A living lab approach to understanding dairy farmers' needs of technologies and data to improve herd health: Focus groups from 6 European countries

For successful development and adoption of technology on dairy farms, farmers need to be included in the innovation process. However, the design of agricultural technologies usually takes a top-down approach with little involvement of end-users at the early stages. Living Labs offer a methodology that involve end-users throughout the development process and emphasize the importance of understanding users' needs. Currently, exploration of dairy farmers' needs of technologies has been limited to specific types of technology (e.g., smartphone apps) and adult cattle. The aim of this study was to use a Living Lab approach to identify dairy farmers' needs of data and technologies to improve herd health and inform innovation development. Eighteen focus groups were conducted with, in total, 80 dairy farmers from Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the UK. Data were analyzed using Template Analysis and 6 themes were generated which represented the fundamental needs of autonomy, comfort, competence, community and relatedness, purpose, and security. Farmers favored technologies that provided them with convenience, facilitated their knowledge and understanding of problems on farm, and allowed them to be self-reliant. Issues with data sharing and accessibility, and usability of software were barriers to technology use. Furthermore, farmers were facing problems around recruitment and management of labor and needed ways to reduce stress. Controlling aspects of the barn environment, such as air quality, hygiene, and stocking density, was a particular concern in relation to youngstock management. In conclusion, the findings suggest that developers of farm technologies may want to include farmers in the design process to ensure a positive user experience and improve accessibility. The needs identified in this study can be used as a framework when designing farm technologies to strengthen need satisfaction and reduce any potential harm toward needs.

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.

Calf health veterinary services: Making them work for calves, farmers and veterinarians

BACKGROUND

Despite an appetite among UK veterinarians (vets) and farmers to improve calf health, vets face challenges in delivering and sustaining proactive calf health services.

METHODS

Forty-six vets and 10 veterinary technicians (techs) participated in a project to determine what makes calf health services successful while improving their own services. In four facilitated workshops and two seminars, carried out between August 2021 and April 2022, participants described their approaches to calf work, discussed measures of success, identified challenges and success factors, and addressed knowledge gaps.

RESULTS

Many approaches to calf health services were described, and these could be categorised into three overlapping models. Success involved enthusiastic, knowledgeable vets/techs, supported by their practice team, fostering positive attitudes among farmers by providing the services they need, creating a tangible return on investment for farmers and the practice. Lack of time was identified as the most prominent challenge to achieving success.

LIMITATIONS

Participants were self-selected from one nationwide group of practices.

CONCLUSION

Successful calf health services depend on identifying the needs of calves, farmers and veterinary practices, and delivering measurable benefits to each. More calf health services embedded as a core part of farm veterinary practice could bring wide ranging benefits to calves, farmers and vets.

Dairy farmer and farm staff attitudes and perceptions regarding daily milk allowance to calves

The benefits of feeding calves more milk are increasingly being recognized by dairy farmers. However, most producers have still not implemented higher feeding plans. The aim of the present study was to gain a deeper understanding of farmer and farm staff attitudes, and the perceptions and factors considered in their decision-making regarding daily milk allowances. We collected data through focus group interviews with dairy farmers, farm managers, and calf-care workers who were selected using purposive and snowball sampling. In total, 40 persons (24 women and 16 men) joined a focus group interview (6 in all, each with 5-8 participants). Interviews were recorded, and recordings were transcribed and analyzed thematically. Participants had contrasting opinions about the minimum, maximum, and recommended daily milk allowances to their calves. Their suggested lowest daily milk allowance to sustain animal welfare ranged from 4 to 8-10 L and the maximum allowance from 6 to 15 L. We found that farmers' and farm staff's choices and recommendations of milk-feeding protocols were influenced by a large number of factors that could be grouped into 4 themes: (1) Life beyond work, (2) Farm facilities and equipment, (3) Care of the calves, and (4) Profitability and production. Participants' considerations were similar and aimed to maximize daily milk allowance based on farm conditions. However, the allowances they described as optimal for their calves often differed from what they considered practically feasible. We found that the care of the calves and the well-being of the owners and the staff was central in the participants' decision-making, but that this care perspective was challenged by the social and economic sustainability of the farm. Most participants fed their calves twice daily and did not think that increasing that number would be practically feasible. Our results indicate that the participants' viewpoints regarding calves were important for their decision-making about milk allowances. We suggest that a more holistic perspective should be used when advising farmers about milk allowances, putting particular emphasis on the caring and social sustainability aspects of the individual farm.

Social and ethical implications of data and technology use on farms: a qualitative study of Swedish dairy and pig farmers

Introduction

Livestock farmers are being increasingly encouraged to adopt digital health technologies on their farms. Digital innovations may have unintended consequences, but there tends to be a pro-innovation bias in previous literature. This has led to a movement towards "responsible innovation," an approach that questions the social and ethical challenges of research and innovation. This paper explores the social and ethical issues of data and technologies on Swedish dairy and pig farms from a critical perspective.

Methods

Six focus groups were conducted with thirteen dairy and thirteen pig farmers. The data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and a digital critical health lens, which focuses on concepts of identity and power.

Results and discussion

The analysis generated four themes: extending the self, sense of agency, quantifying animals, and managing human labour. The findings suggest that technologies can change and form the identities of farmers, their workers, and animals by increasing the visibility of behaviours and bodies through data collection. Technologies can also facilitate techniques of power such as conforming to norms, hierarchical surveillance, and segregation of populations based on data. There were many contradictions in the way that technology was used on farms which suggests that farmers cannot be dichotomised into those who are opposed to and those that support adoption of technologies. Emotions and morality played an important role in the way animals were managed and technologies were used by farmers. Thus, when developing innovations, we need to consider users' feelings and attachments towards the technologies. Technologies have different impacts on farmers and farm workers which suggests that we need to ensure that we understand the perspectives of multiple user groups when developing innovations, including those that might be least empowered.

Dairy producer perceptions toward male dairy calves in the Midwestern United States

Male dairy calves are often sold from the farm of birth within the first few days of life. Research describing the care of male calves is limited, with an emphasis on parsing differences between the care of male and female calves. The aims of this study were to describe dairy producers’ self-reported care practices for male relative to female calves, as well as their perceptions toward male calf care and welfare. Overall, 24 dairy producers in Ohio and Indiana participated in 1 in-person focus group (n = 10) or were individually interviewed (n = 14) using a semi-structured questionnaire with closed and open-ended questions about neonatal calf care and welfare. Discussions were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data from closed-ended questions are described quantitatively, and thematic analysis was used to identify common themes discussed by producers for open-ended questions. A majority of producers described using different care protocols for male and female dairy calves (64%; 9/14 interview participants). Low input care practices were more commonly consistent between male and female calves, such as colostrum protocols (71%; 10/14 interview participants) and navel care (100%; 14/14 interview participants) than more costly treatments. Of the producers that provided disease prevention products to female calves (79%; 11/14 interview participants), only a few also administered them to male calves (27%; 3/11 interview participants). Three major themes were constructed from the open-ended questions, including factors affecting male dairy calf care, attitude toward male calf welfare, and opportunities to improve male dairy calf welfare. Producers described multiple factors that influenced male calf care on the dairy, such as time and money required to care for them. There was divergence in concern among producers about male calf welfare, with some producers expressing concern, particularly for calves slaughtered soon after birth; yet others described feelings of indifference about the topic. Potential ways to improve male calf welfare, including greater sale prices and the involvement in specialized marketing schemes, were suggested by some producers. These findings highlight potential concerns for male calf welfare and ways to improve future care on dairy farms.