Farm characteristics and perceptions regarding costs contribute to the adoption of biosecurity in Finnish pig and cattle farms

Abstract

The goal of this study was to estimate how the perceived costs of biosecurity measures and the characteristics of the farm and the producer influence the adoption of four biosecurity measures: (1) the use of protective clothing when entering an animal shelter and (2) the use of protective shoes when entering an animal shelter, (3) the verification of the health status of animals coming to the farm, and (4) the use of a carcass container to temporarily store dead animals at the farm. Questionnaire data from 852 Finnish livestock farms were analysed by a logistic regression model. The higher the producers perceived the cost of the biosecurity measure the less likely they were to adopt that measure. However, this response was inelastic. The results suggest that the use of biosecurity could be promoted by providing producers with economic incentives to follow stricter biosecurity policy. University education and the producer's activity to maintain his/her professional knowledge had a positive effect on the adoption of biosecurity measures. Also factors such as the producer's gender, farm size and production type contributed significantly to the adoption of biosecurity measures. The ongoing structural change in the livestock sector likely increases the use of biosecurity measures as larger farms were more likely to adopt biosecurity measures.

A value chain analysis of interventions to control production diseases in the intensive pig production sector

“…Economic factors are influential when farmers decide on the use of animal health management measures [2,65,66]. However, farmers' perceptions of the effectiveness of measures, availability of information [66,67] and ease of using measures [68] can impact health management.…”

“…Good hygiene is crucial in pig fattening. However, there are substantial differences in biosecurity practices between pig farms so there are possibilities for improvement [2,19]. Not all farms apply systematic and thorough daily cleaning and visitor biosecurity practices and a cleaning and sanitation period between batches of animals; [4] suggest that some 10-15% did not have a proper cleaning break between batches.…”

“…Production diseases originate from a complex interaction between the pathogen (where present), the animal and the environment where it is kept. These diseases can negatively affect production and animal welfare and they can lead to substantial financial losses for pig producers [2,3]. Research shows that management and environmental factors influence these diseases [4,5].…”

The economic impact of a new animal disease: same effects in developed and developing countries?

“…Conversely, the increased risk of disease incursion will force farmers to invest in preventive measures and subsequently decrease producer incentives to invest in new production. Over time, this can result in reduced livestock production and a probable increase in producer prices as the cost of elevated disease risk must be covered, further lowering incentives for adopting good animal health practices on-farm (26,27,28).…”

Verkennende studie naar prikkels voor gedragsverandering naar duurzaam bodemkoolstofbeheer : een literatuurstudie en acht interviews met akkerbouwers en melkveehouders

“…vermelden faciliterende factoren (vaardigheden, bekwaamheid) en lokale en externe investeringen als externe factoren. Andere auteurs noemen bijvoorbeeld externe factoren als kennis(Bruijnis et al, 2013), gepercipieerde kosten, opleiding en de mate waarin de boer zijn best doet om het kennisniveau te behouden, bedrijfsgrootte, geslacht en type productie(Niemie et al, 2016) en bedrijfskenmerken(Garforth et al, 2013).Volgens Bijttebier et al (2018) wordt de adoptie van bodemmaatregelen door boeren in verschillende regio's (bij deze auteurs ging het om de adoptie van niet-kerende grondbewerking in diverse Europese landen) beïnvloed door culturele, politieke en sociaaleconomische omstandigheden, zoals goede resultaten met ploegen, akkers die er goed uitzien, beschikbaarheid van een goede uitrusting, het bestaan van subsidies en de mening van anderen.…”