The social foundations for re-solving herbicide resistance in Canterbury, New Zealand.

Synthetic herbicides have revolutionised agricultural weed control. Herbicide resistance (HR) is a natural process through which weeds evolve to be no longer susceptible to a herbicide. Repeated use of similar herbicides can lead to the proliferation of resistant weed populations, with detrimental on-farm effects. To date, 267 weed species worldwide are resistant to at least one herbicide. Yet, achieving universal uptake of best practice principles to manage HR remains difficult. Historically not a high priority for New Zealand cropping farmers, resistance may be more prevalent than commonly assumed. This article contributes to emerging national management strategies and the international scholarship on the human dimensions of HR. Regarding resistance as a socio-biological challenge, we draw on qualitative social research with agricultural stakeholders in New Zealand's main cropping region to outline important psychosocial preconditions for effective resistance management. Our findings show that these preconditions include: influencing awareness and attitudes, knowledge and skills; approaching HR as a shared responsibility; and supporting long-term and holistic thinking. We conclude that these preconditions form the social foundations for agricultural stakeholders' capacity to enact best practice principles to continuously re-solve HR. This novel framing allows analytical differentiation between the capacity and ability to act, with practical recommendations and future research needing to address both components of effective HR management.

Dairy farmers' perspectives on providing cow-calf contact in the pasture-based systems of New Zealand.

Separation of the cow and calf shortly after birth is a common practice on commercial dairy farms around the world, but there are emerging concerns about this practice among citizens and other stakeholders. Continuous improvement of on-farm management practices in collaboration with dairy sector stakeholders increases the likelihood that farming systems evolve in a way that is consistent with societal expectations. Few commercial dairy farms provide extended cow-calf contact, and there is little understanding of how dairy farmers view this practice. This study examined the views of New Zealand dairy farmers toward providing cow-calf contact, particularly the barriers to adopting such a system in a seasonal-calving pasture-based dairy system. Standard farm practice in New Zealand is to remove the calf from the cow around 24 h (but could be up to 48 h) after birth. These conventional farmers (n = 63) were randomly selected from the database of all dairy farmers in New Zealand and telephone-interviewed using a semistructured interview format. Their responses to questions about providing cow-calf contact (defined as contact beyond the standard practice of 48 h) were analyzed using thematic analysis. Three major themes of concern were identified by these farmers about providing cow-calf contact as follows: (1) poor animal welfare, especially the risk of mastitis in the dam, inadequate colostrum for the calf, increased stress from delayed separation, and lack of shelter for calves while outdoors with the cow; (2) increased labor and stress on staff; and (3) system-level changes required, including infrastructure and herd management. Many of these concerns stemmed from challenges related to the nature of large-scale seasonal-calving pasture-based dairy systems, where a large number of calves are born in a short period of time and may be exposed to inclement weather in late winter in some areas. Several small-scale farmers (n = 4) providing cow-calf contact for longer than standard practice of 48 h were also interviewed; all permitted contact for at least 4 wk. These farmers also felt that animal welfare and health were important, and that this was promoted in their cow-calf contact systems. Concerns about colostrum and mastitis, for example, were not raised by these farmers, but they did agree that additional infrastructure and shelter were important considerations for cow-calf contact systems. Some conventional farmers expressed cognitive dissonance in that they theoretically preferred cow-calf contact but could not see it being realistic or practical to implement. Farmers currently providing longer cow-calf contact may be a useful resource for better understanding of how practical and economical cow-calf contact systems could be adopted on commercial pastoral dairy farms.