Pig farmers’ perceptions, attitudes, influences and management of information in the decision-making process for disease control

Abstract

The objectives of this study were (1) to explore the factors involved in the decision-making process used by pig farmers for disease control and (2) to investigate pig farmers’ attitudes and perceptions about different information sources relating to disease control.

In 2011 a qualitative study involving 20 face-to-face interviews with English pig farmers was conducted. The questionnaire was composed of three parts. The first part required farmers to identify two diseases they had experienced and which were difficult to recognize and/or control. They were asked to report how the disease problem was recognized, how the need for control was decided, and what affected the choice of control approach. For the latter, a structure related to the Theory of Planned Behaviour was used. Their verbal responses were classified as associated with: (1) attitude and beliefs, (2) subjective norms, or (3) perceived behavioural control (PBC). In the second part, five key sources of information for disease control (Defra, BPEX, research from academia, internet and veterinarians) and the factors related to barriers to knowledge were investigated. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. A qualitative analysis of the text of the interview transcripts was carried out using templates.

Drivers for disease control were ‘pig mortality’, ‘feeling of entering in an economically critical situation’, ‘animal welfare’ and ‘feeling of despair’. Veterinarians were perceived by several participating farmers as the most trusted information source on disease control. However, in particular non-sustainable situations, other producers, and especially experiences from abroad, seemed to considerably influence the farmers’ decision-making. ‘Lack of knowledge’, ‘farm structure and management barriers’ and ‘economic constrains’ were identified in relation to PBC. Several negative themes, such as ‘lack of communication’, ‘not knowing where to look’, and ‘information bias’ were associated with research from academia.

This study identified a range of factors influencing the decision-making process for disease control by pig farmers. In addition, it highlighted the lack of awareness and difficult access of producers to current scientific research outputs. The factors identified should be considered when developing communication strategies to disseminate research findings and advice for disease control.

Introduction

In the last 20 years, the English pig industry has suffered from outbreaks of many important diseases with significant negative impact. For example, Porcine circovirus type 2 associated diseases, which appeared in England in 1999, were estimated to cost the industry approximately £88 million per year during the epidemic stage, and £52.6 million per year during the endemic stage (Alarcon et al., 2013). Pleurisy has been estimated to cost up to £2.26 per pig in England (Jäger et al., 2009). Other diseases such as porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) and enzootic pneumonia have become endemic and are very difficult to eliminate from farms. Furthermore, the 2000 epidemic of Classical swine fever and the 2001 epidemic of Foot and Mouth disease substantially damaged the industry (Anonymous, 2008). All these diseases are complex in nature and very difficult to understand (many of them being also multi-factorial) and therefore to control. Effective communication of relevant disease-related knowledge is essential to facilitate farmers’ decisions on disease control and, thereby to help them minimize the impact of diseases. However, some studies have shown evidence that despite the onset of major knowledge transfer programmes effective communication to farmers was not achieved (Iles, 2003, Noremark et al., 2009). This suggests that farmers’ perceptions, and the factors affecting their behaviour, need to be better understood if effective knowledge transfer strategies are to be implemented successfully. Indeed, the importance of investigating and understanding, farmers’ perceptions and behaviours in relation to disease control is increasingly recognized by the scientific community, with the number of publications in this area growing substantially in recent years (Wauters, 2013).

Many of the social-psychological studies carried out in the farming sector have used or adapted the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) or the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) for the investigation of farmers’ behaviours (Garforth et al., 2004, Gunn et al., 2008, Ellis-Iversen et al., 2010). The Theory of Reasoned Action was developed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) and it states that an individual's actual behaviour may be predicted by the strength of his or her intention to engage in the behaviour (Fig. 1). Intention here represents an individual's behavioural orientation and reflects the person's motivation towards that behaviour. The strength of this ‘behavioural intention’ depends on a combination of (a) person's attitudes and (b) subjective norms. Attitudes represent the individual personal disposition towards engaging in the behaviour. It refers to the person's positive or negative beliefs about the effects of the behaviour in producing outcomes (‘outcome belief’) and about his or her evaluation of these outcomes (‘outcome evaluation’). Subjective norms reflect the person's perceptions on whether ‘significant others’ want him or her to engage in the behaviour (‘subjective beliefs’) and on the person's motivation to comply with these external pressures (‘motivation to/not to comply’). The Theory of Planned Behaviour is an extension of the TRA. In TPB, Ajzen (1991) introduced a new element referred to as ‘Perceived behavioural control’ (PBC). PBC accounts for the individual's belief in being able to achieve the behaviour (‘control belief or self-efficacy’) and also for the factors perceived to difficult or facilitate achieving the behaviour (‘power of control’). Ajzen hypothesized that PBC not only affects intention, but is also directly related to actual behaviour.

These two theories, TRA and TPB, have been proven effective in predicting and explaining a wide variety behaviours (Armitage and Conner, 2001, Jackson et al., 2006). In the agricultural sector, some studies have shown that ‘attitudes’ were the most important predictors of behavioural intention (Thompson and Panayiotopoulos, 1999, Garforth et al., 2004, Wolff, 2012). On the other hand, Ellis-Iversen et al. (2010) showed that lack of supportive social norms and of self-efficacy deterred farmers from their intention to control some foodborne diseases. However, other studies have investigated farmers’ decision making process for disease control using other socio-psychological frameworks. Valeeva et al. (2011) used the Health Belief Model (HBM) framework to investigate Dutch pig farmers perceptions towards disease risks and risk management strategies and to explore factors underlying farmers’ behaviours for the uptake of these strategies. The results of this study indicate that “perceived benefit, in terms of strategy efficacy, was the strongest direct predictor of strategy adoption”. Garforth et al. (2013) created a conceptual framework based on the TPB and HBM to investigate English sheep and pig farmers’ decisions for disease risk management. In their study, the main factors identified were related to farmers’ attitudes and perceptions towards disease risk and control measure efficacy, enterprise characteristics, previous experience and credibility of information and advice. However, the scarce literature on pig farmers decision making process for disease control, and its importance for knowledge transfer strategies, indicates the need for further studies in this area.

When considering the process by which farmers make decision about disease control, it is especially important to identify the variables which drive and motivate their behaviour. These drivers may be directly related to farmers’ values. Gasson (1973) classified farmers’ values in four categories: (1) instrumental (economic), (2) social (optimizing interpersonal relationship), (3) expressive (self-expression or personal fulfilment) and (4) intrinsic (lifestyle). Willock et al. (1999) identified several other motivators, including personality traits, which might also influence farmers’ decision-making process. In The Netherlands, two studies carried out in the dairy industry showed that ‘work/job satisfaction’ was a more important motivator than economic drivers (Bergevoet et al., 2004, Valeeva et al., 2007). However, only few recent studies have investigated farmers’ motivators for disease control, and most of these focussed on the dairy and beef industry (Gunn et al., 2008, Heffernan et al., 2008, Ellis-Iversen et al., 2010, Garforth et al., 2013). It is also important to note that these drivers for disease control could also be classified within the TPB framework. For example, drivers derived from Gasson's intrinsic values for farming (such as ‘making maximum income’ or ‘expanding business’) could belong simultaneously to different components of the TPB, such as ‘motivation to/not comply’ or ‘outcome belief’. However, an understanding of the drivers involved in the different decision steps of disease control (such as ‘deciding the need to control’ and ‘deciding which control measure to use’) is also important to clearly understand the overall decision process.

Nowadays, the amount of information and number of information sources available to farmers, and associated demands for time and resources, is significant and increasing. In this context, pig farmers’ perceptions and attitudes towards different information sources can significantly impact the way information is managed and decisions are made. An important part of this information is the one derived from research. In the United Kingdom, the Department of Food and Rural Affairs’ (Defra) budget for evidence-based research on animal health and welfare was £63.2 million for the year 2011/12 (from a total of £198.9 million research budget) (Anonymous, 2011). In the European Union, a total of € 1935 million were budgeted on food, agriculture and fisheries research for the period 2007–2013 (Anonymous, 2007). These amounts do not account for all the private investment on research in the farming industry. As a consequence, a substantial amount of research outputs are produced. To ensure that these research findings have a real impact in the farming industry, it is essential that the finding not only reach the producers, but also have a positive impact in their decision making.

The aims of this study were to explore the factors involved in pig farmers’ decision-making in relation to the control of complex diseases and/or ‘ill-defined/structured’ disease situations; and to investigate pig farmers’ attitudes and perception towards different disease-related sources of information.