The objective was to compare farm veterinary surgeons' and dairy farmers' opinions on herd health plans and herd health and production management with the aim of discovering and better understanding the differences. Two comparable questionnaires, one for farm veterinarians and one for dairy farmers, were distributed throughout the UK. While listing the ‘major roles’ of the veterinarian on the farm, veterinarians considered ‘optimising milk production’, ‘decreasing overall cost’ and ‘being an independent adviser’ as important roles, but these were not seem to be perceived as such by the farmers. In addition, when presenting themselves to clients, veterinarians seemed to favour the ‘friend of the farmer’ approach; a much smaller proportion of farmers seemed to prefer this approach. The majority of farm respondents (98 of 121; 81 per cent) valued the discussions with their veterinarian, and it was apparent from the relatively small proportion of veterinarians instigating a discussion on farm (33 of 125; 26 per cent) that there is the opportunity for a more proactive approach from veterinarians. The study underlines that ‘demonstrating cost‐effectiveness’ is still a main concern for veterinarians and farmers and identifies areas that can be improved by more training and effective communication.

Disease prevention and control practices are frequently highlighted as important to ensure the health and welfare of farmed animals, although little is known as to why not many practices are carried out. The aim of this study was to identify the motivators and barriers of dairy cattle farmers towards the use of biosecurity measures on dairy farms using a health psychology approach. Twenty-five farmers on 24 farms in Great Britain (GB) were interviewed using the Theory of Planned Behaviour framework. Results indicated that farmers perceived they had the ability to control what happened on their farms in terms of preventing and controlling disease, and described benefits from being proactive and vigilant. However, barriers were cited in relation to testing inaccuracies, effectiveness and time-efficiency of practices, and disease transmission route (e.g., airborne transmission). Farmers reported they were positively influenced by veterinarians and negatively influenced by the government (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA)) and the general public. Decisions to implement practices were influenced by the perceived severity of the disease in question, if disease was diagnosed on the farm already, or was occurring on other farms. Farmers described undertaking a form of personal risk assessment when deciding if practices were worth doing, which did not always involve building in disease specific factors or opinions from veterinarians or other advisors. These results indicate that further guidance about the intricacies of control and prevention principles in relation to specific animal diseases may be required, with an obvious role for veterinarians. There appears to be an opportunity for farm advisors and herd health professionals to further understand farmer beliefs behind certain attitudes and target communication and advice accordingly to further enhance dairy cattle health and welfare.

Background: Vaccination is a widely used strategy for disease control in cattle in the UK and abroad. However, there has been limited research describing the uptake and use of cattle vaccines on UK farms. Aim: To describe the current uptake and usage of cattle vaccines in the UK. Design: A questionnaire, available in paper and online format, was distributed to cattle farmers by convenience sampling. Participants: All UK cattle farmers were eligible to participate in the study. Results: Eighty‐six per cent of respondents (n=229/266) had vaccinated their cattle in the past year. Diseases most commonly vaccinated against were Bovine Viral Diarrhoea, Leptospirosis and Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis. Vaccination compliance was limited in certain areas, for example only 48 per cent of respondents stated that they administered the second dose in the primary course within the recommended timeframe, and 14 per cent of respondents stated that they vaccinated earlier than the youngest recommended age. Although outside the scope of this study, further work is needed to establish the extent of inadequate compliance and the effect this has on vaccine efficacy. The role of the veterinarian was highlighted as the main supplier of vaccines and preferred source of vaccination information. Respondents preferred to receive recommendations regarding vaccination by face‐to‐face communication with the veterinarian. Conclusions: The results provide a description of the current uptake and usage of cattle vaccines in the UK. Uptake is generally high but there are areas of usage of vaccines which could be improved upon. The veterinarian plays a key role as supplier of vaccines and a source of information for the majority of farmers. Although outside the scope of this study, further work is needed to establish the extent of inadequate compliance and the effect this has on vaccine efficacy. Although the respondents in this study represent a biased population of farmers, the findings indicate areas for future investigation in order to improve vaccination strategies in cattle in the UK.

Change in lifetime milk yield is an important component of the cost of diseases in dairy cows. Knowledge of the likelihood and scale of potential savings through disease prevention measures is important to evaluate how much expenditure on control measures is rational. The aim of this study was to assess the association between somatic cell count (SCC) at 5 to 30 d in milk during parity 1 (SCC1), and lifetime milk yield for cows in Irish dairy herds. The data set studied included records from 53,652 cows in 5,922 Irish herds. This was split into 2 samples of 2,500 and 3,422 herds at random. Linear models with lifetime milk yield and first-lactation milk yield as the outcomes and random effects to account for variation between herds were fitted to the data for the first sample of herds; data for the second sample were used for cross-validation. The models were developed in a Bayesian framework to include all uncertainty in posterior predictions and parameters were estimated from 10,000 Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations. The final model was a good fit to the data and appeared generalizable to other Irish herds. A unit increase in the natural logarithm of SCC1 was associated with a median decrease in lifetime milk yield of 864 kg, and a median decrease in first-lactation milk yield of 105 kg. To clarify the meaning of the results in context, microsimulation was used to model the trajectory of individual cows, and evaluate the expected outcomes for particular changes in the herd-level prevalence of cows with SCC1 ≥ 400,000 cells/mL. Differences in mean lifetime milk yield associated with these changes were multiplied by an estimated gross margin for each cow to give the potential difference in milk revenue. Results were presented as probabilities of savings; for example, a 75% probability of savings of at least€97 or€115/heifer calved into the herd existed if the prevalence of cows with SCC1 ≥ 400,000 cells/mL was reduced from ≥ 20 to <10 or <5%, respectively, and at least€71/heifer calved into the herd if the prevalence of cows with SCC1 ≥ 400,000 cells/mL was reduced from ≥ 10 to <5%. The results indicate large differences in lifetime milk yield, depending on SCC early in the first lactation and the findings can be used to assess where specific interventions to control heifer mastitis prepartum are likely to be cost effective.

Orf, a parapoxvirus, is a zoonosis causing a contagious pustular dermatitis, and has a high morbidity in sheep worldwide. Despite a vaccine being available, orf prevalence in England is estimated to be 2 per cent in ewes and 20 per cent in lambs​​. There is concern that farmers are not complying with the vaccination guidelines and therefore the objective of this study was to investigate if orf vaccine is used correctly on sheep farms in the UK and to identify barriers and motivators of sheep farmers to use the vaccine. The survey was completed by 570 respondents. The results show several areas of concern; only 27 per cent of respondents used the correct site (axilla), 37 per cent of respondents would use orf vaccine up to a week after opening a vial (shelf life is eight hours), 33 per cent of respondents would vaccinate their ewes too close to lambing and 73 per cent of respondents did not separate vaccinated and non‐vaccinated animals (both leading to infection risk for non‐vaccinated animals). When vaccinating, only 53 per cent of respondents were wearing gloves and 31 per cent washed their hands just before and immediately after vaccination. Results demonstrate that orf vaccination is not carried out correctly on all UK sheep farms, which is likely to affect vaccine efficacy. A concern around vaccine efficacy, the ‘hassle’ of the scratch administration, the ‘risk of making it worse’ and the zoonotic risk when vaccinating were the most common barriers for using orf vaccine, highlighting the importance of veterinary advice when prescribing orf vaccine.

Knowledge of parasites shed by wild canids can assist in recognizing risk to human and domestic animal health. Our aim was to estimate the prevalence of patent infections with Toxocara canis and other parasites in foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and coyotes (Canis latrans) in Prince Edward Island, Canada. Identification of parasite species was based on microscopic examination of feces, with the use of a sucrose fecal flotation method. Sample collection was performed in winter on carcasses of 271 and 185 hunted or trapped foxes and coyotes, respectively. One or more parasite species were observed in 242 (89%) foxes and 128 (69%) coyotes. Toxocara canis, Uncinaria stenocephala, Capillaria spp., Mesocestoides, Taenidd spp., Alaria spp., Cryptocotyle lingua, Sarcocystis spp., Neospora caninum-like coccidia, and other coccidia were identified. A third of juvenile foxes were shedding T. canis and had a high prevalence of Capillaria spp., especially in juvenile foxes (69%). Taenidd eggs, Alaria spp. and Sarcocystis spp. were more common in coyotes (24, 18, and 9%, respectively) than foxes (8, 11, and 1%, respectively). Despite the limitations of fecal flotation to identify parasite species, the high prevalence of T. canis warrants the attention of public health professionals.Wendela Wapenaar, Herman W. Barkema, and Ryan O’Handle