No abstract

Dairy calves often receive inadequate colostrum for successful transfer of passive immunity and inadequate milk to achieve their potential for growth and avoid hunger, but little is known about what motivates farmers to improve calf management around these concerns. Our aim was to assess if and how access to benchmarking reports, providing data on calf performance and peer comparison, would change the ways in which farmers think about calves and their management. During our study, 18 dairy farmers in the lower Fraser Valley (British Columbia, Canada) each received 2 benchmark reports that conveyed information on transfer of immunity and calf growth for their own calves and for other farms in the region. Farmers were interviewed before and after receiving their benchmarking reports to gain an understanding of how they perceived access to information in the reports. We conducted qualitative analysis to identify major themes. Respondents generally saw having access to these data and peer comparisons favorably, in part because the reports provided evidence of how their calves were performing. Benchmarking encouraged farmers to make changes in their calf management by identifying areas needing attention and promoting discussion about best practices. We conclude that some management problems can be addressed by providing farmers better access to data that they can use to judge their success and inform changes.

As advisors to dairy farmers, veterinarians are ideally positioned to influence the health of the dairy herd. Recent studies have demonstrated that dairy cattle veterinarians are also concerned about animal welfare, specifically on issues related to the housing environment, painful conditions and procedures, and managing disease in adult animals. However, less is known regarding their perspectives on calf welfare. The goal of this study was to engage cattle veterinarians in an in-depth discussion to gain a better understanding of what they think about calf welfare, and to provide clarity on what they feel is their responsibility to improve the welfare of dairy calves. Focus groups (n = 5), that collectively had 33 participants representing 5 Canadian provinces and different geographical regions, were conducted as part of a continuing education workshop for Canadian cattle veterinarians. Two trained individuals undertook exploratory data analysis using applied thematic analysis, where initial themes were identified and used to develop a detailed codebook to further guide the coding process. All transcripts were coded twice to test the validity of the initial codes and themes. Four major themes were identified: (1) veterinarians prioritized calf health and traded off this issue for other issues such as the calf's social needs; additionally, concerns included nutrition, hunger, and bull calf management; (2) veterinarians see their role in improving calf welfare within the context of shifting norms of calf management, believed to be consequence of pressure from within their profession, but also arising from pressure from their clients and the public; (3) veterinarians see their role as one of exerting social influence, primarily as an educator of their clients; and finally, (4) veterinarians see their responsibility in improving calf welfare as shaped by their personal values and professional ethics. Our results indicate that the veterinarians participating in this study are concerned about a range of calf welfare issues, believe they should have a more active role in calf management on farms, and see their role in improving calf welfare as shaped by their own values, the needs of their clients, and the concerns of the public.

Separation of the cow and calf shortly after birth is a common practice on commercial dairy farms around the world, but there are emerging concerns about this practice among citizens and other stakeholders. Continuous improvement of on-farm management practices in collaboration with dairy sector stakeholders increases the likelihood that farming systems evolve in a way that is consistent with societal expectations. Few commercial dairy farms provide extended cow-calf contact, and there is little understanding of how dairy farmers view this practice. This study examined the views of New Zealand dairy farmers toward providing cow-calf contact, particularly the barriers to adopting such a system in a seasonal-calving pasture-based dairy system. Standard farm practice in New Zealand is to remove the calf from the cow around 24 h (but could be up to 48 h) after birth. These conventional farmers (n = 63) were randomly selected from the database of all dairy farmers in New Zealand and telephone-interviewed using a semistructured interview format. Their responses to questions about providing cow-calf contact (defined as contact beyond the standard practice of 48 h) were analyzed using thematic analysis. Three major themes of concern were identified by these farmers about providing cow-calf contact as follows: (1) poor animal welfare, especially the risk of mastitis in the dam, inadequate colostrum for the calf, increased stress from delayed separation, and lack of shelter for calves while outdoors with the cow; (2) increased labor and stress on staff; and (3) system-level changes required, including infrastructure and herd management. Many of these concerns stemmed from challenges related to the nature of large-scale seasonal-calving pasture-based dairy systems, where a large number of calves are born in a short period of time and may be exposed to inclement weather in late winter in some areas. Several small-scale farmers (n = 4) providing cow-calf contact for longer than standard practice of 48 h were also interviewed; all permitted contact for at least 4 wk. These farmers also felt that animal welfare and health were important, and that this was promoted in their cowcalf contact systems. Concerns about colostrum and mastitis, for example, were not raised by these farmers, but they did agree that additional infrastructure and shelter were important considerations for cow-calf contact systems. Some conventional farmers expressed cognitive dissonance in that they theoretically preferred cow-calf contact but could not see it being realistic or practical to implement. Farmers currently providing longer cow-calf contact may be a useful resource for better understanding of how practical and economical cow-calf contact systems could be adopted on commercial pastoral dairy farms.