Factors influencing how Canadian dairy producers respond to a downer cow scenario.

Understanding how downer cattle are managed allows for the evaluation of strengths and weaknesses in these practices, which is an important step toward improving the care these animals receive. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to analyze factors associated with the care and management of downer cattle by Canadian dairy producers. Data were obtained from the 2015 National Dairy Study, and analysis was limited to the 371 respondents completing the downer cow scenario. The scenario described a downer cow that the producer wanted to keep in their herd but must be moved, and was followed by questions addressing the cow's care and management. Using multivariable logistic regression models, associations between respondent demographics and farm characteristics, and the presence of downer cow protocols, we assessed decisions regarding euthanasia and use of behavioral prognostic indicators. Written downer cow protocols were reported by 18.2% of respondents, 67% indicated that they had a nonwritten protocol, and 14.8% reported that they did not have a protocol (either written or nonwritten). Respondents from western provinces were more likely to have a written protocol than those from Ontario. Nineteen percent of the respondents with a written or unwritten protocol reported veterinary involvement in developing their downer cow protocol, which occurred more commonly on farms with more frequent herd health visits and a good producer-veterinarian relationship. An area to move a downer cow to was present on 88% of farms, with respondents who were farm staff being less likely to report having knowledge of a designated area than respondents who were the farm owner. In addition, approximately half (45%) of respondents reported moving downer cattle with hip lifters as their most common method. Behavioral prognostic indicators chosen by respondents were associated with the respondent's geographic region, age, farm size, and education. Most notably, older respondents were more likely to use appetite, and less likely to use attitude, as a prognostic indicator compared with younger respondents. Using perceived pain as a prognostic indicator was more common among respondents from western and Atlantic provinces compared with respondents from Ontario, and more common among respondents with a college or university education. These results highlighted herd and farmer demographics that were associated with how Canadian dairy producers managed downer cattle in 2015 and could be used as a benchmark for evaluating how these management practices compare with those currently implemented.

A qualitative study of Ontario dairy farmer attitudes and perceptions toward implementing recommended milking practices.

Recommended milking practices (RMP) are protective against mastitis. However, many producers do not adopt, or only partially adopt, these measures. This study aimed to explore the attitudes and perceptions of Ontario dairy farmers toward barriers to implementation of RMP and to investigate what motivates behavior change in relation to milking hygiene. Four focus groups with Ontario dairy producers were conducted, and verbatim transcripts were analyzed thematically. The main barriers to adoption of RMP were identified and categorized into 2 groups: intrinsic barriers and physical barriers. Intrinsic barriers included personal habits and convenience, not perceiving udder health as a priority on their farm, and lack of information. Physical barriers included employee training and compliance, convenience of implementing RMP, and time, money, and labor barriers. Producers used their bulk tank somatic cell count (SCC) as a measure of perceived severity of udder health problems on farm. Those with lower SCC were less likely to prioritize udder health compared with peers experiencing elevations in SCC. Lack of udder health problems translated for some producers into non-adoption of certain RMP, as they felt these practices were not needed unless a problem arose. Others felt motivated to implement more practices and work toward better udder health if such efforts translated into rewards for better-quality milk. Some producers perceived RMP as not meaningful or useful, seemingly due to a lack of education about the reasons behind RMP implementation. Understanding the importance of these practices is one key to implementing them. To overcome some of the intrinsic barriers, increased efforts in knowledge translation are needed, including efforts in retraining current practices, as well as in establishing best practices.

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.