Assessment of a joint farmer-veterinarian discussion about biosecurity using novel social interaction analyses.

Veterinarians are trusted by farmers and play an important role in assisting them to implement biosecurity. More research is needed that particularly focuses on the impact of joint farmer-veterinarian discussions to further understand the role of communication in altering biosecurity behaviours. The aim of this study was to analyse joint dairy cattle farmer-veterinarian discussions about the adoption of on-farm biosecurity using novel social interaction methodologies. Farmer and veterinarian stakeholders were invited to take part in a face-to-face meeting. Introductory presentations were given, followed by separate facilitated veterinarian and farmer discussions. All stakeholders were brought together for a final facilitated group discussion which was audio recorded. Corresponding transcripts from the recordings were analysed via thematic and conversation analyses. Conversation analysis assessments such as turn taking, repair, sequence organisation, overlap and asymmetry were employed to investigate the nature of the conversation. Thematic analysis identified the negative repercussions of conflicting information or ineffective communication surrounding biosecurity implementation. The type of, and importance of, the relationship farmers had with veterinarians and other stakeholders was highlighted. The need to provide personalised biosecurity protocols on farms was identified. Four key factors were identified via conversation analyses. These included: 1) how the conversation facilitated agreement, 2) how the conversation allowed the farmer and veterinarian participants to learn from one another in real time, 3) how the discussion enabled participants to expand upon points they were making, and 4) how participants were able to obtain a greater understanding of the other participants' opinions, even without total resolution. Debate around the effective implementation of biosecurity measures on farms, explored using novel techniques, demonstrated the potential for utilising a discussive approach between veterinarians and farmers to lead to solutions not previously considered. Because of the nature of the discussion, conversation analysis resulted in an informative approach to encapsulating the nuanced dialogue between stakeholders, highlighting the potential of this analysis framework.

Lessons learned for animal health governance from bovine viral diarrhea eradication schemes in Scotland and Ireland.

This paper explores lessons learned for animal health governance from bovine viral diarrhea (BVD) eradication schemes in Scotland and Ireland, drawing on qualitative key stakeholder interviews. Bovine viral diarrhea is an endemic cattle disease that causes animal health and welfare problems, as well as financial losses to farmers. Initial voluntary industry-led schemes to eradicate BVD were introduced in both countries in the 2010s, followed by compulsory phases involving legislation. The paper uses a theoretical framework of co-productive governance to analyze stakeholder views on how well the design and execution of the eradication schemes worked and what can be learned to inform future directions of animal health governance. The term "co-productive governance" comes from the field of environmental governance and was developed to describe how science and politics influence each other in a context where governance is carried out by multiple actors working collaboratively. The results of key stakeholder interviews are analyzed using the concepts of vision, context, knowledge, and process. In relation to vision, the results show the importance of creating a clear narrative about the goal of disease eradication schemes, which may incorporate or replace existing vet or farmer "narratives" about a disease. With regard to context, it is difficult to engage all actors in biosecurity governance, when initiatives are developed with the legacy of existing relationships and tensions. In relation to knowledge, the results showed the importance but political complexity of basing decisions on scientific research. One of the lessons learned was the benefit of involving industry stakeholders in setting scientific questions to inform the design of the scheme. Additionally, with reference to the process, while interviewees were enthusiastic about future prospects for industry and government working together to achieve biosecurity goals co-productive governance is not a panacea for enrolling all actors in biosecurity goals. The results also highlighted that farmers and other actors might object to an eradication scheme, whether it is run by government or private industry. Thus, it is useful to keep questions about who benefits in what way from biosecurity governance open.

Dairy farmer practices and attitudes relating to pasture-based and indoor production systems in Scotland.

This study assesses the practices and views of Scottish dairy farmers relating to pasture-based and indoor systems. There are the debates about the environmental, economic and animal welfare implications of these systems. Indoor dairy farming is a contentious practice among the public. While this controversy is sometimes represented as a lack of public understanding, there is a need for more research on farmers' views to facilitate discussion in the industry. A survey was posted to 909 dairy farmers in Scotland with questions about their grazing practices and attitudes to grazing and indoor systems. 254 surveys were completed, online and in paper form. There was a 26% response rate to the paper version of the survey. The results showed that 19% of respondents housed some or all the cows all year-round. 68% agreed or strongly agreed that cows should graze for part of the year and 51% agreed or strongly agreed that welfare was better if cows grazed for part of the year. These views coexisted with the view that management was more important than the type of system for determining profitability or welfare outcomes (83% and 82% strongly agree or agree respectively). Respondents whose system involved grazing and respondents who had spent longer in farming were moderately more likely to agree that cows should have access to pasture, and slightly less likely to agree that management was more important than system for determining welfare outcomes. The results indicate that the picture is more complicated than the public rejecting indoor dairy farming and those in the industry accepting it. The results showed that a majority preference for cows to graze co-existed with the view that management was more important than system. In terms of industry and policy recommendations, the research suggests that measures should be taken to safeguard farmers' ability to graze through for instance research and advisory support on grazing; ensuring different systems are not penalised in the development of dairy sector environmental measures and recommendations; and potentially supply chains that financially rewards farmers for grazing.

Water for all: Towards an integrated approach to wetland conservation and flood risk reduction in a lowland catchment in Scotland.

Strategies for sustainable water resources management require integration of hydrological, ecological and socio-economic concerns. The "Water for all" project has sought to develop a multi-disciplinary science case for innovative management of water levels and flows in a lowland catchment in Scotland. Water demands of arable agriculture, protection from flood risk and conservation needs of lowland mesotrophic wetlands needed to be considered. Water management strategy focused on the outlet zone of Balgavies lake in Eastern Scotland, where the Lunan Water discharges into a partially confined common channel (lade). Water releases to a mill, to the downstream river, and to floodplain wetlands (Chapel Mires) are partially controlled by an existing weir. Based on observations of management of this weir, we postulated that upgrading hydraulic management in this zone could reduce upstream flood risk, help protect mesotrophic wetlands and facilitate downstream water supply at low flows. We considered potential for: (a) installing a remotely operated tilting weir, for improved management of release and routing of flows from the common lade; (b) dredging of the common lade in combination or instead of the tilting weir. Rapid ecological assessment and mixing analysis of the Lunan Water with waters in Chapel Mires showed a gradient of trophic status across the wetlands linked to impact of river-borne nutrients. Stage-discharge relationships, derived from steady-state approximations of the in-channel hydraulics, showed that the proposed tilting weir had potential to divert seasonal nutrient rich water from the upstream Lake away from Chapel Mires. Significant impact of the proposed weir on upstream flood risk was not demonstrated, but carrying out dredging of the channel reduced the current observed probability of upstream flooding. The proposed weir could help to maintain these dredging benefits. Survey and interviews with catchment stakeholders and residents showed constructive interest in the scheme, with half of the respondents willing to pay to support its implementation. The survey also revealed concerns about the proposed project, especially its long-term governance. The lessons learned have wider relevance to development of an integrated approach to water ecosystem services provision, especially where benefits are uncertain and thinly spread across a range of users.

Drivers for precision livestock technology adoption: A study of factors associated with adoption of electronic identification technology by commercial sheep farmers in England and Wales.

The UK is the largest lamb meat producer in Europe. However, the low profitability of sheep farming sector suggests production efficiency could be improved. Although the use of technologies such as Electronic Identification (EID) tools could allow a better use of flock resources, anecdotal evidence suggests they are not widely used. The aim of this study was to assess uptake of EID technology, and explore drivers and barriers of adoption of related tools among English and Welsh farmers. Farm beliefs and management practices associated with adoption of this technology were investigated. A total of 2000 questionnaires were sent, with a response rate of 22%. Among the respondents, 87 had adopted EID tools for recording flock information, 97 intended to adopt it in the future, and 222 neither had adopted it, neither intended to adopt it. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and multivariable logistic regression modelling were used to identify farmer beliefs and management practices significantly associated with adoption of EID technology. EFA identified three factors expressing farmer's beliefs-external pressure and negative feelings, usefulness and practicality. Our results suggest farmer's beliefs play a significant role in technology uptake. Non-adopters were more likely than adopters to believe that 'government pressurise farmers to adopt technology'. In contrast, adopters were significantly more likely than non-adopters to see EID as practical and useful (p≤0.05). Farmers with higher information technologies literacy and intending to intensify production in the future were significantly more likely to adopt EID technology (p≤0.05). Importantly, flocks managed with EID tools had significantly lower farmer- reported flock lameness levels (p≤0.05). These findings bring insights on the dynamics of adoption of EID tools. Communicating evidence of the positive effects EID tools on flock performance and strengthening farmer's capability in use of technology are likely to enhance the uptake of this technology in sheep farms.

Exploring expert opinion on the practicality and effectiveness of biosecurity measures on dairy farms in the United Kingdom using choice modeling.

Biosecurity, defined as a series of measures aiming to stop disease-causing agents entering or leaving an area where farm animals are present, is very important for the continuing economic viability of the United Kingdom dairy sector, and for animal welfare. This study gathered expert opinion from farmers, veterinarians, consultants, academics, and government and industry representatives on the practicality and effectiveness of different biosecurity measures on dairy farms. The study used best-worst scaling, a technique that allows for greater discrimination between choices and avoids the variability in interpretation associated with other methods, such as Likert scales and ranking methods. Keeping a closed herd was rated as the most effective measure overall, and maintaining regular contact with the veterinarian was the most practical measure. Measures relating to knowledge, planning, and veterinary involvement; buying-in practices; and quarantine and treatment scored highly for effectiveness overall. Measures relating to visitors, equipment, pest control, and hygiene scored much lower for effectiveness. Overall, measures relating to direct animal-to-animal contact scored much higher for effectiveness than measures relating to indirect disease transmission. Some of the most effective measures were also rated as the least practical, such as keeping a closed herd and avoiding nose-to-nose contact between contiguous animals, suggesting that real barriers exist for farmers when implementing biosecurity measures on dairy farms. We observed heterogeneity in expert opinion on biosecurity measures; for example, veterinarians rated the effectiveness of consulting the veterinarian on biosecurity significantly more highly than dairy farmers, suggesting a greater need for veterinarians to promote their services on-farm. Still, both groups rated it as a practical measure, suggesting that the farmer-veterinarian relationship holds some advantages for the promotion of biosecurity.

Broken biosecurity? Veterinarians' framing of biosecurity on dairy farms in England.

There is seen to be a need for better biosecurity - the control of disease spread on and off farm - in the dairy sector. Veterinarians play a key role in communicating and implementing biosecurity measures on farm, and little research has been carried out on how veterinarians see their own and farmers' roles in improving biosecurity. In order to help address this gap, qualitative interviews were carried out with 28 veterinarians from Royal College of Veterinary Surgeon farm accredited practices in England. The results were analysed using a social ecology framework and frame analysis to explore not only what barriers vets identified, but also how vets saw the problem of inadequate biosecurity as being located. Veterinarians' frames of biosecurity were analysed at the individual, interpersonal and contextual scales, following the social ecology framework, which see the problem in different ways with different solutions. Farmers and veterinarians were both framed by veterinarians as individualised groups lacking consistency. This means that best practice is not spread and veterinarians are finding it difficult to work as a group to move towards a "predict and prevent" model of veterinary intervention. But diversity and individualism were also framed as positive and necessary among veterinarians to the extent that they can tailor advice to individual farmers. Veterinarians saw their role in educating the farmer as not only being about giving advice to farmers, but trying to convince the farmer of their perspective and values on disease problems. Vets felt they were meeting with limited success because vets and farmers may be emphasising different framings of biosecurity. Vets emphasise the individual and interpersonal frames that disease problems are a problem on farm that can and should be controlled by individual farmers working with vets. According to vets, farmers may emphasise the contextual frame that biosecurity is largely outside of their control on dairy farms because of logistical, economic and geographical factors, and so some level of disease on dairy farms is not entirely unexpected or controllable. There needs to be a step back within the vet-farmer relationship to realise that there may be different perspectives at play, and within the wider debate to explore the question of what a biosecure dairy sector would look like within a rapidly changing agricultural landscape.

Challenges facing the farm animal veterinary profession in England: A qualitative study of veterinarians' perceptions and responses.

The farm animal veterinary profession in the UK has faced a number of challenges in recent decades related to the withdrawal of government funding and a contraction of the agricultural sector. They have come under pressure to respond by developing skills and focusing on disease prevention advisory services. However, this puts veterinarians in competition with other providers of these services, and moves in this direction have only been partial. Failure to respond to these challenges puts the veterinary profession at risk of de-professionalisation-a loss of their monopoly over knowledge, an erosion of client beliefs in their service ethos and a loss of work autonomy. This paper explores how farm animal veterinarians in England perceive these challenges and are responding to them. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were carried out with 28 veterinarians from Royal College of Veterinary Surgeon farm accredited practices. Veterinarians were chosen from high, medium and low density cattle farming regions. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and themes identified through the constant comparison method. The majority of respondents recognised the challenges facing the veterinary profession. Most believed their role had changed, moving towards that of a disease prevention adviser who was part of the farm management team. In terms of maintaining and redefining their professional status, farm animal veterinarians do have a defined body of knowledge and the ability to develop trusting relationships with clients, which enhances their competitiveness. However, while they recognise the changes and challenges, moves towards a disease prevention advisory model have only been partial. There seem to be little effort towards using Farm accreditation status or other strategies to promote their services. They do not appear to be finding effective strategies for putting their knowledge on disease prevention into practice. Disease prevention appears to be delivered on farm on an ad hoc basis, they are not promoting their disease prevention services to farmers effectively or using their professional position to stave off competition. Farm animals veterinarians will need to realign their veterinary expertise to the demands of the market, work together rather than in competition, improve their skills in preventive medicine, consolidate information given by non-veterinary advisors, develop new business models appropriate to their services and develop entrepreneurial skills to demonstrate their market value if they are to avoid becoming marginalised.

Integrating social and value dimensions into sustainability assessment of lignocellulosic biofuels.

The paper clarifies the social and value dimensions for integrated sustainability assessments of lignocellulosic biofuels. We develop a responsible innovation approach, looking at technology impacts and implementation challenges, assumptions and value conflicts influencing how impacts are identified and assessed, and different visions for future development. We identify three distinct value-based visions. From a techno-economic perspective, lignocellulosic biofuels can contribute to energy security with improved GHG implications and fewer sustainability problems than fossil fuels and first-generation biofuels, especially when biomass is domestically sourced. From socio-economic and cultural-economic perspectives, there are concerns about the capacity to support UK-sourced feedstocks in a global agri-economy, difficulties monitoring large-scale supply chains and their potential for distributing impacts unfairly, and tensions between domestic sourcing and established legacies of farming. To respond to these concerns, we identify the potential for moving away from a one-size-fits-all biofuel/biorefinery model to regionally-tailored bioenergy configurations that might lower large-scale uses of land for meat, reduce monocultures and fossil-energy needs of farming and diversify business models. These configurations could explore ways of reconciling some conflicts between food, fuel and feed (by mixing feed crops with lignocellulosic material for fuel, combining livestock grazing with energy crops, or using crops such as miscanthus to manage land that is no longer arable); different bioenergy applications (with on-farm use of feedstocks for heat and power and for commercial biofuel production); and climate change objectives and pressures on farming. Findings are based on stakeholder interviews, literature synthesis and discussions with an expert advisory group.