Barriers and drivers of farmers to provide outdoor access in pig farming systems: a qualitative study

Part of the farmers have chosen to raise pigs with outdoor access. However, providing outdoor access to pigs is not a simple matter, and many farmers are hesitating or feel powerless to engage in this transition. A better understanding of their needs and challenges could facilitate the development of innovations that generate commitment. This survey aimed to identify the French pig farmers' barriers to and drivers for providing outdoor access to pigs. A total of 36 farmers, aged 25-60, who worked in all types of pig farming systems (from full indoor to free-range) participated in a semi-structured interview that lasted 1.25-2.25 h. The topics covered included a historical overview, a description of the farm and practices, as well as opinions about the impact of outdoor access on farmers, animals, production and economic performance, environment, and society. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. Most of the participants agreed that rearing pigs indoors is a different job from that of rearing pigs with outdoor access and that it is above all a matter of choice, farmer work conception, and work comfort. Farmers generally agreed that working outdoors is particularly arduous, but this could be compensated by the satisfaction of being in contact with nature and seeing animals in a more complex environment. A large majority of farmers managing a system with outdoor access raised the issue of lack of support, highlighting the need for refinement and diffusion of guides of practices as well as day-to-day support. The impact of outdoor access on the health and welfare of pigs was discussed, especially regarding climatic hazards and the risk of zoonoses, and several outdoor farmers explained how their relationship with the animals changes when pigs are raised outside. Given that zootechnical performance may significantly decrease in farms with outdoor access, various strategies can be employed to maintain profitability, such as feed production, circularity, direct sales, or work diversification. They could be either motivating or demotivating factors depending on the individuals. Concerns about social criticism were prominent among many indoor farmers while farmers providing outdoor access generally felt more serene and proud. Overall, this study can serve as a basis to identify levers that could remove barriers, foster the adherence of more farmers, and facilitate the transition towards more pig farming systems with outdoor access, provided that those systems are viable and beneficial for the welfare and health of the animals and farmers.

Outdoor access practices in the Canadian dairy industry

Dairy cows are highly motivated to access pasture and have a partial preference for alternative forms of outdoor access (e.g., deep-bedded outdoor sand or wood-chip packs). In addition, Canadians value the provision of outdoor access to dairy cows as they perceive it as important for good cow welfare. In contrast to Europe, Oceania, and the United States, little data exist on the use of outdoor access on Canadian dairy farms. Therefore, our objective was to assess current outdoor access practices for dairy cows in Canada. An online questionnaire was used to determine housing and outdoor access practices for lactating cows, dry cows, pregnant heifers, and weaned, nonpregnant heifers on Canadian dairy farms. The questionnaire was distributed by the 10 provincial milk boards between November 2020 and August 2021, resulting in an 8.9% response rate (n = 903 completed questionnaires). In total, 75% (n = 675) of respondents provided some form of outdoor access to at least 1 cattle class on their farm. Pasture was the most frequently used form of outdoor access for all cattle classes. Based on a weighted average, a total of 29% and 48% of Canadian dairy farms provided lactating and dry cows, respectively, access to pasture; for youngstock, these numbers were 48% and 27% for pregnant heifers and weaned, nonpregnant heifers, respectively. Herd size (for each cow class), indoor housing system, and region were all associated with the provision of pasture. Farms with larger lactating herds less often provided access to pasture; larger herd sizes in terms of weaned, nonpregnant heifers, pregnant heifers, and dry cows were also associated with a lower likelihood of access to pasture. Farms using indoor bedded pack housing for their lactating cows more often provided pasture to this cattle class than farms with freestall or tiestall housing; this likelihood did not differ between farms with tie or freestall housing for this cattle class. Dry cows or pregnant heifers housed in a tiestall were more often provided pasture than freestall-housed dry cows or pregnant heifers. Housing type for weaned, nonpregnant heifers was not associated with the likelihood of pasture provision. Farms in British Columbia or on Canada's East Coast (i.e., Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island) more often provided lactating cows pasture compared with farms in other regions. For the other 3 cattle classes, farms on the East Coast of Canada more often provided pasture than farms in other parts of Canada. These results will inform future decisions regarding outdoor access for Canadian dairy cattle and may also aid in identifying future areas of research. For example, our results may aid in designing housing systems that facilitate outdoor access in larger herds and in areas that are subject to more extreme weather conditions.

How might the public contribute to the discussion on cattle welfare? Perspectives of veterinarians and animal scientists

Veterinarians and animal scientists can provide leadership on issues relevant to farm animal welfare, but perceptions of these stakeholders regarding societal expectations for welfare are underexplored. This study involved five focus groups of veterinarians and animal scientists (n = 50 in total), recruited at a European meeting focused on cattle welfare. Participants were invited to discuss topics related to cattle welfare and were prompted with questions to elicit their perspectives of public concerns and how the participants felt public input should be included when developing solutions. Discussions were moderated by trained facilitators, audio-recorded and transcribed, and transcripts analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Ultimately, four primary themes were developed: (1) The public as concerned; (2) The public as ignorant; (3) The public as needing education; and (4) The public as helper or hindrance. Groups identified specific farming practices viewed as concerning to the public, including lack of pasture access, behavioural restriction, and painful procedures. Discussions about these concerns and the role of the public were often framed around the assumption that the public was ignorant about farming, and that this ignorance needed to be rectified through education. Participants were generally ambivalent in their beliefs regarding public contributions to solutions for farm animal welfare but suggested that consumers should pay more for products to help shoulder any costs of welfare improvements.

Invited review: Qualitative research in dairy science-A narrative review

The use of qualitative research in dairy science has increased considerably in recent years, providing the opportunity to inform research and practice. This review aims to enhance the accessibility of qualitative research among a range of audiences and specifically: (1) provide an overview of what qualitative research is and the value it can bring to scientific inquiries in the dairy context, (2) illustrate the emergence of qualitative dairy science research in the past 15 to 20 years, (3) outline the role of the researcher and key philosophical assumptions underlying qualitative research, (4) describe qualitative research approaches and methods used in dairy science research, and (5) highlight key aspects of qualitative inquiry used to ensure research trustworthiness. Qualitative approaches in dairy science enable researchers to understand myriad topics including stakeholder relationships, decision-making, and behaviors regarding dairy cattle management, animal welfare, and disease prevention and control measures. Approaches that were used often for qualitative data collection were individual interviews and focus groups, and variations of thematic analysis were common analytical frameworks. To assess public values, attitudes, and perceptions, mixed methods questionnaires that combined quantitative data with qualitative data from open-ended questions were used regularly. Although still used infrequently, action research and participatory approaches have the potential to bridge the research-implementation gap by facilitating group-based learning and on-farm changes. Some publications described the philosophical assumptions inherent to qualitative research, and many authors included reflexivity and positionality statements. Although a comprehensive description of strategies to meet trustworthiness criteria for qualitative research was uncommon, many publications mentioned certain aspects of trustworthiness, such as member checking, researcher triangulation, and the recording of reflexive notes. Qualitative research has been used to deepen our understanding of phenomena relevant to the dairy sector and has opened the door for a broad array of new opportunities. In addition to having merit on its own, qualitative research can guide, inform, and expand on quantitative research, and an understanding of the core pillars of qualitative research can foster interdisciplinary collaborations.

Fellow cows and conflicting farmers: Public perceptions of dairy farming uncovered through frame analysis

Divergence in opinion over how farm animals should be cared for is creating a disconnect between livestock farming and the public that risks a loss of “social license” to farm. One proposed solution for the dairy farming community is to engage more constructively with the public to develop a shared vision of the industry's future; however, farmers and veterinarians remain reluctant to validate public opinions on farm animal care, in particular, often viewing them as naïve or impractical. Understanding the interpretive frames through which people make sense of dairy farming could help the dairy farming community engage more constructively with public opinion, thereby reducing conflict and providing opportunities to change communication or practice. Hence, frame analysis was conducted on transcripts of 60 face-to-face interviews with members of the UK public, first defining frames using reflexive thematic analysis, then considering the effect of these frames on those holding them. The results showed that dairy farming was mainly characterized by two entities: the cow and the farmer. Three frames were developed for the cow: she was perceived as i) enduring, which induced a sense of moral responsibility for her well-being among participants; ii) a fellow or companion, which led to feelings of a shared or parallel life with her; and iii) a force of nature, where the cow's connection with the natural world and “otherness” was appreciated, or even longed for. These connections were unexpectedly widespread within the sample, with many participants simultaneously holding two or even three frames. The farmer was seen through two frames: i) traditional; or ii) modernizing, but both frames had positive and negative narratives depending on the perceived care of the cow, causing confusion or even conflict about the care the farmer actually delivered. These findings provide new insights into the interpretive lenses through which the public makes sense of the dairy cow and her care, not least the bond the public themselves feel with the animal. They offer fresh opportunities for the dairy industry to improve engagement through more reflexive communication or modification of farming practices to better fit societal expectations about dairy cow welfare.