Implementation of farmer groups for animal health and welfare planning considering different contexts

This paper reflects some of the discussions that took place during the ANIPLAN workshop where participants discussed the special farming and farmer characteristics, needs and conditions in their own country in relation to farmer discussion groups, as well as more generic issues to consider when taking a farmer group approach to animal health and welfare planning. Farmer discussion groups are not unique, and there are examples of different approaches to, and aims of, farmer groups worldwide. Perhaps an important starting point when analysing the successes and characteristics of these groups is to consider their original purpose. The starting point of the discussion in the ANIPLAN project has been the so-called Danish Stable Schools (Vaarst et al., 2007; Vaarst et al. 2008; mentioned in Vaarst ibid.), as well as existing approaches within the other participating countries, such as the Dutch Caring Dairy groups (Smolders, ibid.). A major feature of the Danish Stable Schools has been the time limited intensive working towards a common goal based around equal participation within the group. This is quite a different approach to other examples, such as the so-called ‘erfa-groups’ in Denmark (‘erfa’ as an abbreviation of ‘erfaring’, which in Danish means ‘experience’) that have worked for decades on dissemination of new knowledge and ideas to and among farmers, focusing on separate themes at each meeting, such as approaches to parasite control, winter feeding strategies, or the use of body condition scores. Similar focused dissemination programmes exist in many countries. What characterises the ANIPLAN project is that the focus is on a rather more systematic animal health and welfare planning process which is meant to be continuous at the farm level