top of page

Practical approach turns ‘what’ into ‘how’ (Sept 24)

A recent project highlighted producers’ preferred learning styles and the secrets to engagement successes when it comes to maximising hoof health and improving herd mobility.


TEXT RACHAEL PORTER



Producers pick up skills and engage with new ideas in different ways, so there’s no ‘one size fits all’ when it comes to disseminating support and advice to help them improve herd mobility. That’s why Farm Dynamics’ vet and dairy lameness specialist Sara Pedersen says that encouraging producers to engage in better hoof-health management starts with putting them in control.


“Producers want advice in different formats, based on their own personal learning style, which is something that’s often overlooked by advisers,” she says. “And understanding the power of peer-to-peer learning, and its value in turning the ‘what’ into ‘how’ from a practical perspective, is also important.”


Some producers don’t want to leave their farm and socialise/engage with other producers, but some do. “So it’s not a case of one-size-fits-all,” says Ms Pederson. Vet-to-producer, and sometimes farm-to-farm or peer-topeer, learning are the usual options and some are more effective than others. “We wanted to look more closely at that by carrying out a three-year study.”


A conversation with a producer who said he didn’t like discussion groups and he wasn’t comfortable around a lot of people sparked her idea for the project. “He said he preferred reading and often picked up new ideas and information and advice from books, newspapers and technical booklets,” says Ms Pedersen. “This made me think more about how we engage producers in discussions around improving mobility and whether approaches should be adapted.”


Knowledge transfer


Ms Pedersen headed up a European Innovation Partnership Wales project that aimed to explore how different methods of knowledge transfer influenced producers’ perception of lameness, their knowledge and behaviour change. The work also set out to determine how these methods of knowledge exchange related to improvements in mobility and whether farmer-led action groups (FLAGs) could provide another means of increasing producer engagement in lameness control.


A total of 24 producers, based in South East Wales and managing 5,422 cows between them with an average herd size of 226, took part in the project, which began in 2020. Average milk yield across the group was 9,104 litres. Each producer opted to join one of four project groups, based on their preferred method of knowledge exchange. These were group one (control) with no intervention: group two, which was offered one-to-one advice from a vet; group three, which was based around peer learning: and group four, offered a combination of one-to-one advice and peer learning.


Targeted advice


Group two saw producers receive direct, targeted advice through implementation of the AHDB Healthy Feet Lite programme (HFLite) with their own trained vet (mobility mentor). Group three had no specialist advice but shared knowledge and ideas through a facilitated farmer-led action group (FLAG), with each unit hosting two meetings during the course of the project. “And group four saw producers received both the HFLite with their own vet and peer support through a FLAG,” explains Ms Pedersen.


At the start of the project all producers in the intervention groups (two, three and four) were surveyed. The questionnaire covered: details of the herd; its approach to herd mobility, including levels of knowledge about hoof health; the incidence of lameness in their herd; and lesion identification and treatment protocols.


“While some producers prefer to work directly with their own vet and focus on their own situation, others prefer to work collectively within a group and share ideas through peer learning. And even when choosing their preferred learning method there was a variation in how much this advice was valued,” says Ms Pedersen. She adds that having confidence in advice received is vital to ensure that any recommended actions are implemented. “It is not only the method of learning that’s important, but also who is involved.”


The project revealed that the FLAGs were highly valued by the producers who participated in them. Compared to a traditional discussion group format, producers said they found it more useful to concentrate on one specific topic as added focus. “The greater emphasis on practical solutions and peer learning was more beneficial,” says Ms Pedersen. “The creation of an action plan for the producer-hosting the FLAGs was also an additional element that helped to drive change and ensure continued engagement.”


Producers also reacted differently to being part of a wider project and how much value they placed in benchmarking of their performance in comparison to other herds. “While some producers found it motivating or encouraging, others were solely focused on their own performance or found it demotivating if they saw others make improvements if they hadn’t seen the same progress on their unit.”


A practical approach was preferred by some who want to do it ‘hands on’ and then take the ideas and skills with them to implement on their units. They find this extremely effective.


The farm-based focus was also a success because producers were able to share ideas and help with problem solving.


“One producer needed to build a cow track but wasn’t sure how best to do it. A visiting producer had an idea – suggesting a different route that required minimal work and no investment. So a fresh pair of eyes was all that was needed – the focus on these groups went beyond learning. It facilitated discussions and idea exchange and allowed producers to take practical actions,” says Ms Pedersen.


Mobility score data was also collected for all 24 herds at the beginning, middle and end of the project. “On average, herds in an intervention groups implemented more changes in relation to mobility, saw a greater decrease in lameness and a larger reduction in costs associated with lameness in comparison to herds in the control group,” adds Ms Pedersen. “While this could be expected given the nature of the project, there were clear benefits from producers actively engaging in discussions around lameness.”


Lameness prevalence


When comparing the lameness prevalence at the start in comparison to the end of the project, 18 herds saw a reduction and six herds saw an increase in the proportion of cattle scored as lame. Half of the herds that saw an increase in lameness were in the control group.


The average reduction in lameness prevalence by group was 1.3%, 10.9%, 7.1% and 9% for groups one, two, three and four respectfully. “When all intervention groups are considered together, the average reduction was 9% in comparison to 1.3% for the control group,” adds Ms Pedersen.


“With mobility, it’s typical to only really see the benefit of changes made a few years down the line, so what some herds had achieved in a short space was extremely impressive,” says Ms Pederson.


Figure 1: Benchmarking data from group three showing the number of cows on each farm recorded with major lesions in 2020 and 2022


Figure 1 shows the lesion benchmarking from group three and the reductions seen in sole ulcers, white line disease and toe lesions between 2020 and 2023.


“The significant decrease in the proportion of cows developing lesions during the course of the project bodes well for future sustained improvements,” she added.


To read the full report – ‘Lameness in dairy cattle: the impact of different methods of knowledge transfer on behaviour change in dairy producers and subsequent impact on lameness prevalence in their herds’ – click here.

0 views0 comments

コメント


bottom of page