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.
Despite one-third of New Zealand's landmass being protected as public conservation land, the country still faces significant conservation challenges. Nearly 50% of the country's landmass has been converted to pastoral farming, and biological invasions pose a sustained and growing threat to remaining biodiversity across all land tenures. Managing and protecting biodiversity on-farm provides vast opportunities to create nature-rich pastoral landscapes. A key step towards bringing about necessary behaviour change to achieve this is increasing insights into farmers' attitudes towards the value of native biodiversity on their farms. Using a questionnaire underpinned by the Theory of Planned Behaviour, we surveyed 500 sheep and beef farmers from around New Zealand as to their beliefs and attitudes and perceived barriers relating to the protection and management of native biodiversity on their farm. Although the survey respondents were largely homogenous, the surveyed group of farmers were heterogeneous in their responses. When asked about advantages associated with managing and protecting native biodiversity on their farms, 690 distinct responses were provided, spanning social (47%), environmental (34%), practical (10%), and economic (2%) themes. In contrast, identified disadvantages were fewer (530 distinct responses) and less wide-ranging in scope, clustering around economic (44%), practical (26%) and social (25%) themes. Nearly three times as many farmers stated there were no disadvantages (22%) than stated there were no advantages (8%). However, the most frequently cited disadvantages were cost and time, which were also commonly cited as barriers to managing biodiversity. Our study illustrates that sheep and beef farmers perceive may advantages in maintaining native biodiversity on-farm, but there is a clear desire for greater support in overcoming identified barriers and this will require a targeted policy response.
The use of digital technologies in agriculture has received significant attention in the last decade. There is increasing interest in the potential opportunities for digitalization at a broader bioeconomy scale; however, there is limited knowledge of the potential barriers to a digital bioeconomy. This chapter reviews current knowledge on barriers to digital agriculture and uses a case study to relate these barriers to the bioeconomy scale. We found that adoption barriers are not just technical, but include economic, social, and institutional dimensions, and occur at multiple scales involving technology design, farm systems (including supply chains), the agricultural innovation system, and society. Additionally, these barriers can be highly interconnected. For example technical issues around data interoperability cannot be addressed independently of social issues at the farm scale related to perceptions around privacy and transparent use of farmer data. Examining these multi-dimensional and multi-scale issues through a bioeconomy lens highlights the need for directionality in digital bioeconomy innovation and alignment of national policies and initiatives. Rather than assuming that greater use of digital tools is inherently positive for a national bioeconomy, nations should purposely assess and anticipate the potential implications of digitalization. Our review highlights three opportunities for directionality in the digital bioeconomy. The first is for technology design and development to directly respond to and address societal (not only end-user) needs and barriers to uptake. The second is to design and develop data governance, business models, and standards for data, which are transparent, inspire trust, and share benefits of digital technologies among supply chain stakeholders. The third is to considerably broaden the assessment of societal value from digital agriculture. Addressing the adoption barriers to the digital bioeconomy will come from integrated applications of digitalization that are purpose or ‘mission’ led, rather than inherently techno-centric.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.