Achieving herd health and welfare improvement increasingly relies on cattle veterinarians to train and advise farmers, placing veterinary interactions at the heart of knowledge exchange. Cattle veterinarians recognize their influence and the need to be proactive advisors but struggle with acting upon this awareness in daily practice, reporting a need to enhance their advisory approach to inspire farmer behavior change. Understanding how veterinarian-farmer interactions positively or negatively influence the enactment of change on farm is therefore essential to support the cattle veterinary profession. This paper adopts a qualitative approach to conceptualize how and under what circumstances veterinary advice has the potential to support and inspire farmer engagement with behavior change on the UK dairy farm. Fourteen UK dairy farms were recruited to take part in a qualitative study involving research observation of a typical advisory consultation between veterinarian and farmer (n = 14) followed by separate, in-depth interviews with the farmer(s) and their respective veterinarian. Interview data were organized using a template coding method and analyzed thematically. While accuracy of veterinary advisory content was valued, it was a relational context of trust, shared veterinarian-farmer understanding, and meaningful interpretation of advice at a local (farmer) level that was most likely to enact change. Critically, these relational factors were reported to work together synergistically; a trusting relationship was an essential, but not necessarily sufficient, component to create a culture of change. Findings suggest that cattle veterinarians may benefit from tailoring advisory services to the farmer's specific world view, facilitated by a shared understanding of the farmer's immediate and long-term motivational drivers. In consequence, cattle veterinarians seeking to positively engage farmers in advisory interactions could consider a focus on farmer priorities, motivations, and goals as paramount to frame and inform advisory messages. This explicit collaborative communication encourages the selection of appropriate and timely veterinary expertise, leading to better integration and adoption of advice on farm given enhanced advisory relevance for farmers' unique circumstances. This farmer-centered approach, involving active co-creation of plans between individuals, is critical for engagement and commitment when tackling complex problems.

Farmer-led, participatory approaches are being increasingly employed in agricultural research, with promising results. This study aimed to understand how a participatory approach based on the Danish stable schools could help to achieve practical, farmer-led changes that reduced reliance on antimicrobials in the UK. Five facilitated farmer action groups comprising 30 dairy farms across South West England met on farm at regular intervals between 2016 and 2018, and worked collaboratively within their groups to discuss how to reduce antimicrobial use. Qualitative data from group discussions and individual semi-structured interviews were collected and analyzed using thematic analysis to explore how the approach helped farmers address and deal with changes to their on-farm practices. Facilitator-guided reviews of antimicrobial use and benchmarking were carried out on each farm to assess any change in usage and help farmers review their practices. The pattern of antimicrobial use changed over the 2 yr of the study, with 21 participating farms reducing their use of highest-priority critically important antibiotics (6 farms were not using any of these critical medicines from the outset). Thirty practical action plans were co-developed by the groups with an average implementation rate of 54.3% within a year. All assessed farms implemented 1 recommendation, and many were still ongoing at the end of the study. Farmers particularly valued the peer-to-peer learning during farm walks. Farmers reported how facilitated discussions and action planning as a peer group had empowered them to change practices. Participants identified knowledge gaps during the project, particularly on highest-priority critically important antibiotics, where they were not getting information from their veterinarians. The study demonstrated that facilitation has a valuable role to play in participatory approaches beyond moderating discussion; facilitators encouraged knowledge mobilization within the groups and were participants in the research as well. Facilitated, farmer-led, participatory approaches that mobilize different forms of knowledge and encourage peer learning are a promising way of helping farmers to adapt and develop responsible practices.

The Hennovation project, an EU H2020 funded thematic network, aimed to explore the potential value of practice-led multi-actor innovation networks within the laying hen industry. The project proposed that husbandry solutions can be practice-led and effectively supported to achieve durable gains in sustainability and animal welfare. It encouraged a move away from the traditional model of science providing solutions for practice, towards a collaborative approach where expertise from science and practice were equally valued. During the 32-month project, the team facilitated 19 multi-actor networks in five countries through six critical steps in the innovation process: problem identification, generation of ideas, planning, small scale trials, implementation and sharing with others. The networks included farmers, processors, veterinarians, technical advisors, market representatives and scientists. The interaction between the farmers and the other network actors, including scientists, was essential for farmer innovation. New relationships emerged between the scientists and farmers, based on experimental learning and the co-production of knowledge for improving laying hen welfare. The project demonstrated that a practice-led approach can be a major stimulus for innovation with several networks generating novel ideas and testing them in their commercial context. The Hennovation innovation networks not only contributed to bridging the science-practice gap by application of existing scientific solutions in practice but more so by jointly finding new solutions. Successful multi-actor, practice-led innovation networks appeared to depend upon the following key factors: active participation from relevant actors, professional facilitation, moderate resource support and access to relevant expertise. Farmers and processors involved in the project were often very enthusiastic about the approach, committing significant time to the network’s activities. It is suggested that the agricultural research community and funding agencies should place greater value on practice-led multi-actor innovation networks alongside technology and advisor focused initiatives to improve animal welfare and embed best practices.

Background : The Five Welfare Needs in UK animal welfare legislation underpin a legal duty of care and are an animal welfare assessment framework. Health and welfare problems arise when these needs are unmet. The veterinary professions work with others to address these problems, but there is no publicly funded U.K. companion animal welfare surveillance to identify priorities, or promote and monitor change. Methods : The veterinary charity, the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals (PDSA), together with the market research organisation, YouGov, has undertaken a longitudinal nationwide survey, assessing whether the U.K's pet dogs, cats and rabbits are having their Five Welfare Needs met. Data from nationally representative samples of pet‐owning adults, drawn from YouGov's online survey panel, have been used to produce the PDSA Animal Wellbeing (PAW) Report annually since 2011. Results : Examples are given of how the PAW Report has been used to monitor trends in animal welfare problems, drive collaborative behaviour change campaigns, create evidence‐based funding applications and inspire innovation in veterinary practice. Conclusion : The PAW Report has contributed to closing a gap in national companion animal welfare surveillance. When governments rely on non‐governmental organisations to assist with animal welfare surveillance, reliable sources such as the PAW Report can inform research, policy and legislation.

On-farm welfare assessment tends to focus on minimising negative welfare, but providing positive welfare is important in order to give animals a good life. This study developed a positive welfare framework for dairy cows based on the existing scientific literature which has focused on developing positive welfare indicators, and trialled a participatory approach with farmers; refining the framework based on their recommendations, followed by a vet pilot phase on farm. The results revealed that farmers and scientists agree on what constitutes “a good life” for dairy cattle. Farmers value positive welfare because they value their cows’ quality of life, and want to be proud of their work, improve their own wellbeing as well as receive business benefits. For each good life resource, the proportion of farmers going above and beyond legislation ranged from 27 to 84%. Furthermore, barriers to achieving positive welfare opportunities, including monetary and time costs, were not apparently insurmountable if implementation costs were remunerated (by the government). However, the intrinsic value in providing such opportunities also incentivises farmers. Overall, most farmers appeared to support positive welfare assessment, with the largest proportion (50%) supporting its use within existing farm assurance schemes, or to justify national and global marketing claims. Collaborating with farmers to co-create policy is crucial to showcase and quantify the UK’s high welfare standards, and to maximise engagement, relevance and uptake of animal welfare policy, to ensure continuous improvement and leadership in the quality of lives for farm animals.

Existing animal welfare standards for legislation and food certification programmes are primarily designed to avoid harms to the livestock, with minimal consideration given to their behavioural freedoms. Recent research has shown, however, that animal welfare should not only be evaluated by the absence of negative states but also by the presence of “good life” or positive experiences enjoyed by animals. The objective of the present study is to investigate the scientific validity and on-farm cost implications of utilising potential input-based measures of positive welfare as part of evaluation criteria for farm assurance schemes. Building upon the Farm Animal Welfare Council’s concept of good life opportunities, an assessment was undertaken on 49 noncaged laying hen farms across the UK by measuring on-farm resources to facilitate positive experiences alongside commonly measured metrics for welfare outcomes. The financial cost of providing these resources on each enterprise was also estimated using a farm-scale costing tool. The results suggested that 63% of resource needs that facilitate the behaviour opportunities of laying hens are already being provided by these producers, far above legal and commercial requirements. This practice attracts no reward mechanism or direct financial benefit under the current market structure. Additional provision of opportunities was positively associated with behavioural outcomes, but only limited impact was observed on health and productivity measures. Economic modelling indicated that significant room exists to further improve welfare scores on these farms, on average by 97%, without incurring additional costs. Together we argue that these results can be seen as evidence of market failure since producers are providing positive welfare value to society that is not being currently recognised. It is therefore contended that measuring and rewarding the supply of good life opportunities could be a novel policy instrument to create an effective marketplace that appropriately recognises high welfare production.