Herd owner experiences of the voluntary phase of a BVD eradication programme

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.

The Irish Programme to Eradicate Bovine Viral Diarrhoea Virus-Organization, Challenges, and Progress

A mandatory national Irish bovine viral diarrhoea (BVD) eradication programme, coordinated by Animal Health Ireland, commenced in 2013. Key decisions and programme review are undertaken by a cross-industry Implementation Group (BVDIG) supported by a Technical Working Group. Ear notch tissue is collected from all new-born calves using modified official identity tags, supplemented by additional blood sampling, including for confirmatory testing of calves with initial positive results and testing of their dams. Testing is delivered by private laboratories in conjunction with the National Reference Laboratory, with all results reported to a central database. This database manages key elements of the programme, issuing results to herdowners by short message service messaging supplemented by letters; assigning and exchanging animal-level statuses with government databases of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to enable legislated restrictions on animal movements; assigning negative herd status based on test results; generating regular reports for programme management and evaluation and providing herd-specific dashboards for a range of users. Legislation supporting the programme has been in place throughout but has not thus far mandated the slaughter of persistently infected (PI) calves. A key challenge in the early years, highlighted by modeling, was the retention of PI animals by some herd owners. This has largely been resolved by measures including graduated financial supports to encourage their early removal, herd-level movement restrictions, ongoing programme communications and the input of private veterinary practitioners (PVPs). A framework for funded investigations by PVPs in positive herds was developed to identify plausible sources of infection, to resolve the status of all animals in the herd and to agree up to three measures to prevent re-introduction of the virus. The prevalence of PI calves in 2013 was 0.66%, within 11.3% of herds, reducing in each subsequent year, to 0.03 and 0.55%, respectively, at the end of 2020. Recent regulatory changes within the European Union for the first time make provision for official approval of national eradication programmes, or recognition of BVD freedom, and planning is underway to seek approval and, in due course, recognition of freedom within this framework by 2023.

Practices and opinions of New Zealand veterinarians regarding control of bovine viral diarrhoea

AIMS

To explore recommendations that New Zealand veterinarians make for diagnosing and managing bovine viral diarrhoea (BVD) in cattle herds under different clinical scenarios and their opinions towards potential barriers and opportunities for implementing BVD control programmes in New Zealand.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of registered veterinarians in New Zealand was conducted in 2019. Respondents were asked about the approaches they would use to manage BVD under different clinical scenarios as well as their opinions on national BVD control. A subset of veterinarians completed a more in-depth survey providing additional free-text responses on a range of different BVD topics. Descriptive statistics were provided for all quantitative study variables and the free-text responses were also analysed to generate further insights into veterinarians' perceptions towards BVD management.

RESULTS

The cross-sectional survey was completed by 101 of an estimated 870 (11.6%) cattle veterinarians. Thirty-five veterinarians completed the in-depth survey. There was wide variation in the BVD diagnostic testing and vaccination protocols that respondents recommended under different clinical scenarios. Annual bulk milk BVD testing was perceived as a valuable tool for initiating BVD discussions with dairy farmers. Respondents indicated that beef farmers were more difficult to engage in BVD control largely due to the logistical challenges of yarding cattle at the appropriate times to implement interventions, with many farmers only contacting veterinarians after experiencing a BVD outbreak Most respondents (91/101; 90%) believed it was possible to eradicate BVD from New Zealand, but cited lack of farmer awareness and poor compliance with management recommendations as significant barriers. The measure with the most support for inclusion in a compulsory national eradication programme was requiring farmers to declare the status of their animals prior to sale while the least supported measure was requiring farmers to double fence boundaries to prevent nose-to-nose contact with neighbouring stock. Although respondents highlighted the need for farmers and industry to support any national eradication programme in order for it to be successful, there was also recognition that veterinarians could be more pro-active in engaging with farmers particularly in discussions around the economics of BVD.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

While the survey respondents appeared to be highly supportive of BVD control, it was perceived that financial and logistical barriers existed that could impede farmer engagement. Further extension efforts may be needed to ensure that veterinarians are presenting clear and consistent recommendations about BVD management to farmers.Abbreviations: BVD: Bovine viral diarrhoea; NAIT: National Animal Identification and Tracing System; PI: Persistently infected.

Why do Irish pig farmers use medications? Barriers for effective reduction of antimicrobials in Irish pig production

Background

In addressing the threat of antimicrobial resistance, it is critical to understand the barriers to the uptake of strategies for the reduction of antimicrobial use (AMU) in the pig industry. In several EU countries, factors such as education level, habits and social pressures are recognised as affecting farmers’ decision-making process in relation to AMU. However, there is a lack of information on the Irish scenario. The aim of this study was to investigate pig farmers’ perspectives and their behaviour towards AMU to identify potential barriers to effectively reduce AMU in Irish pig production. We conducted face-to-face semi-structured interviews with 30 pig farmers, 5 pig veterinarians and 4 focus groups of pig farm personnel. We employed qualitative analyses to explore the objective of the study.

Results

Qualitative analysis revealed six convergent themes as potential barriers: perceptions about the need for AMU on farm, concept of animal welfare and associated management practices, legislation, culture, economics and standards of communication/type of advice-network. Overall, pig farmers believed that there is poor communication between stakeholders (i.e. farmers, vets and advisors) and a lack of reliable people to approach for advice. They considered themselves as operating responsibly in terms of AMU compared to their national and international colleagues and expressed the importance of a so-called ‘Irish solution’ to the problem of AMU because it was associated with what ‘has always been done’ and was therefore considered reliable and safe.

Conclusions

Barriers and challenges were in line with those identified in other EU countries highlighting similarities in behavioural and attitudinal patterns among pig farmers. Overall, farmers appeared to be more likely to rely on previous experiences or to wait for an imposed change (e.g. legislation) instead of taking personal action. Thus, considerable behavioural and attitudinal changes are needed to adopt a more responsible AMU in Irish pig production and to develop effective intervention strategies.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13620-021-00193-3.

Grazing cattle exposure to neighbouring herds and badgers in relation to bovine tuberculosis risk

Bovine tuberculosis (bTB) can be spread between and among cattle and wildlife hosts e.g. European badger (Meles meles). The majority of cattle in the UK and Ireland are grazed during the summer, potentially exposing them to Mycobacterium bovis. 18 farms were surveyed (39% dairy, 61% beef; fields n = 697) for one grazing season (May-November 2016, n = 148,461 field days) to quantify the co-occurrence of cattle with badger setts and latrines and adjacency to neighbouring cattle herds. 3% (n = 24) of the fields had a badger sett or latrine recorded, dairy cattle were significantly more likely to co-occur with badger setts and latrines than beef cattle. Most farms (89%) grazed cattle adjacent to a neighbouring herd, which accounted for 18% of the grazing season. Potential exposure to neighbouring herds did not differ between production systems but did vary between life stages. A significant positive association between the proportion of time cattle spent grazing fields with setts present and the historic 1-, 3- and 5- year bTB status (p = 0.007, p = 0.013 and p = 0.013 respectively) was found. However, when cattle were grazed in fields with latrines, a significant negative association was found between the proportion of time cattle spent grazing fields with latrines present and the historic 3- and 5- year bTB status (p = 0.033 and p = 0.012 respectively). Historic bTB status and percentage of days spent beside a neighbouring herd was unrelated. Idiosyncrasies at farm-level and between risk factors indicated that individual farm assessments would be beneficial to understand potential exposure risk.

Practices and opinions of New Zealand beef cattle farmers towards bovine viral diarrhoea control in relation to real and perceived herd serological status

Aims: To investigate the seroprevalence of infection with bovine viral diarrhoea (BVD) virus among 75 beef herds and seroconversion in cattle during early pregnancy, and to determine the practices and opinions of farmers towards BVD control and their association with real and perceived herd serological status.Methods: Blood samples were collected before mating in 75 beef herds across New Zealand from 15 unvaccinated heifers that had delivered their first calf that season. Serum samples were tested for BVD antibodies using ELISA individually, and after pooling samples for each farm. Animals that were antibody-negative were retested at either pregnancy diagnosis or weaning. Farmers were asked to complete a detailed survey about herd demographics, BVD testing and vaccination practices, and opinions towards national BVD control.Results: Based on the pooled serum antibody ELISA results, there were 28/75 (37%) negative herds, 15/75 (20%) suspect herds, and 32/75 (43%) positive herds. Of 1,117 animals sampled 729 (65.3%) tested negative for BVD virus antibodies; when retested, 47/589 (8.0%) animals from 13/55 (24%) herds had seroconverted. Among 71 famers providing survey responses 11 (15%) believed their herd was infected with BVD, 24 (34%) were unsure and 36 (51%) did not think their herd was infected. Only 19/71 (18%) farmers had performed any BVD testing within the past 5 years and 50/70 (71%) had not vaccinated any cattle for BVD. Support for national BVD eradication programme was strong in 51/71 (56%) respondents, but the biggest challenge to BVD control was considered to be famer compliance. Compared to farmers who did not think their herd was infected, more farmers who thought BVD was present in their herds had previously tested for BVD, would consider testing all replacement calves, and would support establishing a national BVD database; fewer would consider purchasing BVD tested or vaccinated cattle only.Conclusions and clinical relevance: Only 15% of the beef farmers in this study believed their herds were infected with BVD virus and few of them had undertaken BVD screening. Nevertheless many were supportive of implementing a national BVD control programme. It is likely that the lack of farmer awareness around BVD and the failure of farmers to recognise the potential impacts in their herds are hindering progress in controlling the disease in New Zealand. There are opportunities for New Zealand veterinarians to be more proactive in helping beef farmers explore BVD management options.

Exploring the role of voluntary disease schemes on UK farmer bio-security behaviours: Findings from the Norfolk-Suffolk Bovine Viral Diarrhoea control scheme

The article describes the influence of a disease control scheme (the Norfolk-Suffolk Bovine Viral Diarrhoea Disease (BVD) Eradication scheme) on farmers' bio-security attitudes and behaviours. In 2010, a survey of 100 cattle farmers (53 scheme members vs. 47 out of scheme farmers) was undertaken among cattle farmers residing in Norfolk and Suffolk counties in the UK. A cross-sectional independent measures design was employed. The main analytical tool was content analysis. The following variables at the farmer-level were explored: the specific BVD control measures adopted, livestock disease priorities, motivation for scheme membership, wider knowledge acquisition, biosecurity behaviours employed and training course attendance. The findings suggest that participation in the BVD scheme improved farmers' perception of the scheme benefits and participation in training courses. However, no association was found between the taking part in the BVD scheme and livestock disease priorities or motivation for scheme participation, or knowledge about BVD bio-security measures employed. Equally importantly, scheme membership did appear to influence the importance accorded specific bio-security measures. Yet such ranking did not appear to reflect the actual behaviours undertaken. As such, disease control efforts alone while necessary, are insufficient. Rather, to enhance farmer bio-security behaviours significant effort must be made to address underlying attitudes to the specific disease threat involved.

Stakeholder perspectives on the use of pig meat inspection as a health and welfare diagnostic tool in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland; a SWOT analysis

Background

A SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis is a strategic management tool applied to policy planning and decision-making. This short report presents the results of a SWOT analysis, carried out with n = 16 stakeholders i) involved in the pig industry in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and ii) in general animal welfare and food safety policy areas. As part of a larger study called PIGWELFIND, the analysis sought to explore the potential development of pig meat inspection as an animal welfare and diagnostic tool.

Findings

The final SWOT framework comprised two strengths, three opportunities, six weaknesses, and five threats. Issues around relationships and communication between producers and their veterinary practitioner, processors and producers were common to both the strengths and weakness clusters. Practical challenges within the processing plant were also named. Overall, the SWOT framework complements results reported in Devitt et al. (Ir Vet J 69:2, 2016) regarding problematic issues within the current system of information feedback on meat inspection especially within the Republic of Ireland, and the wider challenges of communication and problems of distrust.

Conclusion

The results of the SWOT analysis support the conclusions from Devitt et al. (Ir Vet J 69:2, 2016), that trust between all stakeholders across the supply chain will be essential for the development of an effective environment in which to realise the full diagnostic potential of MI data. Further stakeholder engagement could seek to apply the findings of the SWOT analysis to a policy Delphi methodology, as used elsewhere.