Sampling and participant recruitment

There is an ongoing debate about the determination of sample size and data saturation in qualitative research. Some authors propose methods to determine data saturation, while others highlight limitations in the concept of data saturation within qualitative research [19,20]. One of the primary challenges is that determining data saturation requires conducting data analysis, making it virtually impossible to establish the sample size in advance of data collection. Consequently, the concept of data saturation can be regarded as a post hoc rationale, with the determination of sample sizes in qualitative research relying instead on interpretative, context-dependent, and pragmatic judgments [21]. Researchers can face multiple logistical challenges when recruiting participants in qualitative research [22]. Despite social media platforms being increasingly widespread among farming communities, social networks remain the primary means of communication to reach farmers [23]. Snowball sampling is a common social network-based sampling method used in qualitative research [24] and is suitable for farmer recruitment. Conducting interviews can present challenges, hindering participant recruitment, as participants must be willing to dedicate time to engage with researchers. Phone interviews provide greater flexibility in scheduling, especially when working with populations in rural areas that are often hard to reach for in-person interviews.

Given these limitations, our study used a snowball method to recruit a convenience sample of participants for phone interviews; recruitment ceased once all known referral paths had been exhausted. Initially, a small number of participants were recruited through the authors’ existing networks, and additional participants were identified through recommendations from those who had completed interviews. To be eligible, participants had to make income from beef production and reside in Canada. Since local context can influence peoples’ views toward animal production systems [25], we recruited only from within Canada to reflect the culture and market dynamics specific to this region. Recruitment began on September 1, 2023, and ended on May 10, 2024. Despite the efforts to include farmers from across Canada, including offering interviews in French to accommodate participants from francophone regions, the final sample consisted of participants from three western provinces: Alberta, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan, which are the provinces with the highest concentration of beef production in Canada (Fig 1) [26]. All participants were offered a $10 digital gift card as thanks for participation; one participant declined the gift card.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. The distribution (%) of Canada’s 3.4 million beef cattle across Canada (as of January 2025).

Provinces where study participants were located are outlined in red. The color gradient indicates the proportion of the national beef cattle herd, with darker shades representing higher concentrations. Data source: [26]. Analyses and maps were generated using R (https://www.r-project.org/).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330697.g001

Semi-structured interview guide

Semi-structured interviews use pre-determined questions aimed at investigating participants’ views about the research topic while allowing flexibility for new questions to be asked depending on what the interviewee shares [27]. This method of research was chosen because it allows for the understanding of underexplored research topics, posing few restraints on the topics covered during the interviews. We developed the semi-structured interview guide to address the research questions and facilitate consistent conversations across interviews, but the specific questions were flexible to promote a comfortable and engaging dialogue. Questions were first developed to address all dairy animals supplied to beef production (i.e., cull dairy cows, veal calves, and dairy-beef calves), based on the reasoning that the beef farmer participants would have low awareness of the use of beef-on-dairy breeding strategies and feel uncomfortable discussing this topic. However, it became evident by the fifth interview that this approach was not needed; participants were all comfortable directly discussing the role of beef-on-dairy breeding strategies in dairy-beef production systems regardless of their specific knowledge about it. The questions about cull cows and veal calves did not contribute to addressing the research question of this study and were removed from the interview guide for the remaining participants.

The order of questions in the interview guide was developed to facilitate a natural flow to the interview, beginning with the introduction of dairy-beef production broadly and then narrowing it to specific topics regarding beef-on-dairy animals. To begin, participants were asked to describe the relationship between the dairy and beef industries in Canada based on their own experiences. Participants were then provided the information that 20% of beef produced in Canada comes from dairy farms and asked about their awareness and thoughts about this fact. The interviewer then introduced the topic of dairy-beef production by briefly explaining why some dairy animals are supplied to beef and introduced the concept of beef-on-dairy animals. To account for the differences in knowledge about beef-on-dairy animals among participants, the interviewer asked participants how much they had heard about beef-on-dairy animals and whether they had any experience with rearing non-replacement dairy calves in their beef operation. In cases where participants indicated low awareness about this practice, the interview guide included information paragraphs explaining what non-replacement dairy calves are and the reasoning for dairy farmers to use beef genetics in their herds. Participants were then asked about their awareness and opinions about the use of beef genetics in dairy farms, the challenges of rearing beef-on-dairy calves, and their possible impact on the beef market. The interviewer prompted participants to discuss two specific topics related to dairy-beef production if these were not mentioned spontaneously: public/consumer views and cow-calf separation. These topics were selected because they represent key components of the ongoing discussions surrounding dairy-beef production [3].

Lastly, participants were asked to share their perspectives on the future of dairy-beef production. Specifically, they were encouraged to reflect on who should be involved in decision-making regarding beef-on-dairy breeding strategies and consider its potential long-term impacts on dairy-beef production and the overall beef market. Additionally, participants were invited to discuss any other topics or ideas related to dairy-beef production that had not been addressed during the interview. The complete interview guide is available in the S1 File (https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/SD4SSJ). All interviews were conducted by the first author (BV), an experienced interviewer who employed efforts to build rapport with participants before interviews began.

Data analysis

The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim using an online transcription service (Otter.ai). The transcriptions were reviewed for errors, anonymized and randomly assigned an identification number (e.g., P43). Participants were emailed a copy of their transcript and given the opportunity to edit the content prior to the analysis; only one participant asked for minor modifications.

To our knowledge, ours is the first study to use semi-structured interviews to explore beef farmers’ perspectives on dairy-beef production in North America. Given the novel nature of the study, interview transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis [28,29]. This data-driven approach enables the analysis of interview data without preconceived hypotheses, ensuring that the emerging themes and codes are grounded in the data. The first and last authors carried out the initial development of the codebook. The first author, who conducted all interviews, familiarized herself with the data, while the last author provided an external perspective, becoming familiarized with the data through extensive reading of the transcripts. Together, these two authors collaboratively developed the first version of the codebook, sharing insights and resolving discrepancies through discussion. The codebook was then reviewed and finalized by all co-authors, who reached a consensus on the final codes and themes (S2 Table; https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/SD4SSJ). Following codebook finalization, the first author and a research assistant collaboratively coded the transcripts to identify quotes to report the results. Interview quotes are included in the results section to illustrate themes, with edits made for clarity, and interview transcriptions are available in the supplementary materials following participants’ consent to share anonymized data (S3 Files; https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/SD4SSJ).

Positionality statement

In qualitative research, the researchers act as data collection and analysis instruments, and their personal and professional experiences can influence the research process [30]. Therefore, the following positionality statements briefly describe the authors’ experiences and backgrounds. BV is a female PhD student in the UBC Animal Welfare Program (AWP). She was born and raised in Brazil, where she earned her Bachelor of Science degree in veterinary medicine and her MSc in Animal Welfare. Although she did not grow up in a farming community, she gained practical experience at her partner’s family beef farm in southern Brazil. Additionally, she acquired experience with dairy cattle by working at the UBC Dairy Education and Research Centre. DMW and MvK are professors at UBC and co-lead the UBC Animal Welfare Program, where they have conducted research on dairy cattle for more than 25 years, much of this funded by the cattle industry. MvK grew up on a beef cattle ranch in Canada and still has personal links with ranchers in western Canada.

Dairy & beef relationship

In this theme, participants discussed the relationship between the dairy and beef industries, emphasizing how market structures influence this relationship, how their farming systems differ, and how these differences shape public perception of the two industries.

Attitudes to beef-on-dairy animals

In this theme, participants shared their perspectives on dairy-beef production and associated management practices, considering the potential impact on the beef business and the genetics of beef-on-dairy calves compared to pure bred dairy and beef calves.

A shared future

In this theme, participants reflected on the future of dairy-beef production and discussed who ought to be involved in shaping the production system. Participants felt that the dairy industry ought to take the lead in discussions regarding the future of dairy-beef production, but the beef industry should also be involved because “it shouldn’t be a one-sided thing. I would say the beef and dairy [industries] need to coordinate together and talk about it and collaborate [to] decide what’s going to work best for both industries” (P33). Participants also noted that they “don’t think there needs to be an agreement but, as things move forward, there needs to be […] continued dialogue [between industries because] we’re not competitors [and] we should be working in synergy” (P93). Including different actors along the beef supply chain in these conversations was considered important for achieving a sustainable future in dairy-beef production. One participant articulated their views on this matter as follows:

“You would have to have all aspects of beef production [involved] too. You wouldn’t just have a feedlot. You need cow-calf producers, feedlot producers, packing plants, heck, even grocery. The whole food chain of beef production, I think should be there [because] every group [within the] beef production [value chain] has a different viewpoint on it.” (P29)

Participants also predicted some challenges in the communication between the two industries “because […] I don’t know [if] there’s a lot of willingness or interest in cooperating” (P33). One participant proposed offering evidence to support suggested changes as a way to engage with people who may not be willing to collaborate: “Being honest, I think that if either industry was going to say, this is a good thing, then they need to come out with some numbers to support that, whether it’s the feeding industry or the beef industry in general. […] That’s the way I would approach that conversation [because] people don’t like being told things […], so give them the information to believe it” (P40).

Participants also viewed beef-on-dairy animals as an opportunity for both industries to collaborate to “turn [a surplus animal] into a viable food product with […] a minimal footprint, […] best not only for animal welfare, but also for animal health, food safety, lots of different aspects” (P51). These benefits were seen to strengthen the relationship between beef and dairy because “These are ways that we can integrate and benefit from each other” (P93). However, some viewed this only as possible if “the two industries can manage to get over or agree to disagree on differences in supply and non-supply managed industries; that it could be a very copacetic relationship that benefits all of us, or if they can’t, it might not.” (P40). Communication and collaboration between the two industries were perceived as helping both industries benefit from dairy-beef production because “It’s coming, whether we like it or not; it’s how do we work with it?” (P81)

Participants also noted the importance of collaboration in managing calves across the two industries, as there needs to be “a very close communication between the dairy operation and the operation that will be receiving those calves […] so that none of those pieces [such as nutrition, castration, vaccination] fall between the cracks, more than about saying this is the right way and this is the wrong way” (P51).

Beef-on-dairy: Opportunity or threat?

Participants expressed mixed feelings about beef-on-dairy breeding, with some viewing it as an opportunity to mitigate the declining beef cattle numbers and others viewing it as a potential threat to cow-calf operations if market saturation occurs. The total number of cattle in Canada has declined; the national herd size in January 2025 was at its lowest since 1988 [26]. Beef cattle numbers fell from nearly 13 million in 2005 to about 9 million in 2025, while dairy cattle have remained stable at approximately 2 million [26]. Unlike beef calves from cow-calf operations that are typically born in the spring and enter the market primarily in the fall, dairy-beef calves are produced year-round, offering a consistent supply of animals into the feedlot, which could help stabilize the beef inventory. Projections for 2026 suggest that up to 6 million dairy-beef calves will be born in Canada and the U.S. [31]. However, the extent to which these concerns are valid is uncertain, as it remains unclear how many of these animals will ultimately enter the beef supply or how they will compete in the market alongside conventionally raised beef cattle. For example, while some participants expressed concern about an increase in the number of dairy-origin calves entering the beef sector, others believed the overall number of calves would remain stable, with the primary change being the use of crossbred dairy-beef genetics. Nevertheless, our study indicates that Canadian beef farmers share concerns that dairy-beef calves could create competition, potentially lowering calf prices for cow–calf producers.

Most participants viewed beef-on-dairy calves as less desirable than purebred beef calves, with the latter believed to command higher prices at auction [32], and considered that the benefits of beef-on-dairy animals primarily stemmed from superior meat compared to that from purebred dairy calves. There is some evidence that beef-on-dairy calves have higher carcass weights and better conformation than purebred dairy calves but remain inferior to purebred beef calves [33,34], aligning with participants’ perspectives. However, there is only a dearth of information on performance comparisons between dairy and beef-on-dairy calves entering the beef market [35], and findings vary depending on the type of Holstein genetics (e.g., New Zealand vs. North American) and the genetic merit of beef sires [36].

Despite differences in meat production traits between dairy and beef breeds, participants believed that consumers might not distinguish between beef-on-dairy calves and conventional beef products. Research supports this, showing few differences in tasting panel acceptance of steaks from conventional beef cattle, beef-on-dairy cattle, and pure dairy cattle [37]. Interestingly, the same study found that a trained panel rated strip loin steaks from dairy and beef-on-dairy cattle as having a more tender and intense, buttery fat flavour than conventional beef steaks. Beyond taste, appearance is important to retailers as color stability and steak shape can affect marketability [38]. Dairy breed steaks discolor more quickly due to higher oxidative muscle fibres and tend to be smaller and more angular than beef breed steaks [37]. Yet, other studies show no differences in these traits between beef-on-dairy and pure beef loin or ribeye steaks [37,39]. Advances in knowledge and perimortem protocols may further minimize breed-related differences in meat products, particularly in processed meats [35], supporting the view that consumers and retailers may not distinguish dairy-beef from conventional beef.

Beyond genetics, early-life experiences have lasting effects on carcass weight and conformation, with beef-farm-raised calves usually outperforming calves from dairy farms, regardless of genetics [40]. While introducing beef genetics can improve beef-related traits in calves destined for meat production, further research is needed to understand how beef-on-dairy calves compare to conventional beef cattle, particularly regarding genetic and environmental interactions.

Raising beef-on-dairy calves

Participants believed that beef cows experience better welfare than dairy cows; this perspective was shared by a panel of 70 cattle experts who assessed the likelihood of cattle experiencing negative welfare states as being higher in dairy than beef systems [41]. Given this perception of higher welfare for beef cattle, participants worried that the blending of meat from beef and dairy production would undermine consumer trust in the product, potentially impacting the beef industry. Previous work suggests that animal welfare concerns influence meat consumption more than dairy, as most vegetarians still consume dairy products [42], and animal welfare concerns are a primary reason for reducing meat intake [43]. However, participants’ worries that public awareness of dairy farming practices could negatively impact the beef marketing are warranted. Several studies indicate that the public values practices that are not common in North American dairy operations, such as pasture access and cow-calf contact [14,44,45]. The extent to which the public becomes aware of the dairy origin of meat remains unknown, as does the potential impact of such awareness on the public image of beef farmers. Nevertheless, beef farmers expressed concerns about the risks this practice may pose to their industry, given the substantial differences between beef and dairy production systems, farmers’ lifestyles, and the role of tradition as a core value among beef producers [46].

As noted by participants, the public often learns about contentious farming practices through undercover videos and media exposés [47]. Such cases can influence the public image of animal production, reducing trust in farming [48]. Aligning farming practices with public values to support the social sustainability of the cattle industries was deemed important by participants, who saw the public being able to see beef cows and calves on pasture [46] as beneficial in building trust [49]. Participants also believed that beef-on-dairy calves reared using typical dairy calf care conditions (e.g., indoors, individually housed, without dam contact) would compromise calf health, welfare, and resilience. In contrast, dairy farmers often justify these practices for their perceived benefits to animal health and welfare [50–52]. For example, dairy farmers express concerns about cow-calf contact systems, citing potential issues such as inadequate colostrum intake, increased stress from delayed separation, and lack of shelter for calves outdoors [53]. In contrast, our participants viewed cow-calf contact as beneficial for animal welfare and calf resilience. Multiple studies have examined the impact of cow-calf contact on the health and welfare of dairy cows and calves (see reviews [54,55]), the results of which mostly align with the perspectives of the participants in this study that the practice of separation may compromise calf health and welfare. Despite this, our participants also acknowledged that integrating prolonged cow-calf contact into existing dairy milking systems presents logistical challenges, aligning with dairy farmers’ views [53], and consistent with a type of technological ‘lock-in’ that makes it difficult for systems to escape specific historical paths [56].

Participants provided recommendations for dairy farmers based on their cattle-raising experience, suggesting that practices such as outdoor access and social housing would improve calf adaptability, enhancing welfare and resilience. Consistent with participant views, multiple studies have identified the benefits of outdoor access and social housing for dairy cattle [57–59]. Participants also recommended extending the period that dairy-beef calves remain on dairy farms to foster resilience before subjecting calves to transport. Historically, non-replacement dairy calves typically leave the home dairy farm between 3 and 7 days of age, and sometimes even within 1 day of birth [60]. Aligning with participant concerns, early-life transport negatively impacts calf performance [61] and compromises calf health [5]. The Canadian Cattle Transport Regulations [62] now require that calves must be at least 8 days old before transport. However, as participants suggested, prolonging the time calves stay on the home dairy farm may not be sufficient without other changes in practice that improve their welfare, health, and resilience.

Towards a collaborative and sustainable future

Participants emphasized that the overall impact of dairy-beef production on the beef industry would depend on the quality of collaboration between the dairy and beef sectors toward shared goals. Dairy-beef production was viewed as potentially benefiting both industries, reducing the environmental footprint of calf production, improving the welfare of non-replacement dairy calves, and enhancing the genetic traits of calves entering the beef supply from dairy herds [11,35,63]. Input from the beef sector was considered crucial for achieving these outcomes while mitigating potential negative effects on beef operations.

Participants believed that discussions about the future of dairy-beef production must involve various groups within the supply chain, including cow-calf operations, feedlots, processors, and retailers, as each group was thought to bring valued perspectives. Representatives from post-farm gate organizations in Australia also underscored the necessity for collaboration, leadership, and commitment across sectors in addressing the management of non-replacement dairy calves [3]. Our participants displayed varying knowledge of dairy-beef production, with some well-versed in the practice and others learning about this for the first time during our interviews. This variation in knowledge suggests that not all sectors are equally engaged, which may pose a challenge to promoting a sustainable future for dairy-beef production. These findings underscore the importance of enhanced communication and knowledge exchange between the dairy and beef sectors to ensure that producers are equipped with accurate information about implications of beef-on-dairy production.

Participants pointed out challenges that could hinder the collaboration between the dairy and beef industries, including Canada’s dairy supply management system [64]. While this system helps the dairy sector, it was seen as a source of conflict between the industries [65], complicating the market dynamics and potentially making collaboration more difficult. Despite differences between the industries, Canadian beef and dairy farmers hold shared values regarding animal welfare and their duty of care toward animals [46,51], and this could provide common ground for discussions about the future of dairy-beef production.

Our results emphasize the potential for dairy farmers to raise non-replacement calves as contributors to the beef supply chain. Reframing the dairy industry’s narrative to view beef-on-dairy calves as an opportunity rather than a byproduct could be key to promoting better calf care management practices. The results also suggest a need for enhanced communication between the dairy and beef industries to support the development of best practices for calf care. Progress in this area will likely depend on the emergence of leadership to establish and promote standards of care for beef-on-dairy caves. While our participants believed that the dairy industry should be responsible for this leadership, they emphasized the importance of involvement from multiple sectors within the beef industry. Further research is needed to explore how such communication and coordination might develop, including what strategies could engage the various sectors involved.

Limitations and future research

It is important to acknowledge the limitations of this study. First, the use of convenience and snowball sampling likely introduced selection bias. Although we attempted to engage national and provincial beef producer organizations to diversify recruitment, these efforts were unsuccessful. Future studies may benefit from establishing stronger collaborations with these organizations, which could facilitate broader participation among farmers. Participatory research methods, where knowledge users are actively involved in multiple stages of the research process [2], may also increase engagement and uptake by farmers.

Second, interviews were conducted by phone. This method allowed participation from farmers across Canada, including those in remote areas, but limited the ability to observe non-verbal cues and may have reduced interpersonal connection. Future studies could consider using in-person interviews to foster more engaged dialogue. Conducting interviews at industry events may be a practical way to increase access to in-person interviews while also reaching geographically dispersed participants, a strategy that has proven effective in other studies [e.g., 66].

Third, while one-on-one interviews allowed participants to express their views freely, they did not offer the opportunity to observe how opinions are shaped through dialogue, as would be possible in focus groups. Our findings illustrate variation in perspectives between beef and dairy producers and among beef farmers. Focus groups involving either multiple beef farmers or both beef and dairy farmers could offer insights into barriers to communication and collaboration that participants identified as challenges for the future of beef-on-dairy production.

Furthermore, interview studies are inherently limited in their ability to collect data from a broader sample of the population. Future research could adopt a mixed-methods approach, combining in-depth qualitative methods (e.g., interviews and focus groups) with large-scale surveys to capture a broader and more representative range of perspectives. This would also allow for the exploration of how attitudes may vary across regions.

Lastly, although our study focused on Canadian farmers and revealed context-specific considerations, such as the role of dairy supply management in the relationship between the dairy and beef industries, this topic is of growing global relevance. To our knowledge, the only other study addressing beef farmers’ views on this topic was conducted in Ireland [17]. More research is needed in other countries to capture a diversity of perspectives and account for differences in cultural, economic, and policy contexts.