Those in the dairy industry are fully aware of the importance of proper handling and care for their animals, but some consumers aren’t convinced. To solve the problem of continuing questions from consumers and throughout the supply chain, Farmers Assuring Responsible Management (FARM) was created. Although the original program and improvements have served the industry well, FARM 5.0 is ready for implementation.
“The FARM program began in 2009,” said Beverly Phifer of the National Milk Producers Federation and senior director of Animal Care for the National Dairy FARM Program. “Other barnyard groups were seeing an uptick in audits for standards and expectations from their supply chain.”
She said designing and implementing a standardized welfare program for dairy isn’t easy due to the wide variety of the nation’s dairy farms.
Phifer explained that those who initiated the FARM program realized it would be difficult for dairy farmers to adhere to multiple expectations from various buyers, creating a challenge for the dairy industry. Customers had expectations of supply chains, creating a gap that had to be bridged.
The FARM program is funded by the dairy checkoff, managed by NMPF, and open to all dairy farms. “About 99% of the fluid milk supply in the U.S. participates in the program,” said Phifer. “We know that 20 of the top dairy customers publicly support the FARM program.”
Because most of the questions about the industry targeted animal care, that topic was its original focus. Since its inception, the program has grown to include antibiotic stewardship, workforce development, environmental stewardship and biosecurity.
Phifer said although the program cannot guarantee co-ops or processors will purchase any milk or agree to purchase milk on certain terms, it helps build trust and creates a framework for continuous improvement. Co-ops and individual farms, breed associations and other industry-related entities sign up primarily to participate in the animal care program.
“Development of standards and expectations has to meet the needs of all farms across the country,” said Phifer. “That creates some challenges, but the program is committed to being science-based while being facility- and size-neutral.”
The FARM program at the individual farm level is a snapshot in time where there isn’t daily oversight (which would be impractical). Although the program was created for continuous improvement, it’s still impossible to completely eliminate the threat of harm to a farm.
FARM Version 1 was in place as the program was introduced in 2009 and continued until 2012. Participation was voluntary. Version 2, effective between 2013 and 2016, was mandatory but included voluntary plans.
From 2017 to 2019, FARM Version 3 called for greater accountability among farms, co-ops and processors. It included mandatory corrective action plans and continuous improvement plans. Version 4, effective from 2020 to 2024, called for increased accountability among farms, co-ops and processors as well as immediate action plans and shortened timelines for action plans.
The current Version 5, which will be in place through 2027, focuses on small tweaks to improve the program and further define some practices. The footwork for the most recent version began with a review of the standards, recent science and data from previous versions of FARM and discussions with farmers and FARM program evaluators, veterinarians and other allied industry representatives.
The latest version of the FARM program specifies care for compromised cattle. Photo by Sally Colby
“Any changes are presented to NMPF to the Animal Health and Well-Being Committee,” said Phifer. “For the most recent changes, they met every three weeks for about three years to discuss all the standards. They relied heavily on feedback from farmers on the FARM Advisory Council and an open comment period.”
Version 5 began with a stakeholder survey in 2021 to determine program priorities. A kickoff survey showed program consistency among producers, veterinarians and other stakeholders. Priorities include dealing with compromised (sick or lame) cattle, calves and euthanasia decisions, with less focus on broken tails and cow/calf separation.
Phifer said the role of dairy farmers in the decision-making process is critical, so the committee considered feedback from a large variety of farmers from across the country.
Version 5 includes defining corrective action for moderate lameness. Farms should have 15% or fewer moderately lame cattle; if more than 15% are moderately lame, the farm implements a continuous improvement plan to examine the causes of lameness. Version 5 also includes pain management for disbudding, with a Mandatory Corrective Action Plan for up to nine months if necessary. Acceptable methods for disbudding are caustic paste and cautery.
Colostrum standards for newborn calves are based on continuing improvement. Previous versions of FARM stated that calves needed colostrum quantity and quality; however, evaluators wanted more specifics. The current recommendation is to feed colostrum at 10% of birthweight within six hours. Colostrum should be analyzed for quality, or the calf tested for evidence of successful transfer of passive immunity.
Euthanasia standards include designating primary and secondary individuals on the farm who can provide timely euthanasia, as well as confirmation of death in protocols.
Version 5 includes a plan for everyone on the farm to receive continuing education. The final section is a discovery process between FARM and co-ops or processors for farms that significantly exceed animal observations.
Phifer explained that on-farm program implementation is overseen by second-party evaluators who review documentation, training records, treatment records and protocols. “They go through the facility to make sure what they read on the paper matches what they see,” she said. “The practices on the farm are the priority.”
The majority of evaluators are from within the dairy industry and must have a combination of five years of formal animal science education and/or on-dairy farm experience. More than 75% of evaluators have over 20 years of industry experience.
“Second-party evaluations are never unannounced,” said Phifer. “They are planned weeks in advance so everyone who is involved in farm management can be there. The evaluator should prepare the farm regarding expectations, which are available in the animal care prep guide.”
Each year, about 300 farms go through third-party verification to ensure the program is implemented consistently.
“From the data we gather at the farm level, our co-ops and processors and program participants are allowed to take information and answer questions of their supply chain,” said Phifer.
The animal care prep guide is available at nationaldairyfarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/V4-EvaluatorPrepGuide-Web.pdf.
by Sally Colby
Leave A Comment