 per year. Residential areas also varied across countries. The majority of respondents in Ireland and Finland resided in towns or suburbs, and in Poland in city centres, towns or suburbs. In France, the respondents were quite evenly distributed across the three types of residential areas. Table 3 Descriptive statistics for the variables used in the analysis of respondents’ views. Pooled sample Variables Unit Mean SD Dependent variables Using Colostrum (Scale 1–5) 3.89 1.43 Probiotics as a powder (Scale 1–5) 3.56 1.41 Probiotics as yoghurt or kefir (Scale 1–5) 3.48 1.48 Keeping calves with their mothers (Scale 1–5) 4.08 1.36 Independent variables Familiarity with farming systems and microbiome (Scale 1–15) 11.38 2.56 Food safety (Scale 1–15) 12.55 1.93 Environmental awareness (Scale 1–15) 15.17 3.04 Animal welfare (Scale 1–15) 9.87 2.92 Cost consideration (Scale 1–20) 13.81 3.63 Cultural views on dairy consumption (Scale 1–15) 11.33 2.86 Age Years 41.65 13.0 Female Dummy 0.53 0.50 Education Categories 4.16 0.94 Income Categories 3.54 1.71 Meat consumption Dummy 0.89 0.31 Dairy consumption Dummy 0.90 0.30 Residence area Dummy 0.25 0.43 Information provision Dummy 0.50 0.50 Number of observations 3 220 5 Across all four countries, 86.9% of respondents consumed dairy products. Notably, the country with the highest rate of dairy con- sumption was Poland (93,5%), while Ireland registered the lowest (86.1%). Turning to meat consumption, again Poland stands out with the highest proportion (93.9%), and Finland recorded the low- est (84.6%). The data further underscore the diversity in parental status among surveyed populations. Finland reported the lowest percentages (13.8%) and Ireland and Poland the highest percentage of respondents with children. Acceptance of strategies and the role of socio-demographic profile The overall sample’s response to the different measures under study is presented in Fig. 1. A majority of respondents (76%) con- sidered that using colostrum to treat calves’ diseases was accept- able. Keeping calves with their mothers for an extended period was even more widely accepted measure among respondents, with almost 79% of respondents noting to agree or strongly agree with the statement. More than half of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that providing probiotics to calves either in the form of powder or through yoghurt or kefir prepared on the farm was acceptable. The role of attitudinal variables Table 5 presents information on the relationship between inter- ventions under study and potential factors affecting their accep- tance. The coefficient of the independent variables represents the estimated change in the interventions’ acceptance for a one-unit increase in that independent variable, holding all other variables constant. A positive (negative) coefficient indicates that an increase in the corresponding variable is associated with an increase (a decrease) in the interventions’ acceptance. The R- squared values were between 0.101 and 0.186. However, in the social sciences, encountering low R-squared values in regression analyses, especially within cross-sectional studies, is not uncom- mon (page 39, Wooldridge, 2013) but makes predicting future out- comes problematic (page 201, Wooldridge, 2013). Individuals more familiar with farming systems and micro- biome were more susceptible to accept all four interventions. Like- wise, there was a strong correlation between participants’ France Finland Ireland Poland Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD 3.68 1.45 4.39 1.16 3.75 1.46 3.72 1.50 3.38 1.43 3.81 1.28 3.56 1.41 3.50 1.48 3.30 1.49 3.77 1.38 3.52 1.43 3.34 1.58 3.94 1.41 4.38 1.10 4.09 1.31 3.89 1.52 10.95 2.60 12.63 2.09 10.85 2.61 11.06 2.50 12.30 2.11 12.70 1.69 12.67 1.91 12.53 1.96 15.31 3.12 15.14 3.19 14.85 2.89 15.39 2.92 10.14 3.00 8.83 2.92 10.50 2.71 10.01 2.76 13.99 3.87 13.53 3.54 13.69 3.59 14.03 3.48 11.70 2.49 10.19 3.68 11.72 2.43 11.73 2.29 8 41.34 13.05 43.42 13.52 41.03 12.63 40.80 12.95 0.52 0.50 0.51 0.50 0.60 0.49 0.51 0.50 4.17 0.90 4.23 0.92 4.31 0.89 3.92 1.02 3.29 1.48 4.17 1.76 4.07 1.69 2.62 1.39 0.91 0.29 0.85 0.36 0.88 0.32 0.94 0.24 0.90 0.30 0.92 0.28 0.86 0.35 0.94 0.25 0.32 0.47 0.19 0.39 0.29 0.45 0.21 0.41 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 803 813 801 803 N % n % n % n % A. Ait Sidhoum, A. Stygar, F. Bedoin et al. Animal 19 (2025) 101380 Table 4 Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents across the four surveyed European countries—Finland, France, Ireland, and Poland. Variable Item Finland France Ireland Poland Gender Male 399 49.1% 387 48.2% 321 40.1% 390 48.6% Female 408 50.2% 414 51.6% 479 59.8% 413 51.4% prefers not to say 6 0.7% 2 0.2% 1 0.1% 0 0.0% Education Less than primary education 0 0.0% 7 0.9% 2 0.2% 4 0.5% Primary education 31 3.8% 14 1.7% 9 1.1% 26 3.2% Secondary education 179 22.0% 187 23.3% 190 23.7% 345 43.0% Vocational education 175 21.5% 224 27.9% 135 16.9% 80 10.0% University education 428 52.6% 371 46.2% 465 58.1% 348 43.3% Area of Residence City centre 179 22.0% 286 35.6% 162 20.2% 321 40.0% Town or suburb 478 58.8% 258 32.1% 409 51.1% 315 39.2% Rural area 156 19.2% 259 32.3% 230 28.7% 167 20.8% Income €0-€10 000 57 7.0% 87 10.8% 45 5.6% 146 18.2% €10 001 €20 000 89 10.9% 128 15.9% 79 9.9% 279 34.7% €20 001 €40 000 155 19.1% 294 36.6% 207 25.8% 253 31.5% €40 001 €60 000 184 22.6% 169 21.0% 179 22.3% 68 8.5% €60 001 €80 000 128 15.7% 61 7.6% 126 15.7% 20 2.5% €80 001 €100 000 104 12.8% 27 3.4% 89 11.1% 10 1.2% €100 001 €150 000 80 9.8% 25 3.1% 49 6.1% 11 1.4% €150 001 or more 16 2.0% 12 1.5% 27 3.4% 16 2.0% Dairy consumption No 69 8.5% 79 9.8% 111 13.9% 52 6.5% Yes 744 91.5% 724 90.2% 690 86.1% 751 93.5% Meat consumption No 125 15.4% 73 9.1% 95 11.9% 49 6.1% Yes 688 84.6% 730 90.9% 706 88.1% 754 93.9% Children No 701 86.2% 559 69.6% 530 66.2% 518 64.5% Yes 112 13.8% 244 30.4% 271 33.8% 285 35.5% Number of observations 813 803 801 803 perceptions of food safety and how well these interventions are received. Moreover, participants who place a greater value on the cultural aspect of consuming dairy products are more likely to sup- port the use of practices such as using colostrum, providing mixed probiotics powder, and incorporating probiotics such as yogurt or kefir in calf management. However, this group was less receptive to the idea of prolonged cow-calf contact. Interestingly, our find- ings show that respondents who placed a higher priority on animal welfare expressed less acceptance and value for the use of colos- trum in the treatment of calves’ illnesses. Quality-conscious respondents were more likely to support keeping calves with their mothers and to accept the use of colostrum as a treatment for dis- eases in calves. Instead of focusing solely on statistical significance, it is rele- vant to examine also whether the magnitude of the estimated coef- ficients includes any values that could be considered practically significant. The only variable that had no statistically significant association with the acceptance of the four interventions was envi- ronmental awareness. The estimated coefficients for this variable ranged from an increase of 0.002 in the acceptance of providing mixed probiotics powder to an increase of 0.015 in the acceptance of adding probiotics as yogurt or kefir, per one-unit change in the environmental awareness of respondents. These values can all be considered practically insignificant, as they are the lowest among the magnitudes of the coefficients of the attitude variables. Fur- thermore, when comparing the magnitude of the coefficients that were statistically significant and those that were not for the same variable, we observed substantial differences. For most of the vari- ables, the change for a coefficient that is statistically significant was at least twice as large as that of a non-significant. For instance, the association between education and the acceptance of using colostrum had a magnitude of 0.018, while the lowest statistically significant coefficient for the same association was 0.040 for the acceptance of prolonged cow-calf contact. These differences indi- cate that statistically significant variables had stronger and larger effects compared to non-significant ones. However, as indicated 6 by the low R-square-values, the predictions of outcomes will be imprecise. The role of socio-economic characteristics and consumption habits Younger participants were less likely than older to be in favour of keeping calves longer with their mothers, even though younger respondents were more likely to accept the use of probiotics as powder. Three of our interventions were found to be positively and statistically significantly and substantially associated with educational status. According to our analyses, longer cow-calf con- tact and a higher acceptance of using colostrum were positively correlated with female gender. The results also indicate that the acceptance of using colostrum to treat diseases in calves is statis- tically significantly associated (positively) with income levels. The results also offered insights into the associations between consumption habits, represented by dummy variables (they take the value of 1 if the consumer consumes meat or dairy products, and 0 otherwise) for meat and dairy products and their acceptance of diverse livestock interventions, while dairy consumers are more likely to accept only the intervention that involves the use of yoghurt of kefir in calves’ diet. We also controlled for country dif- ferences in our analysis by using dummy variables, since the sur- vey was carried out in four different countries. We added three dummy variables for Finland, Ireland, and Poland, while France was the reference category. These dummy variables helped us account for possible variations in respondents’ attitudes and pref- erences among the surveyed countries. Considering the mean parameter estimates of country dummies and their SEs suggests that there are differences in the acceptance of various livestock interventions between the countries. Food safety and gender both were considered to have a substantial effect on the acceptance of prolonged cow-calf contact. Meat consumption variable showed a greater impact on the acceptance of using colostrum and adding probiotics as yogurt or kefir compared to its effect on the accep- tance of two other interventions. Detailed results by countries A. Ait Sidhoum, A. Stygar, F. Bedoin et al. Animal 19 (2025) 101380 Fig. 1. Respondents’ acceptance of using colostrum, providing mix probiotics powder, probiotics as yogurt or kefir, and prolonged cow-calf contact, measured using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 for strongly disagree to 5 for strongly agree, and 0 denoting ’I do not know’. are shown in the supplementary material (Supplementary Tables S1–S4). The role of additional information To learn more about the role of knowledge and information in shaping responses, we implemented a deliberate strategy in which our sample was separated into two distinct groups. While the first group received concise and brief information about the interven- tions, the second group was provided with more comprehensive details (see the supplementary material). Results indicated that across all of our models, the provision of information was associ- ated with a decrease in citizens’ acceptance of proposed interven- tions. This means that citizens who received more information exhibited statistically significantly lower levels of acceptance com- pared to those who received less information. The magnitude of effect of additional information was the largest for the acceptance of prolonged cow-calf contact, while it was the smallest for the acceptance of using colostrum. Nonetheless, the magnitude of 7 the coefficient for additional information indicates that the associ- ation between the level of information and these dependent vari- ables was still greater compared to most other independent variables. However, the sampling method used does not allow us to determine whether the responses are unbiased. As a robustness check, we opted for an ordinal probit model over a linear one to analyse the models presented in Table 5. Results are shown in Supplementary Table S5. We found that the direction and statistical significance of the results align perfectly with those from the OLS regression previously presented. More- over, the magnitude of the coefficients derived from the probit model was quite comparable to those from the OLS regression. Discussion This study aimed to consult a commercial consumer panel on four microbiome management measures in dairy calves and gained better knowledge on people’s acceptance of various livestock mea- sures. Our results indicate that among tested strategies, prolonged A. Ait Sidhoum, A. Stygar, F. Bedoin et al. Animal 19 (2025) 101380 Table 5 Estimated parameters of the regression analysis (Pooled model) used to identify respondents’ attitudes and the socio-economic factors that underlie the variation in the acceptance of interventions. Using Colostrum Providing mix probiotics powder Adding probiotics as yogurt or kefir Prolonged cow-calf contact Variable Familiarity with farming systems and microbiome 0.061*** 0.084*** 0.061*** 0.023*** (0.008) (0.009) (0.009) (0.008) Food safety 0.057*** 0.048*** 0.028** 0.101*** (0.010) (0.012) (0.012) (0.012) Environmental awareness 0.011 0.002 0.015 0.010 (0.007) (0.009) (0.009) (0.008) Animal welfare 0.026*** 0.013 0.014 0.011 (0.009) (0.010) (0.011) (0.009) Conscientious consumption preferences 0.014** 0.009 0.013 0.020*** (0.007) (0.008) (0.009) (0.007) Cultural view on dairy consumption 0.042*** 0.036*** 0.051*** 0.015** (0.006) (0.008) (0.008) (0.006) Age 0.000 0.004*** 0.002 0.004*** (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) Gender 0.055* 0.034 0.034 0.134*** (0.029) (0.035) (0.036) (0.032) Education 0.018 0.049** 0.058*** 0.040** (0.016) (0.019) (0.020) (0.017) Income 0.019** 0.009 0.013 0.003 (0.009) (0.012) (0.013) (0.010) Meat consumption 0.112** 0.010 0.135** 0.019 (0.056) (0.065) (0.067) (0.054) Dairy consumption 0.006 0.102 0.132* 0.061 (0.058) (0.069) (0.070) (0.056) Residence area 0.025 0.007 0.070* 0.091** (0.033) (0.040) (0.041) (0.038) Level of information 0.066** 0.150*** 0.084** 0.262*** (0.028) (0.034) (0.035) (0.031) Finland 0.465*** 0.246*** 0.320*** 0.164*** (0.047) (0.057) (0.057) (0.051) Ireland 0.087* 0.218*** 0.202*** 0.073 (0.045) (0.051) (0.051) (0.048) Poland 0.123*** 0.212*** 0.112** 0.041 (0.042) (0.050) (0.052) (0.046) Intercept 1.831*** 1.663*** 1.519*** 2.257*** (0.141) (0.173) (0.172) (0.164) F-test 43.85 23.61 19.23 29.08 Probability of F-test 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 R-squared 0.186 0.116 0.101 0.133 Number of observations 2 939 2 951 2 896 3 018 Note: We present coefficient estimates (SE) from an OLS regression with heteroscedasticity robust standard errors. *, **, and *** indicate significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively. cow-calf contact was the most acceptable measure in all countries (79% of responders agreed or strongly agreed). However, different perceptions on attitudinal values and socio-economic background influenced the level of acceptance. Furthermore, additional infor- mation provided to the respondent decreased the acceptance of measures. Regarding general acceptance of measures, previous studies also indicated that cow-calf contact is favoured by the pub- lic (Naspetti et al., 2021). The role of attitudinal variables on strategy acceptance Drawing from our findings, it was observed that respondents who exhibit a higher degree of familiarity with farming systems and microbiome were inclined to show greater acceptance of the four interventions in terms of magnitude of effect. This means that persons who have a better understanding of farming systems are more likely to embrace and accept a wide range of interventions related to farming practices. This finding is consistent with several other studies as documented by Clark et al. (2016). Similarly, we also observed that the favourable reception of the four interven- tions was strongly associated with improvements in participants’ perceptions of food safety. This is compatible with the argument claiming that farming practices that are based on the principles 8 of naturalness and humane treatment lower health risks and increase the quality of animal products (Vaarst and Alrøe, 2012). Exploring the relationship between food safety concerns and con- sumer perception is especially important as studies show that con- sumers’ concerns about the safety of food products derived from livestock are growing, and food retailers are actively looking for ways to reduce their liability (Ruegg, 2003). The findings drawn from the observed data trends among respondents show that those consuming dairy products are more likely to accept using colostrum, providing a mix probiotics pow- der and probiotics as yogurt or kefir in calf management. This find- ing may reflect a growing consumer trend towards health consciousness and preference for natural products. Indeed, studies have shown a rising consumer interest in probiotics and products characterised by attributes such as ’animal welfare’ (Alonso et al., 2020; Pimentel et al., 2021). Interestingly, we found that participants who place a greater value on the cultural aspect of consuming dairy products were less likely to accept prolonged cow-calf contact. This finding may appear counterintuitive at first glance because one would expect the public to oppose early cow-calf separation. However, on com- mercial dairy farms in Europe, calves are typically separated from their mothers within a few hours after birth (Stěhulová et al., A. Ait Sidhoum, A. Stygar, F. Bedoin et al. Animal 19 (2025) 101380 2008). Thus, one possible explanation for this finding is that social norms are often related to conservative and traditional farming practices, which in this case involve early separation of calves from their mothers, and therefore keeping calves with their mothers may deviate from these established norms. Surprisingly, our results showed that respondents who were more concerned about animal welfare showed a lower acceptance for using colostrum to treat diseases in calves. The negative per- ception towards the use of colostrum to treat ill calves might be an indication that there is a knowledge gap among consumers regarding the functional benefits of colostrum as a natural remedy for calf diseases. Although there are no existing studies specifically addressing public acceptance of colostrum use in calf treatment, we reference research indicating diverse levels of awareness among pregnant women about colostrum’s nutritional benefits (Reddy et al., 2015). This disparity suggests the importance of tar- geted educational initiatives to fill such knowledge gaps. We also observed that respondents who prioritise quality food over cost were more likely to approve the use of colostrum to treat diseases in calves and were also in favour of keeping calves with their mothers. These persons may be willing to pay a premium for animal products that are produced in a humane and sustainable way, and even if the mentioned interventions involve additional costs (Cantor et al., 2021; Hötzel et al., 2017), they perceive them as healthier and more human than conventional alternatives. This also highlights the new consumer priorities towards more ethical consumption (Hölker et al., 2019). Finally, we found that the stud- ied interventions were not related to respondents’ environmental awareness. This result was not surprising because the four inter- vention measures were focused on animal health and welfare rather than the environment. The role of socio-economic characteristics Numerous studies have investigated the influence of the pub- lic’s age on animal welfare concerns. Most of these studies have reported a negative association between the public’s concern for animals and age (Clark et al., 2016; Knight et al., 2004; Serpell, 2004; Vanhonacker et al., 2010). This is consistent, at least par- tially, with one of our findings, since we observed that younger respondents were more willing to accept the use of probiotics as a powder. However, we also found that older participants tended to be more supportive of keeping calves with their mothers than young participants. These results may seem to be surprising, but they are not implausible. For instance, Boogaard et al. (2011) found that older Dutch citizens were more satisfied with contemporary management practices such as keeping calves with their mothers. The level of education is another factor that can influence the public acceptance of more welfare-friendly practices (Ellis et al., 2009; Toma et al., 2012, 2011). Respondents who are more edu- cated may have a better knowledge of the potential benefits of modern farming practices and, hence, are more likely to support measures that are healthier and more humane as a means of addressing sustainability challenges. Consistently, the level of edu- cation was found to have a positive and statistically significant effect on the acceptance of three of the studied interventions. Women are often thought to be more compassionate, as evidenced by the social roles they prefer to fill (Kendall et al., 2006), and this relates to their being more driven by welfare concerns, evaluating the issue more emotionally than men, and appearing to empathise with animals more (Graça et al., 2018). Our study indicated that being a female was positively associated with an increased accep- tance of using colostrum and prolonged cow-calf contact. This result was also supported in previous studies (Paul and Podberscek, 2000; Sirovica et al., 2022). The findings also suggest 9 that income levels have a statistically significant impact only on the acceptance of using colostrum to treat diseases in calves. The role of information in evaluating alternative livestock practices The idea of exposing individuals to scientific information (such as contemporary animal welfare practices or new technology) is linked to the accessibility of scientific knowledge on the subject and an individual’s ability to understand it (Schultz, 2002; Ziman, 1991). For instance, it is suggested that the lack of awareness about the causes and consequences of animal welfare issues underlies the unwillingness to support alternative and sustainable practices (Schröder and McEachern, 2004; Verbeke, 2009). This approach is rooted in the belief that addressing the knowledge gap, as dis- cussed by Ingram (2008) and Šumane et al. (2018), can reconcile public perceptions with the realities of agricultural practices, thereby promoting sustainable farming through a well-informed public discourse. Both studies emphasise the importance of nar- rowing this gap, which includes reconciling differences between agricultural professionals and the general public and melding both formal and informal knowledge sources. This effort aims to chal- lenge mainstream narratives and enrich public discourse with authentic insights into farming, thereby correcting misconceptions and encouraging a well-informed view on sustainable practices. However, this idealistic view is contrasted by our findings, which indicate that increased information provision may paradoxically lead to reduced public acceptance of alternative management systems. Contrary to the ‘‘information deficit-approach”, suggesting that a better knowledge within the public about farming activities will increase the acceptance of alternative management systems (Brown, 2009; Sturgis and Allum, 2004), our findings align with previous studies showing that, while such strategies may increase the transparency of animal production, they have been found to be ineffective in increasing the acceptance for alternative manage- ment systems (Montossi et al., 2013). Furthermore, other research has shown that when people are given more information about particular issues, it might cause the reverse reaction, with people becoming even more critical towards these issues (Kellstedt et al., 2008; Schultz et al., 2016). The reasons could be different frames of reference used by specialists and the general public when interpreting this information, as well as diverging values among the individuals (Busch and Spiller, 2018). The public may also get confused when they are provided with more detailed information, which may contain both negative and positive aspects of farming. While it is essential to communicate coherent and fact- based messages to the public (Clark et al., 2019; Niemi et al., 2020), the current animal welfare labelling schemes often prioritise vali- dating only a limited and easily understandable welfare attributes to the public (Stygar et al., 2022). While our initial analysis highlighted how the amount of infor- mation influences public perception, integrating the concept of message framing, as discussed by Dearing and Lapinski (2020), adds a critical layer of understanding. For instance, they argue that reframing messages to highlight community health benefits rather than direct climate impacts can alter public receptivity towards new policies or technologies. This insight, combined with Busch and Spiller’s (2018) findings, underscores that both the volume and presentation of information are essential in shaping public attitudes and willingness to support new agricultural practices. The magnitude of effect The magnitude of effect sizes in this study highlights the impor- tance and relevance of different variables in specific contexts. Understanding these nuances is crucial for stakeholders who aim A. Ait Sidhoum, A. Stygar, F. Bedoin et al. Animal 19 (2025) 101380 to apply these findings to problem-solving strategies effectively. Food safety, being the attitude variable with the highest magnitude in association with the acceptance of prolonged cow-calf contact, underscores the critical role that health and safety perceptions play in consumer acceptance. Policymakers can leverage these insights to develop regulations and standards that ensure and com- municate the safety of prolonged cow-calf contact, thereby enhancing public acceptance of these practices. The high magni- tude of the positive association between being female and the acceptance of prolonged cow-calf contact suggests that gender- specific attitudes influence acceptance rates. Marketing profession- als can design tailored communication strategies that effectively resonate with female consumers. Based on the finding that there is a strong association between meat and dairy consumption and the acceptance of using colostrum and adding probiotics as yogurt or kefir, food producers can develop and market products that align with the dietary preferences of meat and dairy consumers, empha- sising the complementary health benefits of colostrum and probi- otics. However, as indicated by the low R-square-values, the predictions of outcomes will be imprecise. The substantial negative association of additional information with the acceptance of pro- longed cow-calf contact, compared to the other interventions, highlights the need for a strategic overhaul of communication approaches. This negative perception emerged after providing additional information, even though the practice was initially the most accepted one. Additional research is needed to further under- stand the specific reasons behind the negative perceptions and to identify the key areas of concern and confusion that consumers have about this practice. Implications and study limitations Our results suggest that the provision of information has a neg- ative impact on the public acceptance of four animal welfare- related measures. This implies that policy makers and industry must consider tailoring information campaigns to ensure that the public is not overwhelmed with data that may hinder their accep- tance of sustainable farming practices (Chong and Druckman, 2007). Furthermore, the disparities in perception across Europe suggest that future policies should be more contextualised for dif- ferent regions than they have been in the past. Recognising the influence of age and gender, educational efforts can be targeted to specific demographic groups. For instance, older citizens and women may be more receptive to messages promoting the keeping of cows and calves together. Although this research has made the best use of the available data, it is acknowledged that the analysis relies on a cross-sectional dataset. In future research, using panel data would enable a more robust analysis, particularly in address- ing time-invariant unobservable heterogeneity. For instance, it would be of interest to explore how cultural values influence the reception of alternative management practices by following a sam- ple of citizens for an extended period. We also acknowledge that our study design might not have fully accounted for the nuanced ways in which different types of information impact public accep- tance of studied interventions. Hence, another future avenue for research is to employ a factorial design to systematically vary the initial definitions of targeted practices and the subsequent infor- mation layers to better understand their separate and combined effects on public acceptance. Additionally, it would be beneficial to incorporate a qualitative approach to more accurately capture the nuanced effects of information provision on public acceptance of studied interventions. Utilising qualitative methods such as interviews, focus group discussions, or content analysis could pro- vide deeper insights into the complexities of public perception and acceptance. In this context, another valuable direction for future 10 research would be to conduct an in-depth study on the criteria and processes used in selecting information for public dissemina- tion. This study should explore how different types of information are prioritised, the role of media and governmental agencies in this selection, and the impact of these decisions on public perception and behaviour. Finally, an interesting direction for future research would be to compare our findings to those from developing countries. Conclusion In conclusion, using colostrum to treat diseases in calves and keeping calves with their mothers for an extended period are inter- ventions that are widely accepted by a European commercial con- sumer panel. Acceptance is more common among respondents who are familiar with farming systems and microbiome, and place a greater emphasis on food safety. Our findings highlight the importance of taking into account age and gender when aiming at understanding the public’s preferences to support sustainable farming practices. The results suggest that providing additional information about farming practices does not necessarily increase the acceptance of these practices. Hence, care should be taken to design messaging that is understandable to the laymen, fact- based and coherent across communication channels. Supplementary material Supplementary material to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2024.101380. Ethics approval An informed consent was obtained at the time of original data collection. The data were anonymised, and the research team did not have access to personal data of respondents. According to the guidelines (TENK, 2019), an ethical review (e.g., considering poten- tial risks and harm that may be caused to research participants, their families and the researchers themselves due to the research or its results) by the Ethics Committee for Human Sciences (University of Turku, 2023) before data collection was not required for this survey, because the research design did not contain ele- ments requiring ethical review (TENK, 2019, p. 61). Data and model availability statement The data were not deposited in an official repository, but they are available from the authors upon request. Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process During the preparation of this work the author(s) did not use any AI and AI-assisted technologies. Author ORCIDs A. Ait-Sidhoum: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7089-6242. A. H Stygar: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3112-2847. J. K. Niemi: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9545-3509. CRediT authorship contribution statement A. Ait Sidhoum: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2024.101380 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7089-6242 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3112-2847 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9545-3509 A. Ait Sidhoum, A. Stygar, F. Bedoin et al. Animal 19 (2025) 101380 curation, Conceptualization. A. Stygar: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Investigation, Conceptualiza- tion. F. Bedoin: Writing – review & editing, Validation, Conceptu- alization. J.K. Niemi: Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. Declaration of interest None. Acknowledgements We would like to extend our appreciation to Elise Vanderbergue from Idele and Sabine Scully from Teagasc for their valuable feed- back and support in finalising the survey. Financial support statement This study was conducted within the HoloRuminant project. The project has received funding from the European Union’s Hori- zon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement no.101000213. References Alonso, M.E., González-Montaña, J.R., Lomillos, J.M., 2020. Consumers’ concerns and perceptions of farm animal welfare. Animals 10, 385. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ani10030385. Alvåsen, K., Haskell, M.J., Ivemeyer, S., Eriksson, H., Bicknell, K., Fall, N., Ahmed, H., 2023. Assessing short-term economic consequences of cow-calf contact systems in dairy production using a stochastic partial budgeting approach. Frontiers in Animal Science 4, 1–13. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fanim.2023.1197327. Angrist, J.D., Pischke, J.-S., 2009. In: Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/j.ctvcm4j72. Annunziata, A., Vecchio, R., 2013. Consumer perception of functional foods: a conjoint analysis with probiotics. Food Quality and Preference 28, 348–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.10.009. Bimbo, F., Bonanno, A., Nocella, G., Viscecchia, R., Nardone, G., De Devitiis, B., Carlucci, D., 2017. Consumers’ acceptance and preferences for nutrition- modified and functional dairy products: a systematic review. Appetite 113, 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.02.031. Blanc, S., Massaglia, S., Borra, D., Mosso, A., Merlino, V.M., 2020. Animal welfare and gender: a nexus in awareness and preference when choosing fresh beef meat? Italian Journal of Animal Science 19, 410–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1828051X.2020.1747952. Boogaard, B.K., Bock, B.B., Oosting, S.J., Wiskerke, J.S.C., van der Zijpp, A.J., 2011. Social acceptance of dairy farming: the ambivalence between the two faces of modernity. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24, 259–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9256-4. Breen, R., Karlson, K.B., Holm, A., 2018. Interpreting and understanding logits, probits, and other nonlinear probability models. Annual Review of Sociology 44, 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073117-041429. Brown, S., 2009. The new deficit model. Nature Nanotechnology 4, 609–611. https:// doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2009.278. Busch, G., Spiller, A., 2018. Consumer acceptance of livestock farming around the globe. Animal Frontiers 8, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfx005. Cangiano, L.R., Yohe, T.T., Steele, M.A., Renaud, D.L., 2020. Invited Review: Strategic use of microbial-based probiotics and prebiotics in dairy calf rearing. Applied Animal Science 36, 630–651 10.15232/aas.2020-02049. Cantor, M.C., Renaud, D.L., Costa, J.H.C., 2021. Nutraceutical intervention with colostrum replacer: can we reduce disease hazard, ameliorate disease severity, and improve performance in preweaned dairy calves? Journal of Dairy Science 104, 7168–7176. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19654. Chong, D., Druckman, J.N., 2007. Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science 10, 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054. Clark, B., Stewart, G.B., Panzone, L.A., Kyriazakis, I., Frewer, L.J., 2016. A systematic review of public attitudes, perceptions and behaviours towards production diseases associated with farm animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29, 455–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-016-9615- x. Clark, B., Panzone, L.A., Stewart, G.B., Kyriazakis, I., Niemi, J.K., Latvala, T., Tranter, R., Jones, P., Frewer, L.J., 2019. Consumer attitudes towards production diseases in intensive production systems. PLOS ONE 14, e0210432. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0210432. 11 Conti-Silva, A.C., Souza-Borges, P.K. de, 2019. Sensory characteristics, brand and probiotic claim on the overall liking of commercial probiotic fermented milks: Which one is more relevant? Food Research International 116, 184–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.08.011. Dearing, J.W., Lapinski, M., 2020. Multisolving innovations for climate and health: message framing to achieve broad public support. Health Affairs 39, 2175– 2181. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.01170. Ellis, K., Billington, K., McNeil, B., McKeegan, D., 2009. Public opinion on UK milk marketing and dairy cow welfare. Animal Welfare 18, 267–282. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S096272860000052X. Eriksson, H., Fall, N., Ivemeyer, S., Knierim, U., Simantke, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Winckler, C., Weissensteiner, R., Pomiès, D., Martin, B., Michaud, A., Priolo, A., Caccamo, M., Sakowski, T., Stachelek, M., Spengler Neff, A., Bieber, A., Schneider, C., Alvåsen, K., 2022. Strategies for keeping dairy cows and calves together – a cross-sectional survey study. Animal 16, 100624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. animal.2022.100624. European Commission, 2021. EU agricultural outlook for markets, income and environment, 2021-2031. European Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural Development, Brussels, Belgium. Fouladgar, S., Shahraki, A.D.F., Ghalamkari, G.R., Khani, M., Ahmadi, F., Erickson, P.S., 2016. Performance of Holstein calves fed whole milk with or without kefir. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 8081–8089. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016- 10921. Frewer, L.J., 2017. Consumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications. European Review of Agricultural Economics 44, 683–704. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbx007. Gelman, A., Hill, J., 2006. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511790942. Godden, S.M., Lombard, J.E., Woolums, A.R., 2019. Colostrum Management for Dairy Calves. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice 35, 535–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvfa.2019.07.005. Graça, J., Calheiros, M.M., Oliveira, A., Milfont, T.L., 2018. Why are women less likely to support animal exploitation than men? The mediating roles of social dominance orientation and empathy. Personality and Individual Differences 129, 66–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.007. Herrler, M., Chagunda, M.G.G., Stroebele-Benschop, N., 2023. Public awareness, attitude and empathy regarding the management of surplus dairy calves. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 36, 11. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10806-023-09905-x. Hölker, S., von Meyer-Höfer, M., Spiller, A., 2019. Animal ethics and eating animals: consumer segmentation based on domain-specific values. Sustainability 11, 3907. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143907. Hötzel, M.J., Cardoso, C.S., Roslindo, A., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., 2017. Citizens’ views on the practices of zero-grazing and cow-calf separation in the dairy industry: does providing information increase acceptability? Journal of Dairy Science 100, 4150–4160. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-11933. ICC/ESOMAR, 2016. International code on market, opinion and social research and data analytics [WWW Document]. URL https://esomar.org/code-and- guidelines/icc-esomar-code (accessed 5.30.24). Ingram, J., 2008. Are farmers in England equipped to meet the knowledge challenge of sustainable soil management? an analysis of farmer and advisor views. Journal of Environmental Management 86, 214–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jenvman.2006.12.036. International Organization for Standardization, 2019. Market, opinion and social research, including insights and data analytics—Vocabulary and service requirements (ISO Standard No. 20252:2019). ISO, Geneva, Switzerland. Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., Pal, D., 2015. Likert scale: explored and explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology 7, 396–403. https://doi.org/ 10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975. Kellstedt, P.M., Zahran, S., Vedlitz, A., 2008. Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States. Risk Analysis 28, 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539- 6924.2008.01010.x. Kendall, H.A., Lobao, L.M., Sharp, J.S., 2006. Public concern with animal well-being: place, social structural location, and individual experience. Rural Sociology 71, 399–428. https://doi.org/10.1526/003601106778070617. Knight, S., Vrij, A., Cherryman, J., Nunkoosing, K., 2004. Attitudes towards animal use and belief in animal mind. Anthrozoös 17, 43–62. https://doi.org/10.2752/ 089279304786991945. Lopez, A.J., Heinrichs, A.J., 2022. Invited review: the importance of colostrum in the newborn dairy calf. Journal of Dairy Science 105, 2733–2749. https://doi.org/ 10.3168/jds.2020-20114. Malmuthuge, N., Guan, L.L., 2017. Understanding host-microbial interactions in rumen: searching the best opportunity for microbiota manipulation. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology 8, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-016- 0135-3. Markets and Markets, 2024. Probiotics Market by Product Type (Functional Food & Beverages (FnB), Dietary Supplements, and Feed), Ingredient (Bacteria and Yeast), End User (Human and Animal), Distribution Channel, and Region–Global Forecast to 2029. [WWW Document]. URL: https:// www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/probiotics-market-69.html (accessed 3.21.24). Maskey, R., Fei, J., Nguyen, H.-O., 2018. Use of exploratory factor analysis in maritime research. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 34, 91–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2018.06.006. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030385 https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030385 https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2023.1197327 https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2023.1197327 https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvcm4j72 https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvcm4j72 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.10.009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.02.031 https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2020.1747952 https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2020.1747952 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9256-4 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073117-041429 https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2009.278 https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2009.278 https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfx005 https://doi.org/10.15232/aas.2020-02049 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19654 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-016-9615-x https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-016-9615-x https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210432 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210432 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.08.011 https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.01170 https://doi.org/10.1017/S096272860000052X https://doi.org/10.1017/S096272860000052X https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2022.100624 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2022.100624 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-10921 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-10921 https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbx007 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790942 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790942 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvfa.2019.07.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.007 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-023-09905-x https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-023-09905-x https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143907 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-11933 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.036 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.036 https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975 https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01010.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01010.x https://doi.org/10.1526/003601106778070617 https://doi.org/10.2752/089279304786991945 https://doi.org/10.2752/089279304786991945 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20114 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20114 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-016-0135-3 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-016-0135-3 https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/probiotics-market-69.html https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/probiotics-market-69.html https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2018.06.006 A. Ait Sidhoum, A. Stygar, F. Bedoin et al. Animal 19 (2025) 101380 Mikuš, T., Marzel, R., Mikuš, O., 2020. Early weaning: new insights on an ever- persistent problem in the dairy industry. Journal of Dairy Research 87, 88–92. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029920000503. Montossi, F., Font-i-Furnols, M., del Campo, M., San Julián, R., Brito, G., Sañudo, C., 2013. Sustainable sheep production and consumer preference trends: compatibilities, contradictions, and unresolved dilemmas. Meat Science 95, 772–789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.04.048. Morgavi, D., 2023. Understanding microbiomes of the ruminant holobiont. Paper Presented at the 74nd Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production. 27th August - 1st September 2023, Lyon, France. Moss, A.J., Hauser, D.J., Rosenzweig, C., Jaffe, S., Robinson, J., Litman, L., 2023. Using Market-Research Panels for Behavioral Science: An Overview and Tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 6, 25152459221140388. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459221140388. Naspetti, S., Mandolesi, S., Buysse, J., Latvala, T., Nicholas, P., Padel, S., Van Loo, E.J., Zanoli, R., 2021. Consumer perception of sustainable practices in dairy production. Agricultural and Food Economics 9, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s40100-020-00175-z. Niemi, J., Bennett, R., Clark, B., Frewer, L., Jones, P., Rimmler, T., Tranter, R., 2020. A value chain analysis of interventions to control production diseases in the intensive pig production sector. PLOS ONE 15, e0231338. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0231338. Paul, E.S., Podberscek, A.L., 2000. Veterinary education and students’ attitudes towards animal welfare. Veterinary Record 146, 269–272. https://doi.org/ 10.1136/vr.146.10.269. Peixoto, R.S., Harkins, D.M., Nelson, K.E., 2021. Advances in microbiome research for animal health. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences 9, 289–311. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-animal-091020-075907. Pimentel, T.C., da Costa, W.K.A., Barão, C.E., Rosset, M., Magnani, M., 2021. Vegan probiotic products: a modern tendency or the newest challenge in functional foods. Food Research International 140, 110033. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.foodres.2020.110033. Placzek, M., Christoph-Schulz, I., Barth, K., 2021. Public attitude towards cow-calf separation and other common practices of calf rearing in dairy farming—a review. Organic Agriculture 11, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-020- 00321-3. Prados-Bo, A., Casino, G., 2021. Microbiome research in general and business newspapers: How many microbiome articles are published and which study designs make the news the most? PLOS ONE 16, e0249835. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0249835. Reddy, H., Fatimah, S.N., Zulvayanti, 2015. Knowledge level of pregnant women in cipacing village on nutrition and benefits of colostrums. Althea Medical Journal 2, 36–41 10.15850/amj.v2n1.422. Ruegg, P.L., 2003. Practical food safety interventions for dairy production. Journal of Dairy Science 86, E1–E9. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)74034-X. Schröder, M.J.A., McEachern, M.G., 2004. Consumer value conflicts surrounding ethical food purchase decisions: a focus on animal welfare. International Journal of Consumer Studies 28, 168–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470- 6431.2003.00357.x. Schultz, P.W., 2002. Knowledge, information, and household recycling: examining the knowledge-deficit model of behavior change. In: Dietz, T., Stern, P.C. (Eds.), New Tools for Environmental Protection: Education, Information and Voluntary Measures. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 67–82. Schultz, P.W., Messina, A., Tronu, G., Limas, E.F., Gupta, R., Estrada, M., 2016. Personalized normative feedback and the moderating role of personal norms. Environment and Behavior 48, 686–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0013916514553835. Scully, S., Smith, P.E., Earley, B., . McAloon, C., Waters, S.M., 2023. Effect of colostrum source and calf breed on diarrhoea incidents in pre-weaned dairy calves. Paper Presented at the 74nd Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production. 27th August - 1st September 2023, Lyon, France. Serpell, J., 2004. Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare. Animal Welfare 13, S145–S151. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962728600014500. Siegrist, M., Hartmann, C., 2020. Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies. Natutre Food 1, 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0094-x. Sirovica, L.V., Ritter, C., Hendricks, J., Weary, D.M., Gulati, S., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., 2022. Public attitude toward and perceptions of dairy cattle welfare in cow-calf 12 management systems differing in type of social and maternal contact. Journal of Dairy Science 105, 3248–3268. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2021-21344. Stanton, C., Gardiner, G., Meehan, H., Collins, K., Fitzgerald, G., Lynch, P.B., Ross, R.P., 2001. Market potential for probiotics. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 73, 476s–483s. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/73.2.476s. Stěhulová, I., Lidfors, L., Špinka, M., 2008. Response of dairy cows and calves to early separation: Effect of calf age and visual and auditory contact after separation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 110, 144–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. applanim.2007.03.028. Sturgis, P., Allum, N., 2004. Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science 13, 55–74. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0963662504042690. Stygar, A.H., Krampe, C., Llonch, P., Niemi, J.K., 2022. How far are we from data- driven and animal-based welfare assessment? a critical analysis of european quality schemes. Frontiers in Animal Science 3, 1–12. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fanim.2022.874260. Šumane, S., Kunda, I., Knickel, K., Strauss, A., Tisenkopfs, T., Rios, I.des I., Rivera, M., Chebach, T., Ashkenazy, A., 2018. Local and farmers’ knowledge matters! How integrating informal and formal knowledge enhances sustainable and resilient agriculture. Journal of Rural Studies 59, 232–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jrurstud.2017.01.020. TENK, 2019. The ethical principles of research with human participants and ethical review in the human sciences in Finland. Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK guidelines 2019. Publications of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK 3/2019. Helsinki, Finland https://www.tenk.fi/sites/ tenk.fi/files/Ihmistieteiden_eettisen_ennakkoarvioinnin_ohje_2019.pdf. Toma, L., McVittie, A., Hubbard, C., Stott, A.W., 2011. A structural equation model of the factors influencing British consumers’ behaviour toward animal welfare. Journal of Food Products Marketing 17, 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10454446.2011.548748. Toma, L., Stott, A.W., Revoredo-Giha, C., Kupiec-Teahan, B., 2012. Consumers and animal welfare. a comparison between European Union countries. Appetite 58, 597–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.11.015. University of Turku, 2023. Ethical review in human sciences research. University of Turku, Turku, Finland https://www.utu.fi/en/research/ethics/ethical-review-in- human-sciences-research. Vaarst, M., Alrøe, H.F., 2012. Concepts of animal health and welfare in organic livestock systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25, 333– 347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9314-6. Vanhonacker, F., Van Poucke, E., Tuyttens, F., Verbeke, W., 2010. Citizens’ views on farm animal welfare and related information provision: exploratory Insights from Flanders, Belgium. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23, 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9235-9. Várhidi, Z., Máté, M., Ózsvári, L., 2022. The use of probiotics in nutrition and herd health management in large Hungarian dairy cattle farms. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 9, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.957935. Verbeke, W., 2009. Stakeholder, citizen and consumer interests in farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 18, 325–333. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0962728600000725. Weisberg, S., Cook, R.D., 1982. Residuals and Influence in Regression. Chapman & Hall, London, UK & New York, NY, USA. Wenker, M.L., Verwer, C.M., Bokkers, E.A.M., Te Beest, D.E., Gort, G., De Oliveira, D., Koets, A., Bruckmaier, R.M., Gross, J.J., Van Reenen, C.G., 2022. Effect of type of cow-calf contact on health, blood parameters, and performance of dairy cows and calves. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 9, 855086. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fvets.2022.855086. White, H., 1980. A Heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48, 817–838. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/1912934. Wooldridge, J.M., 2002. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA. Wooldridge, J.M., 2013. Introductory econometrics : a modern approach. South- Western Cengage Learning, Mason, OH, USA. Yáñez-Ruiz, D.R., Abecia, L., Newbold, C.J., 2015. Manipulating rumen microbiome and fermentation through interventions during early life: a review. Frontiers in Microbiology 6, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.01133. Ziman, J., 1991. Public understanding of science. Science, Technology, & Human Values 16, 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399101600106. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029920000503 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.04.048 https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459221140388 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-020-00175-z https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-020-00175-z https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231338 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231338 https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.146.10.269 https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.146.10.269 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-animal-091020-075907 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-animal-091020-075907 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.110033 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.110033 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-020-00321-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-020-00321-3 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249835 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249835 https://doi.org/10.15850/amj.v2n1.422 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)74034-X https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2003.00357.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2003.00357.x http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1751-7311(24)00317-3/h0270 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1751-7311(24)00317-3/h0270 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1751-7311(24)00317-3/h0270 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1751-7311(24)00317-3/h0270 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916514553835 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916514553835 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962728600014500 https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0094-x https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2021-21344 https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/73.2.476s https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.03.028 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.03.028 https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662504042690 https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662504042690 https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2022.874260 https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2022.874260 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.01.020 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.01.020 https://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/Ihmistieteiden_eettisen_ennakkoarvioinnin_ohje_2019.pdf https://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/Ihmistieteiden_eettisen_ennakkoarvioinnin_ohje_2019.pdf https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2011.548748 https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2011.548748 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.11.015 https://www.utu.fi/en/research/ethics/ethical-review-in-human-sciences-research https://www.utu.fi/en/research/ethics/ethical-review-in-human-sciences-research https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9314-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9235-9 https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.957935 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962728600000725 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962728600000725 https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.855086 https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.855086 https://doi.org/10.2307/1912934 https://doi.org/10.2307/1912934 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1751-7311(24)00317-3/h0370 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1751-7311(24)00317-3/h0370 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1751-7311(24)00317-3/h0375 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1751-7311(24)00317-3/h0375 https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.01133 https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399101600106 Public acceptance of microbiome management strategy in dairy calves: a European survey on colostrum, probiotic provision and prolonged cow-calf contact Implications Introduction Material and methods Data analyses Results Sample socio-demographics characteristics Acceptance of strategies and the role of socio-demographic profile The role of attitudinal variables The role of socio-economic characteristics and consumption habits The role of additional information Discussion The role of attitudinal variables on strategy acceptance The role of socio-economic characteristics The role of information in evaluating alternative livestock practices The magnitude of effect Implications and study limitations Conclusion Supplementary material Ethics approval Data and model availability statement Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process Author ORCIDs CRediT authorship contribution statement Declaration of interest Acknowledgements Financial support statement References