Dairy farmers' expectations and receptivity regarding animal welfare advice: A focus group study.

Discussion and incorporation of best practices for animal welfare have been increasing in research, and in commercial operations, including through welfare assessment initiatives. The aim of this study was to explore dairy farmers' perceptions about being approached and receiving advice about animal welfare (i.e., lameness, hock injuries, and disbudding practices). It is useful for dairy consultants, researchers, or animal welfare assessment programs to gain an in-depth understanding of farmers' expectations when broaching the subject of animal welfare issues to facilitate communication about what can be perceived as a sensitive topic. We collected qualitative data using a focus group methodology. Five focus groups of farmers (n = 36 in total), took place in Ontario, Canada. Discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Participant age ranged from 21 to 80 yr (median = 47). Represented herd size ranged from 25 to 550 milking cows (median = 75). Farm type included free stall (n = 14) and tie stall (n = 22). Rigor was incorporated by using systematic thematic analysis: transcripts were coded line by line, and codes were categorized and then expanded and collapsed into themes, which were further refined to reflect farmer perceptions in a thematic map. Thematic analysis of the focus group discussions suggested 6 major themes related to farmers' receptivity to and expectations of animal welfare advice. Themes 1 to 4 provided insights into what farmers expected from those who were broaching topics: (1) an established relationship with the farmer; (2) expertise in dairy care/welfare; (3) prevention of "barn blindness"; and (4) provision of animal care services before and after welfare issues are broached. Theme 5 helped determine how welfare topics should be broached: the communication approach. Theme 6 identified who farmers feel should broach animal welfare topics on farm. Focus group discussions also provided insights into potential disconnects between farmer and veterinary expectations about animal welfare issues during herd health visits. Those who have established relationships with farmers are better received and are expected to broach welfare issues, especially if they are perceived to be an expert in animal care and welfare, and if they communicate the issue tactfully and work with the farmer to establish a plan of action.

Training method for animal-based measures in dairy cattle welfare assessments.

Quantitative assessments of animal welfare are increasingly being used in the dairy industry. It is important to have good precision and accuracy within and among assessors. This study explored the effectiveness of a 3-d training workshop for animal-based measures (ABM) of welfare in dairy cows, in which 14 people were trained to evaluate 6 ABM, specifically hock injuries (HI), lameness (LM), body condition score (BCS), and udder, flank, and leg cleanliness (collectively CLN). All scoring systems were modified to a dichotomous outcome, acceptable or unacceptable. Acceptable HI included no swelling or hair loss, unacceptable HI included swelling or scab; acceptable BCS was >2 on a 5-point scale, unacceptable BCS was ≤2. Acceptable CLN was up to minor splashing, unacceptable CLN was distinct plaques to a solid manure plaque. Lameness was evaluated using locomotion score or in-stall lameness score (SLS) in tiestalls; unacceptable LM was ≥3 (lameness score) on a 5-point scale, where 3 equals mild lameness or ≥2 of 4 behavioral in-stall lameness score indicators were detected. Classroom instruction took place on d 1 of training. Day 2 consisted of group assessment of LM (n = 25 cows), and HI, CLN, and BCS (n = 30 cows), and individual assessment of HI, CLN, and BCS (n = 20 cows) were performed. Day 3 included individual assessments of HI, CLN, and BCS (n = 33 cows), and individual video assessment of LM (n = 27 cows). An additional training video for LM was sent to trainees 3 wk after the workshop, and another follow-up assessment of LM took place via video (n = 37 cows). Repeatability and accuracy of the trainees was assessed using Fleiss's κ (FK) and Byrt's κ (BK) to examine group-level inter-rater agreement and expert-trainee agreement, respectively. The kappa systems use a scale of poor (<0), slight (0.01 to 0.20), fair (0.21 to 0.40), moderate (0.41 to 0.61), substantial (0.61 to 0.80), or almost perfect (0.81 to 1.00). At the conclusion of the workshop, FK was 0.66 for HI and 0.43 for LM, and BK mean (and range) was 0.85 (0.63 to 1.00) for HI and 0.66 (0.56 to 0.85) for LM. Each trainee achieved perfect agreement for BCS [BK mean = 1.00 (1.00 to 1.00)] and each trainee achieved almost perfect agreement for CLN [BK mean 0.90 (0.82 to 0.94)]. After the follow-up video and 3 wk of experience, trainees achieved a FK of 0.66 and a BK mean of 0.74 (0.62 to 0.89) for LM. In conclusion, multiple assessors can achieve substantial agreement for ABM with adequate training.