Survey of Saskatchewan beef cattle producers regarding management practices and veterinary service usage

Abstract

Saskatchewan cow-calf producers (n = 2000) were surveyed to determine what factors were associated with their uptake of veterinary services; how and where they access nutritional information and animal health advice; and whether they were comfortable with having non-veterinarians perform veterinary procedures. The survey response rate was 18.1%. Veterinarians were seen as a primary source of nutritional information and animal health advice. Over the past decade producers have shifted their veterinary service usage from individual animal events to herd-level procedures. Producers who pregnancy check were more likely to be large producers (OR = 1.9; 95% CI = 1.2 to 3.1; P = 0.007), to semen test their bulls (OR = 3.4; 95% CI = 2.0 to 5.8: P < 0.001), analyze their forages (OR = 2.3; 95% CI = 1.7 to 4.0; P = 0.006), and to farm in the brown versus the gray or dark brown soil zones (P = 0.004). Most (94.0%) respondents had adequate veterinary services within an hour’s drive of the farm and 90.4% were satisfied with their veterinary service provider. Approximately 25% of respondents would be comfortable with having a non-veterinarian pregnancy check and attend to prolapses.

Introduction

The number of farming operations in Canada peaked in 1941 and has since been in decline (1). However, the rate of decline has not been linear. Between the last two census years, 2006 and 2011, Canada lost 10.3% of its farms, or ~30000 producers. At the time of the 2011 census, 48.3% of producers were > 55 years of age compared with 40.7% in 2006 and 32.1% in 1991. Therefore, within the next decade over half of all current producers will be > 65 years of age. Concurrent with the loss in the number of farming operations has been an increase in farm size. From 2001 to 2011, the average number of breeding females per cow/calf operation in western Canada increased by ~30% from 56 to 73 head (2,3).

Consolidation within the livestock sector is impacting how producers access veterinary services. Data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) show that large producers are more likely than small producers to consult with veterinarians on disease, nutrition, and livestock management practices (4). A study of small-scale livestock operations found that veterinary usage was highest amongst younger producers, producers with higher levels of education, and farms with higher gross receipts (5). It has also been shown that conventional dairies are more likely than organic dairies to use veterinarians and nutritionists (6). Together these studies show how farm size, farm management practices, and the demographics of farm operators influence the uptake of veterinary services.

There is a paucity of Canadian data relating to what factors are associated with food animal veterinary service usage. Unlike the United States, Canada has not developed an integrated information gathering system for obtaining data on health and production parameters, and veterinary service usage. The USDA’s National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) collects, analyzes, and disseminates data relating to animal health, livestock management practices, and productivity (7). Furthermore, NAHMS employs a uniform and systematic approach to gathering data, allowing for the comparison of data over time and across geographical regions (8). In contrast, Canadian researchers must glean data from separate unrelated studies, which have disparate objectives and varying study designs (9–13).

The objectives of this study were to: i) determine what factors are associated with the uptake of veterinary services by cow-calf producers, ii) determine where and how producers access nutritional information and animal health advice, and iii) assess whether producers are comfortable with having non-veterinarians perform procedures that have historically been considered veterinary-only procedures.

Materials and methods

Survey administration

As of the last census (2011), 14 074 Saskatchewan farms reported having beef cows, comprising 22.9% of all Canadian beef operations (14). The Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association (SSGA) maintains a database of ~10 000 Saskatchewan beef cattle producers, and this database formed the sampling frame for the survey.

The survey was administered in 2 phases between November 2012 and April 2013. Each phase involved a simple random sample of 1000 producers selected without replacement from SSGA’s database. Therefore, 20% of producers listed in the SSGA database were surveyed, representing ~14.2% (2000/14 074) of all Saskatchewan beef producers.

To maintain confidentiality, SSGA randomly selected the producers and forwarded the mailing labels to a third party mailer. The authors in turn forwarded the survey packages to the same mailer. Each survey package contained a letter explaining the purpose of the survey; a 2-page double-sided questionnaire; and a postage-paid, self-addressed, return envelope. To encourage participation, an indirect financial inducement was offered wherein the producer could direct a $25 donation, provided by the researchers, to either the Saskatchewan 4-H Association (4-H) or the Farm Animal Council of Saskatchewan (FACS). Respondents who did not have a cow-calf operation only needed to complete a few background questions (“short form”) for which they could direct a $10 donation to 4-H or FACS.

The first 1000 surveys were mailed mid-November 2012 and a second survey (reminder) was sent to the same 1000 producers in early February 2013. Respondents were given the option of providing their name and address if they were interested in being contacted for another unrelated study, otherwise all respondents were anonymous. Around the same time as the reminder was sent to the first group, a second set of 1000 producers was contacted (mid-February) and reminders sent to this group in late April 2013. Three modifications were made to this second survey. The financial incentive was increased from $25 to $50; producer’s age was added to the second survey; and because some early respondents had left the vaccination questions blank, which made it difficult to determine whether they did not want to answer the question, a check box was added for the respondents to mark if they did not vaccinate.

Survey questionnaire

The survey questionnaire was divided into 4 parts. Part I (Background information) screened the respondents to determine who had an active beef cow-calf operation. Those without a cow-calf operation were asked to answer a few short questions relating to when they exited the business. Part I also collected postal code data for mapping the respondents by soil zone; inquired as to whether they expected their herd size to change in the next 3 y; and concluded with 2 questions relating to how producers access nutritional information and animal health advice. Part II (Veterinary usage and nutrition) explored how frequently producers used veterinarians; whether veterinary usage had changed over the last 10 y; what factors influenced their decision to use veterinary services; whether some veterinary procedures could be performed by non-veterinarians; their overall satisfaction with veterinarians; whether they analyzed their forages for nutritional content; and whether they provided nutritional supplements on pasture and in the pre- and post-calving periods. Part III (Vaccine usage) inquired about the use of vaccines in calves, replacement heifers, cows and bulls; however, these data were not included in this report. Part IV (General questions) asked about herd size; how producers marketed their calves at weaning time (data not presented in this report); age, or average age, of the person or people who manage the cattle; and concluded with an open-ended question on veterinary services and diseases.

The survey was pre-tested with 12 cattle producers and approved by the University of Saskatchewan’s Behavioural Ethics Review Board (BEH # 12-261).

Data analyses

All responses were entered onto a commercial database (Access 2013; Microsoft Corp., Redmond, Washington, USA) and imported into a statistical software package (SPSS Version 21; Armonk, New York, USA). Postal codes were imported into GIS software (ArcGIS 10.2; Esri Inc, Redlands, California, USA) to map the respondents’ approximate land locations to the 4 Chernozemic soil zones of Saskatchewan (black, dark brown, brown, and gray).

Descriptive statistics were performed for each survey question. Pearson’s and Spearman’s test statistics were used to assess for associations between normal and non-normally distributed variables, respectively. Herd size was calculated as the sum of the number of heifers, cows, and bulls at the start of the previous breeding season. Median herd size was used as a cutoff to categorize herd size into a dichotomous variable, “small” and “large.” Median producer age was used to categorize the producers into “young” and “old.”

Respondents were asked to provide the number of veterinary farm visits in the previous year, the number of times they took an animal to a veterinary clinic, and the number of veterinary consults per year (in-person, by phone, by e-mail). These 3 variables were standardized for herd size by dividing each answer by the producer’s herd size, providing a measure of veterinary contacts/animal/year.

Simple (univariate) linear regression models and the Chi-square test statistic were used to assess for unconditional relationships; associations where P < 0.20 were considered for inclusion in multivariable regression models. Generalized linear models with a logit link function were used to examine factors associated with the odds of pregnancy testing, semen testing, forage testing for energy and protein, the location of the cattle operation by soil zone, and the provision of mineral supplementation. Manual backwards elimination was used to establish a model with factors that were either statistically significant (P < 0.05) or important confounders. First-order interaction terms were evaluated where more than 1 main effect was retained in the final model. Only the results of the final model were reported for each outcome.

Results

Survey response and background information

The overall response rate to both phases of the survey was 26.9% (537/2000); 362 (18.1%) completed the long form and 175 (8.8%) completed the short form. Canada Post returned 14 surveys as undeliverable. More producers (n = 189) participated in phase 1 than phase 2 (n = 173) but the 2 response rates were not different (P = 0.38). There were no differences in the median herd sizes of those who answered phase 1 versus phase 2 of the survey (P = 0.11), nor were there differences in the responses to 4 questions relating to veterinary services usage (P > 0.05). Based on these findings, when applicable, the 2 groups of respondents were analyzed as 1 group of 362 producers. Figure 1 shows the geographical distribution of the respondents by soil zones, larger triangles represent multiple producers sharing the same postal code (i.e., same town or village).

Figure 1.

Geographic distribution of respondents by soil zone.

Mean and median herd sizes were 173 (SD ± 209) and 124 animals, respectively. Producers in the lowest quartile had ≤ 57 animals, while those in the highest quartile had ≥ 218 head. Herd size was transformed into a dichotomous variable with “small” producers having ≤ 124 animals and “large” producers having > 124 animals.

Age-related data were only available from the second phase of the study (n = 171 respondents). Respondents’ mean and median ages were 52.4 y (SD ± 10.8) and 52.0 y, respectively. Age ranged from 16 to 83 y with producers in the youngest quartile being ≤ 46 y and those in the oldest quartile being ≥ 59 y. Age was inversely correlated with herd size (ρ= −0.341, n = 171, P < 0.001); “young” producers (≤ 52 y) were 3.0 times more likely than “old” producers (> 52 y) to have large herds (95% CI = 1.6 to 5.6; P < 0.001).

When asked to look forward 3 years, 51.9% (n = 188) of respondents expected to have the same number of animals; 27.6% (n = 100) planned on increasing herd size by an average of 49.5 head (SD ± 52.5) (median = 30 head); 6.4% (n = 23) planned on reducing herd size by an average of 53.0 head (SD ± 56.0) (median = 30 head); 8.3% (n = 30) could not predict how herd size might change, and 5.2% (n = 19) were planning on selling the entire herd. Producers who were ready to disperse the herd or who were unsure of the future of their herd were older (P < 0.05) than those who were planning on increasing, decreasing, or maintaining herd size. The median herd size of those planning to downsize over the next 3 y was 106 head, while the median herd size for those planning on increasing was 150 head (P = 0.03).

Table 1 shows how producers ranked 7 different sources of nutritional information and animal health advice. Data were summarized as the percent of producers who ranked each source as 1 of their top 3 choices. Regardless of age, large producers were 4.1 times more likely than small producers to use feed-mills, supplement suppliers, and nutritionists as a source for nutritional advice (95% CI = 2.2 to 8.0; P < 0.001). Younger small producers were 4.6 times more likely than younger large producers to use the Internet as a source of nutritional information (95% CI = 1.1 to 18.5; P = 0.045), and older small producers were 2.7 times more likely than older large producers to use journals, magazines, and other printed material as a source for nutritional advice (95% CI = 1.1 to 6.7; P = 0.04).

Table 1.

Summary of the percentages of producers (n = 362) who ranked each source of information as 1 of their top 3 resources for nutritional information and animal health advice

	Nutritional information	Animal health advice
Veterinarian	64.1	96.4
Journals, magazines, and other printed material	58.8	56.6
Other producers	55.0	56.4
Feed-mill, supplement supplier, nutritionist (consultant)	55.2	23.2
Extension services (university, government)	22.7	15.2
Internet	10.2	13.5
Other	3.0	2.5

Factors associated with veterinary usage

When asked how their veterinary usage had changed over the past 10 y, 45.6% (n = 165) indicated that veterinary usage had remained more or less the same; 20.4% (n = 74) reported a reduction in the use of all services (individual animal and herd health related); 21.5% (n = 78) had decreased individual animal services but increased herd health activities; 8.8% (n = 32) had increased veterinary usage for both individual and herd health veterinary activities; and 1.9% (n = 7) had increased individual animal veterinary services but decreased herd health activities. Producers who had decreased their overall uptake of veterinary services had smaller herds (mean = 132) than either those who had decreased individual animal but increased herd health veterinary services (mean = 214; P = 0.003), or those who had increased both individual animal and herd health services (mean = 253; P = 0.009).

Respondents averaged 2.0 veterinary farm visits/y, had taken animals to a veterinary clinic 1.5 times/y, and had also consulted with a veterinarian in-person, by phone, or by e-mail 4.8 times/y. After standardizing for veterinary contact time by herd size, herd size was inversely correlated with the number of veterinary farm visits (ρ = −0.32, n = 362, P < 0.001), the number of producer visits to veterinary clinics (ρ = −0.20, n = 362, P < 0.001), and the number of veterinary consultations (ρ = −0.51, n = 362, P < 0.001).

Regarding individual animal procedures, 68.9% of producers had a breeding soundness evaluation (semen test) performed on ≥ 1 bulls in the previous breeding season, 21.3% tested ≥ 1 bulls for Tritrichomonas fetus, and 48.9% had pregnancy checked. There were no differences between the young and old producers with respect to the proportion who tested their bulls (P = 0.19) and pregnancy checked (P = 0.13).

Respondents who pregnancy checked and who tested their bulls tended to share similar characteristics. Those who pregnancy checked were more likely to be large producers (OR = 1.9; 95% CI = 1.2 to 3.1; P = 0.007), to semen test their bulls (OR = 3.4; 95% CI = 2.0 to 5.8: P < 0.001), analyze their forages (OR = 2.3; 95% CI = 1.7 to 4.0; P = 0.006), and farm in the brown versus the gray or dark brown soil zones (P = 0.004). While those who semen tested were more likely to be large producers (OR = 2.2; 95% CI = 1.3 to 3.7; P = 0.003), to pregnancy check (OR = 3.4; 95% CI = 2.0 to 5.8; P < 0.001), and to farm in the brown versus black soil zones (P = 0.004).

Of the 362 respondents, 76.8% “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that the decision to call a veterinarian is a cost:benefit decision that must make economic sense. Young large producers were 5.2 times more likely to agree with this statement than were the young small producers (95% CI = 1.6 to 16.4.; P = 0.003). Half (47.5%) of the respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the statement that they would increase veterinary services usage if their cattle operation was more profitable. The majority (94.0%) of all respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that adequate veterinary services could be accessed within an hour’s drive of the farm.

Table 2 provides a breakdown of producers’ perceptions, or level of comfort, regarding non-veterinarians (technician or neighbor) performing a number of the more commonly encountered procedures in bovine practice. Older producers with large herds were more comfortable with non-veterinarians pregnancy checking by rectal palpation than were older producers with small herds (OR = 3.6; 95% CI = 1.1 to 11.7; P = 0.03). There were no other associations (P ≥ 0.05) between veterinary procedures and either age or herd size.

Table 2.

Percent of producers who indicated that they were comfortable with having a non-veterinarian (technician or neighbor) perform each procedure (“Non-vet”); whether only a veterinarian should perform the procedure (“Vet only”); or they were undecided (“Not sure”)

Pregnancy checking:	Non-vet	Vet only	Not sure
Rectal palpation (n = 337)	22.3	63.5	14.2
Ultrasound (n = 330)	21.8	60.0	18.2
Bull evaluations (i.e., semen evaluations) (n = 339)	9.1	85.0	5.9
Replace prolapsed uterus (calf-bed) (n = 342)	23.1	71.3	5.6
Replace prolapsed vagina (n = 342)	31.6	63.1	5.3
Replace prolapsed rectum (n = 338)	30.2	61.8	8.0

Half of the respondents (48.1%) purchased their pharmaceuticals and vaccines from a single clinic, whereas 41.7% purchased these products from 2 clinics. With respect to veterinary services, 62.2% and 29.6% patronized 1 or 2 clinics, respectively. Small producers were more likely than large producers to obtain veterinary services from a single veterinary clinic (OR = 2.4; 95% CI = 1.2 to 4.8; P = 0.01). The majority of producers (90.4%) were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the services provided by their local (nearest) veterinary clinic.

Eighty-one respondents provided feedback to the open-ended question on whether they had any other comments regarding veterinary service issues or diseases. Sixteen (19.8%) respondents identified diseases such as Johne’s, bovine viral diarrhea, coccidiosis and neonatal diarrhea as needing more attention. Twelve producers (14.8%) commented that veterinary services and supplies were too expensive and that a veterinary examination was not always warranted for the purchase of pharmaceuticals. Seventeen (21.0%) respondents commented on a shortage of veterinary services, the potential for a shortage of veterinary services after their local veterinarian retired, or that the local veterinarian was not committed to food animal practice. Eleven (13.6%) producers were complimentary of the local veterinarians. The remaining comments followed no particular theme.

Forage testing and mineral supplementation

Only 22.1% of respondents routinely tested forages for protein and energy; 14.4% analyzed for mineral content (i.e., calcium, phosphorus); and 10.2% analyzed forages for trace minerals (i.e., selenium, copper). Large producers were more likely than small producers to test forages for protein and energy (OR = 2.4; 95% CI = 1.4 to 4.3; P = 0.002) and to pregnancy check (OR = 2.3; 95% CI = 1.3 to 4.0; P = 0.006).

Regarding trace mineral supplementation, 55.8% of producers supplemented breeding females on pasture, 82.6% and 72.7% supplemented in the pre- and post-calving periods, respectively. Producers who supplemented with mineral in the pre-calving period were also more likely to evaluate their bulls (OR = 1.8; 95% CI = 1.0 to 3.3; P = 0.049) and to pregnancy check (OR = 2.3; 95% CI = 1.2 to 4.3; P = 0.01). Producers who supplemented in the post-calving period were more likely to pregnancy check (OR = 1.7; 95% CI = 1.0 to 3.0; P = 0.04) and semen test (OR = 2.7; 95% CI = 1.6 to 4.7; P < 0.001), but were less likely to farm in the brown soil zones (P = 0.006).

Discussion

Due to the low initial response rate the study was modified to include an additional 1000 producers and to increase the incentive from $25 to $50. Increasing the incentive did not improve the response rate to the second survey; however, this may have been confounded by the timing of this survey, specifically, sending it during calving season. It is also possible that offering the financial inducement had little to no effect on response rate in either phase of the study. Research shows that including a token incentive (a social contract) along with the survey results in a higher response rate than offering a larger incentive contingent upon completion of the survey (a financial contract) (15). In hindsight, the indirect inducement ($25 and $50) may have failed to create either a social or financial contract.

Surveys with low response rates are more prone to a non-response bias, wherein responders may differ along specific parameters from non-responders. For example, producer age and herd size were important factors in many of the analyses, hence it is important that the age and herd sizes reported in the survey were representative of Saskatchewan cow-calf producers. This was true of age, with respondents’ mean age (52.4 y) being very similar to that reported by Statistics Canada, 54.2 y (16). There did, however, appear to be a bias with respect to herd size. The median herd size from the survey was 124 head (mean = 173) whereas the average Saskatchewan cow-calf operation has ~100 head (cows, bulls, and replacement heifers) (17). Whether this difference is sufficient to bias the data is unknown, but it must be considered in the conclusions.

Approximately 5% of producers expected to disperse or sell-off their herd in the next 3 years, which is probably a conservative estimate. From 2006 to 2011 the number of Saskatchewan beef cattle operations decreased by 28.7% (19 738 to 14 074 farms) (14), and the rate of attrition is set to increase as a greater percentage of producers near retirement age. Concurrent with this trend in consolidation is the shift toward focusing more on the herd versus the individual animal: 40% of respondents reported a reduction in veterinary services for individual animals. Furthermore, veterinary service contact time per animal decreased as herd size increased. As a consequence, veterinarians are engaged in less individual animal work and are becoming more efficient at attending to larger groups of animals.

On the topic of herd level procedures, ~70% of producers had veterinarians perform breeding soundness examinations on 1 or more bulls and ~50% pregnancy checked; these findings are similar to a recent study of veterinary service usage in western Canada by cow-calf producers (13). Although the concept of pregnancy checking has been around for decades, only 50% of producers routinely employ a veterinarian for this procedure. It will be interesting to see whether the overall percentage of producers who pregnancy check increases as the average herd size increases.

One of the unique findings of this study was the association between soil type and management practices. Saskatchewan soils can be categorized into 1 of the 4 Great Groups of the Chernozemic Order (brown, dark brown, black, and gray), with color reflecting organic matter content (18). Producers located in the brown soil zones tended to have adopted more herd-level management practices such as pregnancy testing, bull breeding evaluations, and forage testing. This relationship may exist because the brown soils are primarily located in the semi-arid mixed grassland ecoregion of the province (19). We suspect that cattle producers in this region are more financially dependent upon their cattle versus grains and oilseeds and hence see the value proposition in feed testing and using a veterinarian for herd-level procedures. Other factors such as the influence of the local veterinarians on encouraging producers to perform these procedures must also be considered.

Veterinarians ranked very high as being a source of nutritional information and animal health advice. Furthermore, large producers were more likely than small producers to obtain nutritional advice from specialists such as feed mills, supplement suppliers, and nutritionists. As expected, the younger generation of producers was more likely to use the Internet as a source of nutrition information, while older producers were more likely to access this information from printed material. However, both findings only applied to the small operators. Larger producers were more inclined to obtain their advice from veterinarians and other professionals (i.e., nutritionists). It should also be noted that not all sources of information are equal. A study of dairy producers found that farm magazines were the most important source of information for general information on udder health, whereas veterinarians were consulted on more specific issues (20). Perhaps a similar scenario occurs with beef producers, ~50% of Saskatchewan producers have high-speed internet access (16), but only ~10% or respondents ranked the Internet as an important source of nutrition information and animal health advice.

A challenge that many veterinarians may unknowingly face is determining what services their clients want. Studies have shown that veterinarians have a poor understanding of producers’ management goals and what they require in the way of services (21–24). Veterinarians tend to assume that the services they provide must always provide some positive economic reward, which may not be the case. While ~75% of respondents in the current study indicated that their decision to use a veterinarian was primarily a cost-benefit decision based on economics, 25% did not agree with this statement. It is also noteworthy that ~50% of the respondents indicated that they would use veterinarians more frequently if their operations were more profitable. Does this mean that the other 50% have maximized their use of veterinary services and hence a more profitable operation does not translate into using a veterinarian more often, or does it mean that economics and veterinary service usage are disconnected? A more detailed study is required to determine what motivates producers to use, or not use, veterinary services, particularly as it relates to the cost of services.

There was no indication that Saskatchewan has a shortage of food animal practitioners. On the contrary, 90% of the respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the veterinary services provided by the local veterinary clinic, and 94% of the respondents had adequate veterinary services within an hour’s drive of the farm. Whether distance to a veterinarian is an important determinant of veterinary usage is equivocal. Producers in the United States who were 30 to 90 miles from a veterinarian were no more likely to use veterinary services than those < 29 miles (5). In this same study, ~35% of beef producers had not used a veterinarian within the previous 12-month period. Two-thirds of respondents indicated that the main reason for not using a veterinarian was that they had no disease or other need for veterinary services, while 3.7% indicated that veterinary services were unavailable.

Although the majority of respondents had access to a veterinarian, ~30% of producers were comfortable with a non-veterinarian attending to vaginal and rectal prolapses and ~20% were comfortable with non-veterinarians doing pregnancy checks. Caution must be exercised in the interpretation of these results because these findings are largely based on hypothetical scenarios. However, the numbers show that a contingent of producers is receptive to having non-veterinarians perform tasks that have historically been considered to be veterinary-only procedures.

In summary, the cow-calf sector in western Canada is about to undergo a major reorganization. The number of Canadian farms reporting beef cows decreased by 25.9% between 2006 and 2011 (14). Furthermore, as of 2011, nearly half of all producers were > 55 y of age. The demographics are such that a record number of producers will retire within the next decade, leading to far fewer but potentially much larger cow-calf operations. These large producers will become increasingly reliant upon veterinarians for advice and herd health services. However, they are also less likely to have veterinarians attend to individual animal events, and will place greater emphasis on the economics of using veterinary services. This will have implications on where and how they source their veterinary services and supplies, and on the use of non-veterinarians for procedures such as pregnancy checking.