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.

A comparison of population estimation techniques for individually unidentifiable free-roaming dogs.

BACKGROUND: Measuring the size of free roaming dog populations quickly and accurately is critical in the implementation of numerous preventive health and population control interventions. However, few studies have investigated the relative performance of population size assessment tools when applied to dogs. The aim of this study was to compare the commonly used mark-resight methodology with distance sampling methods, which are less resource intensive, to estimate free-roaming dog abundance in Goa, India. Twenty-six working zones were surveyed along all roads twice by the same surveyor at the same time of day, following a vaccination campaign which included marking of vaccinated dogs with a coloured paint. The Chapman estimate was then used to evaluate the mark-resight abundance. Additionally, the number of dogs and perpendicular distance from the road for all dogs sighted was recorded. This was used to estimate dog density and abundance using distance sampling methods. The detection function was fitted based on goodness-of-fit and AIC. RESULTS: The Chapman abundance estimate for the entire study area was 5202 dogs (95%CI 4733.8-5671.0), and the distance sampling method abundance estimate was 5067 dogs (95%CI 4454.3-5764.2). For individual working zones, after taking other factors into account in a mixed effects model, the average distance sampling estimate was 35% higher (95%CI 20-53%) than the Chapman estimate. There was also evidence of a difference in estimates between surveyors of 21% (95%CI 7-37%) and between days (22% lower on day 2, 95%CI 8-38%) for individual working zones. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that the distance sampling estimates were comparable overall to the Chapman method of abundance estimation of free roaming dogs across the entire study region but there was noticeable variation between the two methods when individual zones were compared. Consequently, distance sampling methods may be suitable to enumerate dogs over large areas in a more time efficient manner than the widely used mark-resight approach.

Investigation of short-term surgical complications in a low-resource, high-volume dog sterilisation clinic in India.

BACKGROUND: Surgical sterilisation is currently the method of choice for controlling free-roaming dog populations. However, there are significant logistical challenges to neutering large numbers of dogs in low-resource clinics. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of short-term surgical complications in a low-resource sterilisation clinic which did not routinely administer post-operative antibiotics. The medical records of all sterilisation surgeries performed in 2015 at the Worldwide Veterinary Service International Training Centre in Tamil Nadu, India were reviewed (group A) to assess immediate surgical complications. All animals in this group were monitored for at least 24 h post-surgery but were not released until assessed by a veterinarian as having uncomplicated wound healing. In the second part of this study from August to December 2015, 200 free-roaming dogs undergoing sterilisation surgery, were monitored for a minimum of 4-days post-surgery to further assess postoperative complications (group B). RESULTS: Surgery related complications were seen in 5.4% (95%CI, 4.5-6.5%) of the 1998 group A dogs monitored for at least 24 h, and in 7.0% (3.9-11.5%) of the 200 group B dogs monitored for 4 days. Major complications were classed as those requiring an intervention and resulted in increased morbidity or mortality. Major complications were seen in 2.8% (2.1-3.6%) and 1.5% (3.1-4.3%) of group A and B, respectively. Minor complications requiring little or no intervention were recorded for 2.6% (1.9-3.4%) for group A and 5.5% (2.8-9.6%) for group B. There was no evidence for a difference in complication rates between the two groups in a multivariate regression model. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that high volume, low-resource sterilisation of dogs can be performed with a low incidence of surgical complications and low mortality.