What does 'co-production' look like for food system transformation? Mapping the evidence across Transforming UK Food Systems (TUKFS) projects.

Co-production is a collaborative way of working which emphasises the exchange of diverse forms of knowledge in an equal partnership for equal benefits. Co-produced research is a key strategic aim of the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) Transforming UK Food Systems (TUKFS) Strategic Priorities Fund; this research programme brings together researchers, policymakers, industry and communities to create positive change in the way food is produced, accessed and consumed. However, more generally, there are diverse understandings of co-production and a lack of consensus on what 'good practice' looks like. Therefore, this study aimed to identify and map examples of co-production methods employed across the TUKFS programme. Two creative workshops (n = 15 participants), conversations with TUKFS researchers and stakeholders (n = 15), and systematic analysis of project documents were used to critically explore co-production activities within six TUKFS projects. A range of co-production activities were identified. Findings highlighted areas of 'messiness' and complexity, challenges associated with applying co-production approaches and practical solutions. Four key shared principles for co-production were identified: (1) Relationships: developing and maintaining reciprocity-based partnerships; (2) Knowledge: recognising the contribution of diverse forms of expertise; (3) Power: considering power dynamics and addressing imbalances; and (4) Inclusivity: ensuring research is accessible to all who wish to participate. Opportunities for reflection and reflexivity were considered crucial across all these areas. Findings contribute important insights towards a shared conceptual understanding of co-production for food system transformation research. This paper makes recommendations for researchers, practitioners, academic institutions and funders working in this area of research and practice.

Calf health veterinary services: Making them work for calves, farmers and veterinarians.

BACKGROUND: Despite an appetite among UK veterinarians (vets) and farmers to improve calf health, vets face challenges in delivering and sustaining proactive calf health services. METHODS: Forty-six vets and 10 veterinary technicians (techs) participated in a project to determine what makes calf health services successful while improving their own services. In four facilitated workshops and two seminars, carried out between August 2021 and April 2022, participants described their approaches to calf work, discussed measures of success, identified challenges and success factors, and addressed knowledge gaps. RESULTS: Many approaches to calf health services were described, and these could be categorised into three overlapping models. Success involved enthusiastic, knowledgeable vets/techs, supported by their practice team, fostering positive attitudes among farmers by providing the services they need, creating a tangible return on investment for farmers and the practice. Lack of time was identified as the most prominent challenge to achieving success. LIMITATIONS: Participants were self-selected from one nationwide group of practices. CONCLUSION: Successful calf health services depend on identifying the needs of calves, farmers and veterinary practices, and delivering measurable benefits to each. More calf health services embedded as a core part of farm veterinary practice could bring wide ranging benefits to calves, farmers and vets.

The Social Construction of Narratives and Arguments in Animal Welfare Discourse and Debate.

Stakeholders can hold conflicting values and viewpoints, on what animal welfare is and how a good life is achieved and can signal different problems, or problematize specific aspects of farm animal welfare, and propose different actions or interventions within food supply chains. The aim of the study is to explore the contribution of narrative and argumentative discourse to the social construction and framing of animal welfare and its implications. The methodological approach in this research is composed of two phases with phase 1 being the foundational structured literature search in both academic and grey literature. Phase 2 was the analysis of the secondary data from the literature review to develop a synthesized iterative paper and in doing so develop a typology of five narratives: the 'farming as a business' narrative, the 'religion-based' narrative, the 'research, legislative and political based narrative', the 'higher welfare' narrative, and the "animal rights/power-based" narrative. Our findings demonstrate the contestation within the stakeholder discourse of the articulation of why farm animals should have a good life. Performance-related perspectives are rooted in the value-laden language and narratives that shape the arguments regarding notions of good and bad welfare; the emergent positioning of positive welfare for farm animals as well as how to achieve a good life in practice. The novel contribution of this review is the application of an explanatory word-language-discourse-person-situation-environment framework in this specific context to inform future research on animal welfare discourse analysis.

A participatory, farmer-led approach to changing practices around antimicrobial use on UK farms.

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.

Veterinary Diagnostic Practice and the Use of Rapid Tests in Antimicrobial Stewardship on UK Livestock Farms.

In this paper we consider the shifting role, practice and context of veterinary diagnosis in addressing concerns over what is, in the context of the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance, considered unnecessary or excessive antimicrobial medicine use in UK livestock farms. With increasing policy and regulatory interest in diagnostic practices and technologies, coupled with an expanding focus on the development and deployment of new rapid and point-of-care on-farm diagnostic testing, this paper investigates current diagnostic practices amongst veterinarians working on dairy, pig and poultry farms in Great Britain (England, Wales, and Scotland) and, more specifically, veterinarians' use and perceptions of new and emerging rapid and point-of-care diagnostic tests. Drawing on a series of 30 semi-structured interviews with farm animal veterinary professionals across the three sectors, this paper examines the manner in which such tests are both used and anticipated in clinical farm animal veterinary practice and the possible impact rapid test technologies might have on broader farm animal health management and disease control. Analysis of the transcribed interviews reveals a number of complexities around the use of rapid and point-of-care diagnostic tests. The relative rapidity and simplification of such tests, facilitating immediate treatment responses, is held in balance against both the accuracy and the more detailed and documented procedures of established laboratory testing routes. In situations of multifaceted on-farm etiologies, respondents maintained that rapid tests may offer restricted diagnostic capabilities, though in other situations they were found to offer ready confirmation of disease presence. A third complexity arising from the growth of rapid and point-of-care testing and revealed in this study relates to the shifting distribution of responsibilities in animal health care within contemporary food chains. The growing availability of rapid and point-of-care tests effectively diversifies the range of diagnostic actors with consequences for the flow of diagnostic and disease information. The veterinarians in this study identified areas where new rapid and point-of-care tests would be of particular value to them in their clinical practice particularly in addressing concerns over inappropriate antimicrobial use in animal treatment. However, despite the considerable policy advocacy on rapid and point-of-care tests as key tools in shifting diagnostic practice and reducing unnecessary antimicrobial use, veterinarians in this study, while recognizing the potential future role of such tools and technologies, nonetheless viewed diagnostic practice as a far more complex process for which rapid tests might constitute only a part.

Diagnostics and the challenge of antimicrobial resistance: a survey of UK livestock veterinarians' perceptions and practices.

BACKGROUND: This paper explores the current role and place of diagnostic tests in the treatment of farm animal disease. With the growing focus on reduced reliance on antibiotic medicines in both animal and human patient care, attention is increasingly being focused on the practice, the technology and the function of diagnostic tests and how these can support responsible antimicrobial use. Emerging diagnostic technologies offer the possibility of more rapid testing for bacterial disease, while food chain actors and others are increasingly seeking to make diagnostic tests mandatory before the use of critically important antibiotics. METHOD: This paper reports the findings of a recent large-scale online survey of UK farm animal veterinarians (n=153) which investigated current veterinary diagnostic practice with particular attention to the relationship between diagnostic test use and antibiotic treatment. RESULTS: Results revealed a range of factors that influence veterinary diagnostic practice and demonstrate the continuing importance of clinical observation and animal/herd knowledge in the selection of antibiotic treatment. CONCLUSION: The findings identify a considerable ambivalence on the part of farm animal veterinarians regarding the current and future uses of rapid and point-of-care diagnostic tests as a means of improving clinical diagnosis and addressing inappropriate antibiotic medicine use.

Evaluation of metrics for benchmarking antimicrobial use in the UK dairy industry.

The issue of antimicrobial resistance is of global concern across human and animal health. In 2016, the UK government committed to new targets for reducing antimicrobial use (AMU) in livestock. Although a number of metrics for quantifying AMU are defined in the literature, all give slightly different interpretations. This paper evaluates a selection of metrics for AMU in the dairy industry: total mg, total mg/kg, daily dose and daily course metrics. Although the focus is on their application to the dairy industry, the metrics and issues discussed are relevant across livestock sectors. In order to be used widely, a metric should be understandable and relevant to the veterinarians and farmers who are prescribing and using antimicrobials. This means that clear methods, assumptions (and possible biases), standardised values and exceptions should be published for all metrics. Particularly relevant are assumptions around the number and weight of cattle at risk of treatment and definitions of dose rates and course lengths; incorrect assumptions can mean metrics over-represent or under-represent AMU. The authors recommend that the UK dairy industry work towards the UK-specific metrics using the UK-specific medicine dose and course regimens as well as cattle weights in order to monitor trends nationally.