Search

The aim of this study was to document California, Idaho, South Dakota, and Washington dairy producers' perspectives on the health and business implications of COVID-19 during the pandemic second wave. Dairy producers were reached by a 14-question anonymous mail survey during June and July of 2020. We obtained 226 responses (response rate: 9.3% CA, 8.6% ID, 31.4%, and 10.0% WA). Responses were grouped by state (CA: 48.7%, ID: 15.9%, SD: 21.7%, or WA: 13.7%) and dairy size [based on number of cows; small (<100): 14.1%, medium (100-499): 27.7%, medium-large (500-1,999): 33.2%, or large (≥2,000): 25.0%]. Survey responses were summarized, and multiple correspondence analysis was used to map responses and identify data clusters. At the time of the survey, some respondents suspected (3%) or had confirmed (9%) COVID-19 cases on their premises. Respondents were somewhat or very concerned about the health (75%) and business (92%) implications associated with COVID-19. Producers were concerned about the health of their families, employees, and employees' families; having to reduce production; workforce shortage; limited goods availability; and lack of services. Producers perceived that their employees were somewhat or very concerned (74%) with the pandemic. There was COVID-19 safety information or training provided (78%) or intended (4%) in English (22%), Spanish (23%), or both (55%). The focus of training was as follows: how to remain healthy at work (91%) and at home (60%), what to do if a worker gets sick (77%), and sick leave information (54%). Nevertheless, 18% of the respondents answered that training was not going to be provided. The following control measures implemented: providing hand sanitizer or disinfectant wipes (78%), instruction on frequent hand-washing (76%), social distancing (59%), prevention of employee gatherings (54%), providing and requiring the use of face masks (49%), and limiting on-farm visitors (44%). Multiple correspondence analysis showed that concern with health risk and business impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as mitigation and response strategies implemented, varied based on respondent's dairy size and state. The greatest concerns were reported by producers from California and large and medium-large dairies, whereas the fewest concerns were reported by producers from small dairies. Results from this survey highlighted the health and business concerns of dairy producers from California, Idaho, South Dakota, and Washington during the COVID-19 pandemic and the mitigation efforts adopted. In conclusion, mitigation measures were adopted by most dairy producers but in various degrees. Dairy industry service providers and educators were secondary educational resources during the pandemic; thus, future efforts toward centralized access to dairy specific bilingual educational materials are suggested., (The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. and Fass Inc. on behalf of the American Dairy Science Association®. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).)

In 2004 a mail-in survey was conducted to establish a baseline level of awareness and knowledge related to dairy beef quality assurance (BQA) issues in Idaho. A 30-question survey was mailed to every (n = 736) registered Idaho dairy. Two-hundred seventy-three (37%) dairies participated and were categorized as small (n <201 cows; 53.5%), medium-sized (n = 201 to 1,000 cows; 27.1%) or large (n >1,000 cows; 19.4%). The majority of respondents were dairy owners (83%). Eighty-nine percent of respondents indicated they followed BQA recommendations for animal care. The neck region in cows was used by 68% of respondents for i.m. injections and by 80% for s.c. injections. In calves, the values were 61 and 78%, respectively. Seventy-four percent of respondents indicated they had been trained for injections. Training methods cited included veterinarians (19.8%), dairy owners (16.8%), experience (9.9%), and BQA events or schools (4.5%). The importance of BQA in the dairy industry was rated 2.6 on a 5-point scale (0 = low; 4 = high). Participants rated the effect of dairy animals on the beef industry at 2.5. Plastic ear tags were the preferred method of animal identification, with 100% of large dairies, 97.3% of medium-sized dairies, and 84% of small dairies citing their use. Less than 10% used electronic identification for their animals. Almost half (48%) of large and medium-sized (49%) dairies and 32% of small dairies supported a national animal identification program. A mandatory identification program was supported by 41, 69, and 59% for small, medium-sized, and large dairies, respectively. The percentage of dairies keeping records was similar between small (93%), medium-sized (99%), and large (100%) dairies. Most small dairies (58%) used some form of paper records, whereas most medium-sized (85%) and large (100%) dairies used computers for record keeping. The preferred method to market cull cows by Idaho dairies was the auction market (64%), followed by order buyers (17%), direct to the packer (17%), private treaty sales (16%), and forward contracts (1%). To market calves, dairies used private treaty sales (52%), auction markets (42%), order buyers (14%), and forward contracts (1%). The results of this study will be used by University of Idaho Extension faculty in the design, development, and delivery of dairy BQA program information and materials.