Search

Reports on Aotearoa New Zealand's research, science, and innovation (RSI) system suggest the sector could improve its social responsibility and create more social value. However, researchers and innovators within the sector find this challenging. Through qualitative interviews and a national survey of RSI system participants, this study explores the current perceptions, practices enacted, and support given around responsible research and innovation practices. Findings indicate that researchers and innovators have diverse understandings of what responsible research and innovation entails, viewing anticipation and reflexivity-aligned practices as the most important aspects of responsible research and innovation. Participants feel most supported by research organisations and funding bodies to enact such aspects of responsible practice. However, they perceive a discrepancy, across all dimensions explored, between what researchers and innovators should do, and what they actually do in terms of enacting responsible practices. Thus, significant room for improvement is identified, particularly regarding practices that align with researchers' and innovators' obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and requirements under Vision Mātauranga. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Herbicide-resistant weeds are a growing challenge in agricultural systems worldwide, leading to additional management costs and yield losses. Best practice management guidelines have been promoted for decades, yet incidences of resistance continue to increase. In New Zealand, herbicide resistance might be more widespread than commonly assumed. To respond to the emerging challenge, this article draws on qualitative social research with arable farmers and agricultural stakeholders in the Canterbury region to describe drivers underlying herbicide use on three levels: individuals' psycho-social context, farm system characteristics, and the socioeconomic system. While findings show concerns for maintaining practical and profitable farm operations, we argue that farmers' herbicide use is influenced by diverse biophysical, technological, and sociocultural factors, with some hindering recommended best practice. These findings demonstrate that integrated systems-based approaches are needed to holistically understand herbicide use as a critical step in collaborative efforts to establish feasible practice guidelines and management strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite one-third of New Zealand's landmass being protected as public conservation land, the country still faces significant conservation challenges. Nearly 50% of the country's landmass has been converted to pastoral farming, and biological invasions pose a sustained and growing threat to remaining biodiversity across all land tenures. Managing and protecting biodiversity on-farm provides vast opportunities to create nature-rich pastoral landscapes. A key step towards bringing about necessary behaviour change to achieve this is increasing insights into farmers' attitudes towards the value of native biodiversity on their farms. Using a questionnaire underpinned by the Theory of Planned Behaviour, we surveyed 500 sheep and beef farmers from around New Zealand as to their beliefs and attitudes and perceived barriers relating to the protection and management of native biodiversity on their farm. Although the survey respondents were largely homogenous, the surveyed group of farmers were heterogeneous in their responses. When asked about advantages associated with managing and protecting native biodiversity on their farms, 690 distinct responses were provided, spanning social (47%), environmental (34%), practical (10%), and economic (2%) themes. In contrast, identified disadvantages were fewer (530 distinct responses) and less wide-ranging in scope, clustering around economic (44%), practical (26%) and social (25%) themes. Nearly three times as many farmers stated there were no disadvantages (22%) than stated there were no advantages (8%). However, the most frequently cited disadvantages were cost and time, which were also commonly cited as barriers to managing biodiversity. Our study illustrates that sheep and beef farmers perceive may advantages in maintaining native biodiversity on-farm, but there is a clear desire for greater support in overcoming identified barriers and this will require a targeted policy response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Separation of the cow and calf shortly after birth is a common practice on commercial dairy farms around the world, but there are emerging concerns about this practice among citizens and other stakeholders. Continuous improvement of on-farm management practices in collaboration with dairy sector stakeholders increases the likelihood that farming systems evolve in a way that is consistent with societal expectations. Few commercial dairy farms provide extended cow-calf contact, and there is little understanding of how dairy farmers view this practice. This study examined the views of New Zealand dairy farmers toward providing cow-calf contact, particularly the barriers to adopting such a system in a seasonal-calving pasture-based dairy system. Standard farm practice in New Zealand is to remove the calf from the cow around 24 h (but could be up to 48 h) after birth. These conventional farmers (n = 63) were randomly selected from the database of all dairy farmers in New Zealand and telephone-interviewed using a semistructured interview format. Their responses to questions about providing cow-calf contact (defined as contact beyond the standard practice of 48 h) were analyzed using thematic analysis. Three major themes of concern were identified by these farmers about providing cow-calf contact as follows: (1) poor animal welfare, especially the risk of mastitis in the dam, inadequate colostrum for the calf, increased stress from delayed separation, and lack of shelter for calves while outdoors with the cow; (2) increased labor and stress on staff; and (3) system-level changes required, including infrastructure and herd management. Many of these concerns stemmed from challenges related to the nature of large-scale seasonal-calving pasture-based dairy systems, where a large number of calves are born in a short period of time and may be exposed to inclement weather in late winter in some areas. Several small-scale farmers (n = 4) providing cow-calf contact for longer than standard practice of 48 h were also interviewed; all permitted contact for at least 4 wk. These farmers also felt that animal welfare and health were important, and that this was promoted in their cow-calf contact systems. Concerns about colostrum and mastitis, for example, were not raised by these farmers, but they did agree that additional infrastructure and shelter were important considerations for cow-calf contact systems. Some conventional farmers expressed cognitive dissonance in that they theoretically preferred cow-calf contact but could not see it being realistic or practical to implement. Farmers currently providing longer cow-calf contact may be a useful resource for better understanding of how practical and economical cow-calf contact systems could be adopted on commercial pastoral dairy farms., (© 2022, The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. and Fass Inc. on behalf of the American Dairy Science Association®. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).)