Proposal development · Funding not securedContent revision: 8 October 2026 · Draft framework v1.0

Research & innovation · Proposed methods

Research that informs dairy practice

Technical methods must be feasible, ethically reviewed and capable of producing evidence useful to farmers, veterinary services and institutions.

Scientists examining a milk sample in a laboratory

From a field question to a tested method.

Co-design the research question, select a sampling and comparison approach, validate procedures, and review findings before recommending expansion. Screening results require appropriate confirmation; changes over time require careful interpretation.

Laboratory agreements, biosafety procedures, research ethics, data access and protocols remain to be established. No existing testing facility, diagnostic capacity or research award is claimed.

Scientific & operational model · Proposed

Five interventions. One evidence pathway.

Farmer learning informs practice. Testing checks milk quality. Linked records inform veterinary decisions. Evaluation tests whether those changes produce better outcomes.

WP3 · WP5

Veterinary surveillance & herd health

Co-design herd-health visits and disease-event definitions; record signs, risk factors and referral decisions using unique animal IDs. Route suspected zoonotic events through the competent veterinary and public-health authorities.

Method: Agree reporting thresholds, sample handling, diagnostic referral and feedback protocols. Coordinate preventive services and vaccination where applicable under authorised veterinary guidance; do not assume disease elimination.
Verification: Measure reporting coverage, record completeness, referral turnaround and response time. Laboratory confirmation and clinical interpretation remain distinct.
Delivery responsibility: Proposed veterinary technical lead and competent authorities; appointments and referral agreements pending.

WP2 · WP6

Milk safety & laboratory systems

Demonstrate hygienic milking, clean collection equipment, temperature monitoring and context-appropriate cold-chain practices. Link farmer learning to milk-quality evidence.

Method: Select bacterial-quality tests and antimicrobial-residue screening with qualified laboratories. Define sampling frames, chain of custody, quality controls, proficiency checks and confirmatory testing for screening findings.
Verification: Compare quality measures against an inception baseline and applicable standards; report denominators, sampling limitations and laboratory quality assurance.
Delivery responsibility: Proposed laboratory and milk-safety leads; facilities, accreditation scope, methods and capacity must be verified before delivery.

WP3 · WP4 · WP6

Antimicrobial stewardship & zoonotic risk

Include veterinary prescribing oversight, treatment records, withdrawal-period education and risk-based awareness of animal-to-human infection pathways.

Method: Use authorised clinical advice, not farmer self-diagnosis. Separate residue screening from antimicrobial-resistance surveillance; either needs an agreed protocol and valid interpretation.
Verification: Track treatment-record completeness, withdrawal-period knowledge and referral compliance. Do not equate these outputs with reduced resistance or disease prevalence.
Delivery responsibility: Proposed veterinary and research leads; ethics, biosafety and institutional approvals required.

WP5

Digital identification & traceability

Pilot unique animal identification linked to consented herd records, treatments, milk-sampling events and disease reports. The 100,000+ records are a planning target, not an existing dataset.

Method: Test identifiers, deduplication, offline collection, role-based access, correction workflows and minimum datasets. Assess interoperability with appropriate veterinary systems before promising integration.
Verification: Report unique animals separately from event records; audit duplicates, completeness, accuracy and access. Define retention and consent withdrawal procedures.
Delivery responsibility: Proposed digital lead with veterinary users and data-protection oversight; system choice and interoperability agreements pending.

WP2 · WP4 · WP8

Climate-resilient husbandry

Co-design locally suitable feed-resilience trials, water-use practices, manure management and heat-stress adaptation, with animal welfare integrated into demonstration design.

Method: Agree water, feed and manure indicators and practical measurement methods. Record seasonality, resource requirements and constraints; assess waste and environmental risks before field activity.
Verification: Measure selected water use, feed availability and manure-practice indicators. No quantified carbon reduction is claimed without a validated baseline and accounting method.
Delivery responsibility: Proposed agronomy, extension and evaluation leads; locations, indicators and trial protocols subject to co-design.

Scientific integrity before publication.

Protocol review

Agree methods, primary measures, sampling limitations, ethical approvals and quality-control criteria before fieldwork.

Reproducible evidence

Maintain versioned protocols, documented changes, chain of custody, calibration and analysis records. Share appropriately licensed non-sensitive materials.

Responsible interpretation

Separate outputs, observed outcomes and long-term impact. Report uncertainty, adverse findings and study limitations; do not imply causal benefit without a suitable design.

A shared opportunity

Partner in a healthier dairy future.

For institutional donors, foundations, DFIs and research and implementation partners.

Start a conversation