Promoting farmer engagement and activity in the control of dairy cattle lameness

[thumbnail of Whay et al 2012 Promoting activity on lameness control.pdf]
Text - Published Version
· Restricted to Repository staff only
· The Copyright of this document has not been checked yet. This may affect its availability.
Restricted to Repository staff only

Please see our End User Agreement.

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

Add to AnyAdd to TwitterAdd to FacebookAdd to LinkedinAdd to PinterestAdd to Email

Whay, H. R., Barker, Z. E. orcid id iconORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8512-0831, Leach, K. A. and Main, D. C. J. (2012) Promoting farmer engagement and activity in the control of dairy cattle lameness. The Veterinary Journal, 193 (3). pp. 617-621. ISSN 1532-2971 doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2012.06.041

Abstract/Summary

Many ‘influencers’ allied to the agricultural industry support farmers to implement management changes that affect animal welfare. Developing approaches to working with farmers that achieve both engagement and subsequently management changes is critical. As an example, the generation of action points and implementation of change to control dairy cattle lameness is reported and discussed here. Action plans were generated on farms receiving both lameness monitoring and intervention support (MS group; n = 117) as part of a 3 year intervention project. At the start of year 1, MS farmers received action planning advice from a veterinary surgeon, and then at the start of years 2 and 3, farmers generated their own lameness control action plans with facilitator support. Engagement was achieved with 114 MS farmers who generated 692 action points in total. Two hundred and sixteen of these resulted from veterinary advice and 476 were generated by the farmers with facilitator support. In terms of activity, MS farms implemented a mean of 8.22 changes per farm as compared to 6.77 on farms which only received annual lameness monitoring (MO group; n = 72). While these levels of change were similar, fewer changes implemented on the MS farms (8.5%) were judged ‘likely to increase the risk of lameness’ compared to the MO farms (16.5%). Farmers generated substantial numbers of lameness control action points for their own farms aided by a facilitator and, crucially, veterinary or facilitator involvement reduced changes that were likely to compromise lameness control.

Altmetric Badge

Item Type Article
URI https://reading-clone.eprints-hosting.org/id/eprint/116706
Identification Number/DOI 10.1016/j.tvjl.2012.06.041
Refereed Yes
Divisions No Reading authors. Back catalogue items
Life Sciences > School of Agriculture, Policy and Development > Department of Animal Sciences
Publisher Elsevier
Download/View statistics View download statistics for this item

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Search Google Scholar