Changing interventions in farm animal health and welfare: A governmentality approach to the case of lameness.

Lameness is a significant health and welfare issue in farmed animals. This paper uses a governmentality approach, which focuses on how a problem is made governable, to examine an emerging 'ecology of devices' introduced to intervene in, and attempt to reduce, on-farm incidence of lameness. These devices are associated with advisers who work with farmers on-farm; they enact lameness as a governable entity, are tools to assess the existence of lameness against established norms, and prescribe actions to be taken in response to evidence of lameness. In doing this they subjectify farmers and advisers into seeing and responding to lameness in particular ways. Using concepts of governmentality alongside other perspectives on the power relations and the simplifications and complexities involved in interventions in animal health and farm practice, the paper draws on in-depth research with advisers including vets and other paraprofessionals who work with farmers, and their cows and sheep. It explores how this set of devices introduces particular techniques and practices in lameness management, and produces farmer and adviser subjectivities. It then explores some of the problematics of this mode of governing lameness, including analysis of the limitations and unintended consequences of attempts to simplify lameness management. The paper concludes by arguing that its approach is valuable in analysing ongoing intensification of interventions in farming practices and in understanding the limits of such interventions and the unanticipated divergences from expected conduct.

Exploring farmer and advisor lameness management behaviors using the COM-B model of behavior change.

Introduction: This paper applies the COM-B framework to farmer and farm advisor understandings and responses to lameness in sheep, beef, and dairy systems. It reflects on how farmers' and advisors' capability, opportunity, and motivation (COM-B) influence lameness management practices in these farming systems, and considers the interaction between these three factors, and stakeholders' behavior. Methods: Interviews with 29 farmers and 21 farm advisors in the north of England were conducted. Thematic analysis was undertaken with results categorized in relation to the COM-B framework focusing on barriers and enablers of lameness management. Use of the COM-B model provides a useful means of understanding the underlying behavioral mechanisms that contribute toward the persistence of lameness. This includes the complexities and interactions which hamper implementation of lameness management best practice. Results and discussion: The findings highlight three key areas to address with interventions to improve lameness management on farm: (1) removing physical and social barriers for lameness management; (2) improving psychological capability and motivation for lameness management; and (3) facilitating relationships and developing communication between farmers and advisors. In particular, the value of exploring both farmer and advisor perspectives on behavior in the animal health context is demonstrated. Future interventions should look to target these three areas to overcome barriers and focus on factors that enable positive lameness practices to occur.

Exploring farmers' understanding of and responses to endemic animal health and welfare issues in the UK.

BACKGROUND: This paper uses two endemic health conditions to explore farmer understandings of and responses to livestock health and welfare issues. METHODS: The findings are based on a survey of 42 livestock farmers in the north of England, exploring how they manage lameness in sheep and cattle and bovine viral diarrhoea in cattle. We identify similarities and differences in their approaches. RESULTS: Two themes emerge. (1) The importance of difference between animal types (i.e., beef cattle, dairy cattle and sheep), which highlights the 'complex' and 'multifactorial' nature of animal health and welfare. It is necessary to unpack this to understand the interplay of animal, resource and management issues in farmer responses. (2) Previous research has identified 'lack of knowledge' as a key welfare issue. Our findings reveal farmers are in fact seeking, acquiring and sharing knowledge on practices related to the management of animal health however individual circumstance and context influence how this translates in practice. CONCLUSION: Our research highlights the importance of integrating different perspectives and knowledges as a way of understanding and responding to animal health and welfare concerns. Facilitating knowledge exchange both within and between different groups and sectors is vital in achieving this.