Robert F. Smith

Background The study aim was to characterise issues faced by farmers and veterinary surgeons when making end‐of‐life decisions for dairy cattle. Methods Online surveys were distributed to British dairy farmers and veterinary surgeons for 20 weeks from November 2020. Results There were 83 responses (37 farmers, 46 veterinary surgeons). Among youngstock, the risk of unassisted/natural death (2.6% ± 0.3%) was almost double the risk of euthanasia (1.4% ± 0.3%; p = 0.003). The opposite, however, was true in the milking herd: the risk of euthanasia (2.3% ± 0.3%) was greater than unassisted/natural death (1.6% ± 0.2%; p = 0.05). A fallen stock collector (62%) typically performed euthanasia and most farms (66%) did not have anyone trained to perform euthanasia. Most deaths within the milking herd were attributed to ‘unknown or not recorded’ (median 15% of deaths). The factors that farmers most frequently reported as strongly influencing their decision of when to euthanase an animal relative to the onset of disease were ‘failure to respond to treatment’ (89%), ‘veterinary advice’ (89%) and ‘severity of disease’ (88%). On average, veterinarians had moderate or high confidence that 60% of dairy farm clients ‘are performing euthanasia in a timely manner so as to prevent unnecessary suffering’. Veterinary surgeons had variable agreement on the time to euthanasia for various conditions. Conclusions The survey highlighted end‐of life decision‐making successes and areas for improvement on dairy farms. An evidence‐based, decision‐support framework may help end‐of‐life decision‐making, particularly for complex diseases.

Background There is a lack of literature concerning dairy farmers' use of veterinary services and how satisfied they are with them. This study aimed to fill this gap for seasonal calving UK herds, with a focus on fertility, and included farmer perceived barriers to veterinary involvement. Methods A cross‐sectional questionnaire (convenience sample), with 166 useable responses. Results Opportunities exist for further veterinary involvement in seasonal herds. Areas vets are least involved in currently are nutrition, breeding and genetics, growth rate monitoring and infrastructure changes. Current veterinary input was rated neutral or poor value by 21% of respondents. Over 90% of farmers want vets to ask questions to elicit their needs. Frequently mentioned barriers were ‘lack of veterinary knowledge of our system’, ‘not enough cost‐benefit of veterinary involvement’ and ‘we get our fertility information elsewhere’. Along with clinical ability and being approachable, ‘understanding our system’ and being ‘proactive’ were qualities participants most valued in a vet. After cost, ‘pushing sales and interventions’ were the least liked. Conclusion Findings highlight the critical importance of clearly demonstrating the full cost‐benefit of veterinary services to farmers. The results contain many details concerning farmer perceptions and values that can help veterinary businesses to strengthen existing services and develop new services.