Ontario dairy producers' and veterinarians' perspectives: barriers to biosecurity implementation

Implementing biosecurity protocols is necessary to reduce the spread of disease on dairy farms. In Ontario, biosecurity implementation is variable among farms and barriers to biosecurity are unknown. Thirty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted between July 2022 and January 2023 with dairy producers (n = 17) and veterinarians (n = 18). Participants also completed a demographic survey. Thematic analysis was performed with constructivist and grounded theory paradigms. Thematic coding was done inductively using NVivo software. Dairy producers' understanding of the definition of biosecurity varied, with all understanding that it was to prevent the spread of disease. Furthermore, the most common perception was that biosecurity prevented the spread of disease onto the farm. Both veterinarians and producers stated that closed herds were one of the most important biosecurity protocols. Barriers to biosecurity implementation included a lack of resources, internal and external business influencers, individual perceptions of biosecurity, and a lack of industry initiative. Understanding the barriers producers face provides veterinarians with the chance to tailor their communication to ensure barriers are reduced, or for other industry members to reduce the barriers.

Perceptions of biosecurity in a Canadian dairy context

The objective of this review was to outline current implementation of biosecurity, the impact of biosecurity on the industry, and producers' and veterinarians' perceptions of biosecurity with a focus on the Canadian dairy industry. Biosecurity is an important aspect of farm safety by reducing the spread of pathogens and contaminants, improving animal health and production, and maintaining human safety. Implementation of biosecurity practices range between farms and countries. Since Canada's supply management system is different compared with other countries, different barriers and perceptions of biosecurity may exist. Producers have various perspectives on biosecurity, many of which are negative, such as being expensive or time consuming. Producers are motivated and deterred from biosecurity implementation for many reasons, including perceived value, disease risk, and financial incentives or deterrents. Additionally, with veterinarians being a trusted source of information, veterinarians' approach to discussions on biosecurity implementation are important to understand. Veterinarians and producers appear to have differing opinions on the importance of biosecurity and the approach to discussing biosecurity. Improving biosecurity implementation requires a multifactorial approach, such as individualized education and awareness for producers, further research into efficacy of and barriers to biosecurity, and development of effective communication strategies between veterinarians and producers.

Assessment of management practices, awareness on safe use of pesticides and perception on integrated management of pests and diseases of chilli and tomato grown by small-scale farmers in selected districts of Sri Lanka

BACKGROUND

In this study, we surveyed through a structured and pilot-tested questionnaire, the practices of pesticide usage by small-scale (< 1.25 ha) chilli and tomato farmers from four districts of Sri Lanka and their perceptions on the effectiveness of pesticides and willingness to adopt integrated pest management (IPM).

RESULTS

We found significant (P < 0.05) variation among districts in farmer responses to 37 out of 59 survey questions. A majority of farmers were dependent on pesticides with only a minority practicing IPM. A majority perceived that their current pesticide usage was increasing, but was not excessive. A majority were aware of the negative impacts of pesticides on human health and environment. Farmer perception on the effectiveness of pesticides increased with age, but was not influenced by education level. Farmers having a higher opinion of pesticides made a greater number of applications during a cropping cycle. They also maintained a longer preharvest interval and did not use pesticide mixtures. A majority expressed willingness to initiate IPM, but identified lack of knowledge and technical knowhow on specific IPM practices for their crops as barriers to adoption and requested external support. Farmer willingness to adopt IPM is higher among older, more educated farmers and among full-time farmers who are currently totally-dependent on pesticides and whose major income source was farming.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that a significant extension effort in terms of farmer education on IPM and external assistance to develop the technological knowhow, which is tailor-made to specific districts, is needed to facilitate adoption of IPM among these farmers.

Danish dairy farmers' acceptance of and willingness to use semen from bulls produced by means of in vitro embryo production and genomic selection

A novel technology combining in vitro production and genomic embryo selection is currently under development in dairy cattle breeding. Adoption of this technology will probably accelerate genetic progress toward the main breeding goals of economic interest, as well as allow selection for traits of societal concern such as decreased methane emissions and improved animal welfare. However, dairy farmers, and especially organic farmers, could find the technology morally questionable and reject its use. This cross-sectional study surveyed Danish dairy farmers' general acceptance of the combined technology and their reported likelihood of using semen produced with it. Drawing on diffusion theory, a questionnaire was developed to examine the way farmers discover and communicate about new technological breeding options, and to measure the factors which predict acceptance and likelihood of adopting the technology. The questionnaire was sent to a randomly selected sample of organic and conventional dairy farmers in Denmark, and 85 organic and 71 conventional farmers (41% response rate) completed it. Seventy-six percent of farmers reported that they would be likely to use semen from bulls derived from the technology. A majority (61%) also found the technology acceptable, but many (33%) were unsure or undecided. Most farmers saw the technology as beneficial, but ethical reservations were aired by around a fifth of the farmers. There were no differences between organic and conventional farmers in likelihood of using, perceived utility, and ethical reservations about the technology. Self-reported idealistic organic farmers showed lower acceptance of the technology, but reported similar likelihood of using semen produced by it. Young farmers (20-39 yr) exhibited higher acceptance of the technology. Larger producers (in terms of number of cows) were more likely to report that they will use and accept the technology. We conclude that it is likely that semen from the technology combining in vitro production and genomic selection would be widely used by both organic and conventional farmers provided that costs can be kept low, and that there are advantages in terms of achieving breeding goals. Structural developments, growth in size of dairy farms, acceptance by young farmers, and the fact that economic incentives (and even ethical arguments) seem to favor the technology all point to this conclusion.

A Survey of Broiler Farmers' Perceptions of Animal Welfare and their Technical Efficiency: A Case Study in Northeast China

This study was conducted to assess the current status of famers' perceptions of animal welfare and technical efficiency in broiler farms using a stochastic frontier analysis (SFA). In this study, 355 farms registered in Heilongjiang Province, China were surveyed, with 240 of them responding. The results showed that 75% of farmers recognize the importance of animal welfare, and 56.3% of them expressed their willingness to implement animal welfare on their farms without conditions or having a negative attitude. The technical efficiency of the farmers' ranged from 55% to 99%. All the variables assessed in this study had a statistical influence on production. Education, experience, and gender of farmers were significant variables and increased efficiency, while age and distance of a farm to the main road increased inefficiency. Based on our survey, we suggest that the implementation of animal welfare measures will require government subsidy or incentive, which could encourage 35% of farmers to implement animal welfare measures. To increase production efficiently, farmer needs to control the mortality rate, but the contribution of vaccine during production is below 1% (0.09%).

Farmers' perceptions and approaches to detection, treatment and prevention of lameness in pasture-based dairy herds in New South Wales, Australia

AIMS

The objective of this study was to investigate farmers' perception of lameness in comparison to the estimated prevalence of lameness in NSW pasture-based dairies to evaluate farmers' perceptions and approaches to detection, treatment and prevention of lameness.

METHODS

Across-sectional study was conducted on 62 pasture-based dairy farms across NSW, Australia. The prevalence of lameness in these farms was estimated using locomotion scoring (1-4 scale). A survey was also conducted, using a questionnaire and face-to-face interview, to explore farmers' perceived prevalence of lameness and approaches to treatment and prevention.

RESULTS

The prevalence of lameness estimated by farmers was 3.7 times less (mean: 5%; range 0% to 26%) than that determined by locomotion scoring (mean: 19.1%; range 5.0%-44.5%). Approaches to treatment included antimicrobial therapy, hoof inspection with or without application of wooden blocks. In 28% of the farms, the lame cows were managed by farmers or farm staff with no official training in treatment of lame cows. The mean interval from detection of lameness to examination of the affected hoof was almost 55 hours (range 2-720 hours). A very low percentage of farms kept lameness records or implemented lameness preventive strategies such as footbaths and prophylactic foot trimming.

CONCLUSIONS

Farmers and farm managers were found to underestimate the prevalence of lameness which could be due to the low level of awareness and can contribute to subsequent lack of implementation of prophylactic procedures and preventive management strategies for lameness. These findings accentuate the need to improve farmers' ability to detect lame cows and to emphasise the importance of recording in order to facilitate the management of lameness in dairy herds.

Canadian National Dairy Study: Describing Canadian dairy producer practices and perceptions surrounding cull cow management

Farmer decisions surrounding culling have an important effect on the health and welfare of cull cows. The objectives of this study were to describe the self-reported shipment behaviors of Canadian dairy producers and understand farmer perspectives on the factors that were most influential in their decision to cull a cow. A nationwide survey was administered between March and April 2015 that included 192 questions covering producer background information, farm characteristics, biosecurity practices, disease prevalence, calf health, cow welfare, lameness, milking hygiene, reproduction, and Internet and social media use. The survey yielded a 12% response rate; a total of 1,076 respondents (78% of all survey respondents completed the culling section of the survey) were included in this study for analysis. Approximately 80, 51, and 38% of respondents reported shipping at least 1 cow to auction, direct to slaughter, and to another dairy farm in the past 12 mo, respectively. Ability of the cow to remain standing (93% of respondents) and drug withdrawal times (92% of respondents) were identified as the most important factors for consideration when culling cows. The time between culling decision and when the cow was actually transported was longer for lame cows than sick cows; almost 70% of respondents reported that cows culled for illness were typically shipped within 1 wk of culling decision, whereas only 51% of respondents indicated the same was true for lame cows. Last, Canadian dairy producers generally exhibited strong confidence that their culled cows would arrive at slaughter in the same condition as they left, but felt very unsure about knowing the location of their final destination. These results highlight several gaps between producer perceptions and the true situation, and can be used to develop tailored programs and inform policy and regulatory decisions aimed at improving cull cow decisions and cow welfare.

Citizens' and Farmers' Framing of 'Positive Animal Welfare' and the Implications for Framing Positive Welfare in Communication

Simple Summary

The words used to communicate farm animal welfare to non-specialists may be more important than knowledge of welfare itself. Framing research finds that human perception is influenced, not by what is said, but by how something is said. By increasing the emphasis placed on animals having positive experiences, positive animal welfare changes the framing of farm animal welfare. Yet, we do not know how such framing of animal welfare may influence the perceptions of key animal welfare stakeholders. In response, this study uses qualitative interviews to explore how citizens and farmers frame positive animal welfare and what this means for the effective communication of this concept. This study finds that ‘positive’ evokes associations with ‘negatives’ amongst citizens. This leads them to frame positive animal welfare as animals having ‘positive experiences’ or being ‘free from negative experiences’. Farmers rely more on their existing frames of animal welfare and integrate positive welfare into this. As such, most farmers frame positive welfare as ‘good husbandry’, a smaller number frame it as ‘proactive welfare improvement’, and a small number frame it as an ‘animal’s point of view’. The implications of such internal frames for effectively transferring positive welfare from science to society are further discussed.

Abstract

Human perception can depend on how an individual frames information in thought and how information is framed in communication. For example, framing something positively, instead of negatively, can change an individual’s response. This is of relevance to ‘positive animal welfare’, which places greater emphasis on farm animals being provided with opportunities for positive experiences. However, little is known about how this framing of animal welfare may influence the perception of key animal welfare stakeholders. Through a qualitative interview study with farmers and citizens, undertaken in Scotland, UK, this paper explores what positive animal welfare evokes to these key welfare stakeholders and highlights the implications of such internal frames for effectively communicating positive welfare in society. Results indicate that citizens make sense of positive welfare by contrasting positive and negative aspects of welfare, and thus frame it as animals having ‘positive experiences’ or being ‘free from negative experiences’. Farmers draw from their existing frames of animal welfare to frame positive welfare as ‘good husbandry’, ‘proactive welfare improvement’ or the ‘animal’s point of view’. Implications of such internal frames (e.g., the triggering of ‘negative welfare’ associations by the word ‘positive’) for the effective communication of positive welfare are also presented.

Exploring dairy producer and veterinarian perceptions of barriers and motivators to adopting on-farm management practices for Johne's disease control in Ontario, Canada

Motivating uptake of management change recommendations requires knowledge of the barriers and motivators influencing producer behavior. This study investigated dairy producers' and veterinarians' perceptions of the barriers and motivators influencing the adoption of Johne's disease (JD) control recommendations in Ontario, Canada. Eight focus groups, 6 with dairy producers and 2 with veterinarians, were conducted and thematically analyzed. Both producer and veterinarian groups identified physical resources (i.e., time, money, infrastructure) and producer mindset (i.e., perceived priority of JD, perceived practicality of JD control recommendations) as key barriers to adoption. Producers tended to prioritize JD control on their farm based on their lived experiences with JD and their view of the public's concern about JD. Many agreed that JD recommendations should focus on biosecurity more holistically and emphasize the broader health benefits of limiting calf exposure to many fecal-orally transmitted diseases. Producers also highlighted that some recommendations for on-farm change (i.e., keeping a closed herd, buying from low-risk herds) were unrealistic or too difficult to perform and often disrupted their habits or routine. In contrast, veterinarians suggested that most recommendations were practical and are routinely recommended. Participants suggested both extrinsic (i.e., incentives, premiums, penalties and regulations, and extension and communication) and intrinsic (i.e., pride and responsibility) methods for motivating producers. This study highlights the importance of producer mindset in on-farm change and offers insights into the attitudes and perceived barriers influencing on-farm change.