Search

ABSTRACT: Qualitative research related to humans, dairy cows, calves, and farming has been published by scientists from a variety of disciplines in many journals targeting dairy science audiences. We aimed to investigate how scientific communities other than those working in dairy science describe, analyze, and discuss dairy farming, because we found it important to bring this research to the attention of dairy scientists. In total, 117 articles were identified as involving one or more qualitative research methods in relation to dairy cattle. The review brought out a wealth of perspectives, new insights, and discussions related to dairy cattle, farmers, farming, and the sector, and in relation to societal issues and food and ecological landscapes. A broad range of qualitative research methods were used, and the literature targeted issues at the animal, farm, societal, food system, and landscape levels. Some raised critical questions about existing structures, highlighted unfairness in the industry, or pointed to new potential futures and contemporary agendas. We expect that it will be inspirational and stimulating for researchers to review new sources of literature and suggest a closer interdisciplinary collaboration among researchers from different disciplines for the future development of research involving dairy cattle. Further, it could be relevant and even necessary to engage in such interaction to avoid increasing polarization around future development of the sector—for example, related to climate change or how industrialization seems to push inequity or ignore the agency of animals themselves. Exploring perspectives of farming from different angles could enrich the outcomes of future dairy research.

Early life killing of male and female dairy calves not needed as replacements for the lactating herd poses a threat to the social sustainability of the dairy industry. However, implementing sustainable alternatives to this common practice is a complex challenge exhibiting many characteristics of a ‘wicked problem’. Addressing these problems requires understanding the needs of a wide range of actors including farmers, their advisors, beef and dairy value chain stakeholders, the public, and the animals. The aim of this study was to describe how Australian dairy farmers and advisors understand the factors affecting surplus calf management and examine how this understanding changed following interventions where participants were exposed to community and value chain stakeholder perspectives. To achieve this, we utilized a participatory framework that included longitudinal focus groups, where the same groups were reconvened multiple times, periodically revisiting the same issue, as a practical method for achieving deliberative engagement. We analyzed participants’ responses before and after the interventions were applied using thematic analysis. Responses were organized into two themes: (1) economic and practical aspects of surplus calf management; and (2) social aspects of surplus calf management. We conclude that farmers and their advisors see surplus calf management as complex and without simple solutions. Farmers are faced with numerous challenges when it comes to breeding, rearing, and marketing calves for economically viable beef markets and are often impacted at a personal level by this burden. Participants often positioned the public as naïve to the plight of the farmer, requiring education to understand and accept farming practices. However, exposing participants to community views, particularly those which included some common ground with which participants could identify, resulted in some suggesting that preserving public trust may instead require adapting farming practices to align production systems with public values. In contrast, sharing value chain perspectives had less impact. Our findings indicate that participatory processes offer a promising approach for working toward sustainable management of surplus dairy calves in a local and global context.

ABSTRACT: The use of qualitative research in dairy science has increased considerably in recent years, providing the opportunity to inform research and practice. This review aims to enhance the accessibility of qualitative research among a range of audiences and specifically: (1) provide an overview of what qualitative research is and the value it can bring to scientific inquiries in the dairy context, (2) illustrate the emergence of qualitative dairy science research in the past 15 to 20 years, (3) outline the role of the researcher and key philosophical assumptions underlying qualitative research, (4) describe qualitative research approaches and methods used in dairy science research, and (5) highlight key aspects of qualitative inquiry used to ensure research trustworthiness. Qualitative approaches in dairy science enable researchers to understand myriad topics including stakeholder relationships, decision-making, and behaviors regarding dairy cattle management, animal welfare, and disease prevention and control measures. Approaches that were used often for qualitative data collection were individual interviews and focus groups, and variations of thematic analysis were common analytical frameworks. To assess public values, attitudes, and perceptions, mixed methods questionnaires that combined quantitative data with qualitative data from open-ended questions were used regularly. Although still used infrequently, action research and participatory approaches have the potential to bridge the research-implementation gap by facilitating group-based learning and on-farm changes. Some publications described the philosophical assumptions inherent to qualitative research, and many authors included reflexivity and positionality statements. Although a comprehensive description of strategies to meet trustworthiness criteria for qualitative research was uncommon, many publications mentioned certain aspects of trustworthiness, such as member checking, researcher triangulation, and the recording of reflexive notes. Qualitative research has been used to deepen our understanding of phenomena relevant to the dairy sector and has opened the door for a broad array of new opportunities. In addition to having merit on its own, qualitative research can guide, inform, and expand on quantitative research, and an understanding of the core pillars of qualitative research can foster interdisciplinary collaborations.

Social referents provide information that aid in farmer decision making. Some social referents, such as veterinarians, have been well studied in the context of dairy farms, but others have not and the role of social referents may change across management practices. This study aimed to understand (1) who farmers consult when making management decisions across different animal care practices and (2) what characteristics of these social referents influence farmer decision making. Secondary thematic analysis was used on two qualitative datasets with dairy farmers from the lower Fraser Valley region of British Columbia, Canada. The two datasets included non-naturalistic data (i.e. interviews, participatory discussion groups) investigating two dairy farm management practices (calf care and transition period management). Analysis revealed four themes: (1) who farmers consult when making management decisions across practices and the role of these social referents, (2) personal and professional characteristics, and the diversity of opinions of social referents, (3) actions of social referents, and (4) the strength of the relationship between the social referent and farmer. Similarities were found across practices regarding the personal and professional characteristics of social referents, even though the role of these referents varied across contexts. Farmers valued diverse opinions and actions that social referents could provide, such as the provision of resources, recommendations, and interpretation of farm data. We recommend future research focused on strengthening the relationship between farmers and social referents.

Interventions that aim to help farmers change on-farm practices recommend that advisors communicate effectively with farmers, work collaboratively to set goals and provide farmers with resources that are applicable to the farm context. We developed an intervention that aimed to help farmers modify and use a standard operating procedure (SOP) for colostrum management; failure of passive transfer of immunoglobulins is common on dairy farms and SOPs for colostrum management are increasingly required by farm animal welfare assurance programs. We used Realistic Evaluation to evaluate whether, how and why our intervention to help farmers modify and use SOPs for colostrum management facilitated change and provide recommendations based on our approach that can improve the design and implementation of future interventions. We used a multiple case study on five farms over 8 months, collecting data through interviews, participant observation, document analysis and field notes. We identified three mechanisms that influenced whether participants modified and used their SOP. The purpose mechanism distinguished between participants who thought the aim of the SOP was for farm staff to learn and understand how to complete a task versus those who thought that the SOP was only useful for compliance with assurance programs. The utility mechanism distinguished between participants who thought that the SOP would be helpful for daily use on their farm, versus those who did not. The physical text mechanism distinguished between participants who used the templates we provided to modify and use their SOP, versus those who did not. A key contextual factor on all farms was participant belief of having capable and engaged staff on their farm; modification and use of the SOP did not occur unless this was the case. To facilitate change, intervention developers should actively participate in the intervention to develop an understanding of farmer needs, understand the purpose behind different goals set by farmers and integrate tools, advice and resource demonstrations when possible. We conclude that Realistic Evaluation is a useful framework for evaluating how contexts and mechanisms generate outcomes on farms, and to understand how, and in which contexts, complex interventions facilitate change. We suggest that this approach can improve the success of interventions and help direct the approaches used on different farms.