Stakeholder Perceptions of Disease Management for Dairy Calves: "It's Just Little Things That Make Such a Big Difference"

Exploring the data divide through a social practice lens: A qualitative study of UK cattle farmers

Appropriate management decisions are key for sustainable and profitable beef and dairy farming. Data-driven technologies aim to provide information which can improve farmers' decision-making practices. However, data-driven technologies have resulted in the emergence of a "data divide", in which there is a gap between the generation and use of data. Our study aims to further understand the data divide by drawing on social practice theory to recognise the emergence, linkages, and reproduction of youngstock data practices on cattle farms in the UK. Eight focus groups with fifteen beef and nineteen dairy farmers were completed. The topics of discussion included data use, technology use, disease management in youngstock, and future goals for their farm. The transcribed data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis with a social practice lens. Social practice theory uses practices as the unit of analysis, rather than focusing on individual behaviours. Practices are formed of three elements: meaning (e.g., beliefs), materials (e.g., objects), and competencies (e.g., skills) and are connected in time and space. We conceptualised the data divide as a disconnection of data collection practices and data use and interpretation practices. Consequently, we were able to generate five themes that represent these breaks in connection.Our findings suggest that a data divide exists because of meanings that de-stabilise practices, tensions in farmers' competencies to perform practices, spatial and temporal disconnects, and lack of forms of feedback on data practices. The data preparation practice, where farmers had to merge different data sources or type up handwritten data, had negative meanings attached to it and was therefore sometimes not performed. Farmers tended to associate data and technology practices with larger dairy farms, which could restrict beef and small-scale dairy farms from performing these practices. Some farmers suggested that they lacked the skills to use technologies and struggled to transform their data into meaningful outputs. Data preparation and data use and interpretation practices were often tied to an office space because of the required infrastructure, but farmers preferred to spend time outdoors and with their animals. There appeared to be no normalisation of what data should be collected or what data should be analysed, which made it difficult for farmers to benchmark their progress. Some farmers did not have access to discussion groups or veterinarians who were interested in data and therefore could not get feedback on their data practices.These results suggest that the data divide exists because of three types of disconnect: a disconnect between elements within a practice because of tensions in competencies or negative meanings to perform a practice; a disconnect between practices because of temporal or spatial differences; and a break in the reproduction of practices because of lack of feedback on their practices. Data use on farms can be improved through transformation of practices by ensuring farmers have input in the design of technologies so that they align with their values and competencies.

Water pollution from pharmaceutical use in livestock farming: Assessing differences between livestock types and production systems

Livestock production is a major source of pharmaceutical emissions to the environment. The current scientific discourse focuses on measuring and modeling emissions as well as assessing their risks. Although several studies corroborate the severity of pharmaceutical pollution resulting from livestock farming, differences in pollution between livestock types and production systems are largely unknown. In fact, there is no comprehensive analysis of factors influencing pharmaceutical use-the emission's source-in the diverse production systems. To address these knowledge gaps, we developed a framework to investigate pharmaceutical pollution from different livestock production systems and applied it in a first pilot assessment to compare pollution from organic and conventional cattle, pig, and chicken production systems on selected indicator substances, covering antibiotics, antiparasitics, hormones, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Given the lack of statistics, for this article we retrieved novel qualitative information about influential factors for pharmaceutical use and pollution from expert interviews and combined this with quantitative data on, among other factors, the environmental behavior of specific substances from the literature. Our analysis reveals that factors across a pharmaceutical's entire life cycle influence pollution. However, not all factors are livestock type or production-system dependent. The pilot assessment furthermore reveals that differences in pollution potential between conventional and organic production exist, but for antibiotics, NSAIDs, and partially for antiparasitics, some factors lead to greater pollution potential in conventional systems, and others in organic systems. For hormones, we identified a comparatively greater pollution potential from conventional systems. Among the indicator substances, the assessment over the entire pharmaceutical life cycle illustrates that flubendazole in broiler production has the greatest per unit impact. The framework and its application in the pilot assessment generated insights useful to identifying which substances, livestock types, production systems, or the combination thereof have great or little pollution potential, informing more sustainable agricultural management practices. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2023;19:1495-1509. © 2023 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Youngstock Management as “The Key for Everything”? Perceived Value of Calves and the Role of Calf Performance Monitoring and Advice on Dairy Farms

Replacement heifers are key to the future milking herd and farm economic efficiency but are not always prioritised on dairy farms. Dairy enterprises are comprised of components which compete for limited resources; scarce information about calf performance and the associated losses and (potential) gains on farms can mean calves are prioritised less in management and investment decisions. The research reported in this paper explored the personal and contextual factors that influence calf management decisions on dairy farms. Forty in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with dairy farmers (26 interviews) and farm advisors (14 interviews) who were recruited using purposive and “snowball” sampling. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed. Six major themes were constructed from the interview data relating to: the perceived importance of youngstock management, the role and influence of calf rearers, calf performance monitoring, farmer engagement with information and advice, the quality of communication and advice, and veterinary involvement in calf rearing. Results indicated that although the wider dairy industry has promoted the importance of youngstock, calves often have not been fully integrated into the whole dairy farm system, nor culturally accepted as an integral part of the productive herd. Calves tended to be marginalised on farms, largely due to limited resources, lack of data monitoring, and their unrecognised potential, as well as social norms and scarcity of support structures impacting upon farm investment and management decisions. Many calf rearers were disappointed by the repetition and impractical nature of information in print media. Most farmers did not routinely consult their veterinarian about their calves, rather following a reactive treatment model even when a preventive herd health strategy was applied to the adult herd. Advisory structures often require a driven individual with calf-centric interest to prevent calves from being overlooked. Furthermore, advisory efforts often failed to motivate farmers to act on advice. These findings indicate the need for greater focus on how to achieve rearing targets by provision of technical and support structures to foster action toward improved calf wellbeing, and for the status of calves to be raised in line with their vital importance for the future dairy herd.

Effect of Type of Cow-Calf Contact on Health, Blood Parameters, and Performance of Dairy Cows and Calves

Prolonged cow-calf contact (CCC) could potentially improve dairy calf welfare. However, it is currently unknown how different types of CCC affect animals' biological functions. We evaluated health and performance parameters of dairy calves and their dams, where calves: (i) had no contact with their dam (NC), in which the calf was removed from the dam directly after birth (n = 10); (ii) were allowed to have partial contact (PC) with their dam, in which the calf was housed in a calf pen adjacent to the cow area allowing physical contact on the initiative of the dam but no suckling (n = 18); (iii) were allowed to have full contact (FC) with their dam, including suckling, in which calves were housed together with their dams in a free-stall barn (n = 20). Throughout the first 7 weeks postpartum, data were collected on the health status, fecal microbiota, hematological profile, immune and hormonal parameters, and growth rates of calves, and on the health status, metabolic responses, and performance of dams. Overall, FC calves had more health issues (P = 0.02) and a tendency for higher antibiotic usage (P = 0.07) than NC calves. Additionally, FC calves showed elevated levels of erythrocytes, hematocrit, hemoglobin, and leukocytes on day 49 compared to NC calves (P < 0.001). Calf fecal microbiota changed over time, and we found preliminary evidence that fecal microbiota is affected by the type of CCC, as reflected by differences in relative abundances of taxa including Lactobacillus in FC calves compared to NC and PC calves except on days 7 and 66. The FC calves had a greater average daily gain in body weight than NC and PC calves (P = 0.002). Cow health was not affected by the type of CCC, although in the first 7 weeks of lactation FC cows had a lower machine-gained milk yield accompanied by a lower fat percentage than NC and PC cows (P < 0.001). These results indicate that full contact posed a challenge for calf health, presumably because the housing conditions of FC calves in this experimental context were suboptimal. Secondly, ad libitum suckling leads to higher weight gains and negatively affected milk fat content besides machine-gained yields. More research into strategies to improve cow-calf housing and management in CCC systems is warranted.

Developing ‘Smart’ Dairy Farming Responsive to Farmers and Consumer-Citizens: A Review

Simple Summary

Dairy production has evolved over many generations to be an important source of high-quality nutrition for a significant proportion of the global population. However, it needs to evolve further to ensure it contributes to sustainable diets. Technological innovation can be a key enabler. It is also the case however that innovation brings about significant change, and can introduce unexpected, unintended and undesirable consequences, which are experienced differently by different actors on the ground. Thus, a major challenge is turning good science and technology into positive and innovative outcomes for society in an equitable way. Drawing on concepts from Responsible Research and Innovation (anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity and responsiveness) and Food Systems thinking, the authors reviewed the academic literature to consider the perspectives of different actors relating to technologies on dairy farms. It considers ‘smart’ on-farm technologies at three key stages of the dairy production cycle—breeding, feeding and milking—through the lens of two actor groups. It considers the farmers who may(not) adopt such innovations and the consumer-citizens who will(not) purchase/accept the resultant on-farm practices and foods. It highlights some differences between and within these actor groups, but also identifies commonalities, including tensions, faced by both groups. Dairy production in the future, thus, is not only challenged with embracing advanced technologies, the process by which such technologies are designed and selected must also be ‘smart’.

Abstract

Innovation has resulted in more dairy products being produced with less inputs than ever before. It has also affected how animals are raised, the structure of the sector and the nature of products produced. Not all impacts have been positive. As disruptive technologies—such as precision farming and robotics—herald significant change, it is timely to reflect on the perspectives of different actors on innovations within the sector. Drawing on a review of academic literature, this paper considers farmers’ and consumer-citizens’ perspectives; as expected, their diverse knowledge, interests and values surface a range of perspectives. To provide focus to the study, it examines technologies across three stages of the dairy production cycle: breeding, feeding and milking. It finds that consumer-citizen and farmer perspectives have been examined by researchers in several countries, using a variety of methods, across a range of technologies. It finds both areas of agreement and tension within and between consumer-citizen and producer cohorts. While differences in knowledge account for some variation, differences in values are also significant. The extent to which efforts can and should be put into addressing differences is raised as a point for reflection.