Received: 21 February 2019 | Revised: 24 September 2019 | Accepted: 2 October 2019 DOI: 10.1111/tbed.13387 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Dairy farmers’ decision‐making to implement biosecurity measures: A study of psychosocial factors Sebastián Moya1 | Francisco Tirado2 | Josep Espluga3 | Giovanna Ciaravino1 | Ramon Armengol4 | Javier Diéguez5 | Eduardo Yus6 | Bibiana Benavides7 | Jordi Casal1,8 | Alberto Allepuz1,8 1 Department of Animal Health and Anatomy, Universitat Autònoma de Abstract Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona, Spain Biosecurity measures are a set of management procedures that prevent the risk of 2 Department of Social Psychology, introducing and spreading infectious diseases to a farm, although these measures Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona, Spain are rarely implemented in dairy farms. There are some studies that have identified 3 Departament of Sociology, Universitat that the decision to implement biosecurity measures can be influenced by several Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona, Spain psychosocial factors (attitudes and behaviours). Thus, the objective of this study was 4 Department of Animal Science, Universitat to examine the psychosocial factors (and their interactions) influencing the imple‐ de Lleida (UDL), Lleida, Spain mentation of biosecurity measures in dairy farms in Spain, through the views of dairy 5 Department of Anatomy, Animal Production farmers and veterinarians from Catalonia (northeast Spain) and Galicia (northwest and Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Area of Animal Production, Universidad de Santiago Spain). Face‐to‐face in‐depth interviews were performed with 16 dairy farmers (nine de Compostela (USC), Lugo, Spain 6 from Catalonia and seven from Galicia) and 16 veterinarians (eight from Catalonia Department of Animal Pathology, Area of Animal Health, Universidad de Santiago de and eight from Galicia). Grounded theory analysis was performed on the transcripts, Compostela (USC), Lugo, Spain following the subtopics of: information sources, individual factors of the farmer, so‐ 7 Department of Animal Health, Universidad cial dynamics, official veterinary services and other factors. The study identified the de Nariño (UDENAR), Pasto, Colombia 8 Centre de Recerca en Sanitat Animal importance of veterinarians as a source of information, including their communication (CReSA), Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia skills, the individual experiences of farmers, traditions of the farms and availability of Agroalimentàries (IRTA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona, time and space in the dairy farmer's decisions making. Further, it suggests the need to Spain deepen the knowledge of the farm workers and the obligatory biosecurity measures. Correspondence This research represents a starting point to develop future strategies to improve the Sebastián Moya, Department of Animal implementation of biosecurity measures in dairy farms. Health and Anatomy, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona, Spain. KEYWORDS Email: sebastian.moya@uab.cat biosecurity, dairy farms, disease prevention, epidemiology, qualitative, sociology Funding information This research was supported by a grant from the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) of Spain (AGL2016‐77269‐C2‐1‐R) and by European Regional Development Funds (ERDF). PhD studies of Moya, S., were funded by a grant from the National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICYT) of Chile and the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona of Spain (B18P0040). This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2019 The Authors. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases published by Blackwell Verlag GmbH 698 | wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tbed Transbound Emerg Dis. 2020;67:698–710. MOYA et al. | 699 1 | I NTRO D U C TI O N to invest in biosecurity measures (Gunn, Heffernan, Hall, McLeod, & Hovi, 2008). Time and economic constraints may also be rele‐ Biosecurity can be defined as the methods that are used to stop vant (Brennan & Christley, 2012; Pritchard, Wapenaar, & Brennan, a disease or infection from spreading from one person, animal, or 2015), as well as incentives (Frössling & Nöremark, 2016), access to place, to others (Cambridge Dictionary, 2019). On farms, this con‐ information sources (Laanen et al., 2014; Toma, Stott, Heffernan, cept is defined as a set of management procedures that prevent the Ringrose, & Gunn, 2013), education, and awareness (Brennan & risk of introducing disease agents into a farm (external biosecurity) Christley, 2012; Kuster, Cousin, Jemmi, Schüpbach‐Regula, & and that minimize the spread of disease agents within the herd (in‐ Magouras, 2015). ternal biosecurity) (FAO, 2010). In Spain, there are several profiles of dairy farmers and vet‐ The implementation of biosecurity measures can improve animal erinarians. On one hand, there are conventional and organic health (Oliveira, Sørensen, & Thomsen, 2017) and animal welfare farms, which differ mainly in that the latter have a holistic and (Barkema et al., 2015) and therefore increase productivity in dairy integral approach (self‐sufficiency) (Stonehouse, Clark, & Ogini, farms (Postma et al., 2016a). In addition, an association has been 2001) and must adhere to strict standards with regard to the observed between higher biosecurity and a reduction in antibiotic use of agricultural chemicals (such as synthetic fertilizers and use (Laanen et al., 2013; Postma et al., 2016b). Despite this, bios‐ pesticides) and animal medicines (such as antibiotics, anti‐par‐ ecurity measures in dairy farms are rarely implemented (Renault, asitics and hormones; EC, 2019). On the other hand, there are Damiaans, et al., 2018a; Sahlström, Virtanen, Kyyrö, & Lyytikäinen, private veterinarians (PV), animal health veterinarians (AHV) and 2014; Sarrazin, Cay, Laureyns, & Dewulf, 2014). OVS (Figure 1). PV are the technical advisors who are hired and The implementation of biosecurity measures at the farm level paid by the dairy farmer for different areas (e.g. clinical, repro‐ requires the adoption of a set of attitudes and behaviours by in‐ duction, milk quality or nutrition, among others). AHV fall in two dividuals. These attitudes and behaviours are within the so‐called main groups: (a) health defence association (HDA) veterinarians. psychosocial factors. Psychosocial factors refer to the combination HDA are constituted by farmers associations that aim to improve of psychological (level of individual processes and meanings) and so‐ the health status of their herds, but the responsibilities of the cial (level of human society, social structure and social processes) contracted HDA can vary among regions. For example, in north‐ factors. In this way, the psychological factors can mediate with the west Spain (i.e. Galicia) they are only involved in voluntary con‐ social factors, and the social factors can affect the individual factors trol programmes of non‐regulated diseases (such as Infectious (Stansfeld & Rasul, 2007). Bovine Rhinotracheitis (IBR), Bovine Virus Diarrhoea (BVD), para‐ Different studies have identified several psychosocial fac‐ tuberculosis or neosporosis). Contrary, in northeast Spain (i.e. tors in dairy farmers and veterinarians that might influence their Catalonia) these veterinarians are just involved in control pro‐ decision on whether or not to implement biosecurity measures. grammes of regulated diseases (such as tuberculosis or brucel‐ Among these factors, it has been described that the attitude of losis). Nevertheless, in both cases, regardless their involvement farmers and veterinarians towards the implementation of bios‐ with regulated or non‐regulated diseases, the HDA are recog‐ ecurity measures might be affected by the technical knowledge nized by the public administration and regulated according with they have (Frössling & Nöremark, 2016; García & Coelho, 2014; national legislation (Royal Decree 842/2011). These are hired Toma, Low, Vosough, Matthews, & Stott, 2015), the individual by the farmer association itself through the payment of a quota. experiences they have lived (Broughan et al., 2016), the impor‐ And, although these associations can receive public funds for the tance they can attribute to risks (Renault, Humblet, et al., 2018b), development of these programs, these are not linked to public and the benefits they can obtain from measures implemented administration. And (b) veterinarians who carried out mandatory (Ciaravino et al., 2017). Moreover, their behaviour towards the eradication programmes (i.e. regulated diseases) contracted by implementation of biosecurity measures has also been related the OVS (i.e. public administration). They carry out the fieldwork to their perceived social pressure to apply these measures (i.e. of these programmes and provide all the data to the public admin‐ the subjective norm (Ajzen, 1991)). This might be influenced by istration. As a matter of fact, in Galicia, the control of tuberculosis personal relationships (Cardwell et al., 2016; Ellis‐Iversen et al., and brucellosis is exclusively carried out by these veterinarians. In 2010; Shortall et al., 2016), action and communication dynamics the case of Catalonia, on the contrary, just one HDA is responsi‐ (Heffernan, Nielsen, Thomson, & Gunn, 2008; Sayers, Good, & ble for the mandatory eradication programmes. Thus, in this area Sayers, 2014), or by the relationship between farmers and veteri‐ there are no specific entities charge of the control of non‐regu‐ narians working in the public administration (i.e. official veterinary lated diseases. Finally, OVS monitor farms in various fields, such services (OVS)), where organizational and institutional support as animal health. The objective of this monitoring is for farmers (Kristensen & Jakobsen, 2011) and bureaucracy (Hovi, Mcleod, & to carry out certain management that are under direct or indirect Gunn, 2005) can be relevant. And finally, their behaviour can be official legal frameworks. affected by individual factors such as age and gender (Frössling & To improve biosecurity, it is necessary to identify the psycho‐ Nöremark, 2016) or location and size of the farm (Hoe & Ruegg, social factors (and their interactions) that can influence the de‐ 2006; Sayers et al., 2013), which may influence their willingness cision for the implementation of biosecurity measures. Thus, an 700 | MOYA et al. F I G U R E 1 Interaction among veterinary profiles. Scheme obtained from ATLAS.ti 8.2.34 through the codes. AC: Autonomous Community; AHV: animal health veterinarians; HDA: health defence association; OVS: official veterinary services; PV: private veterinarians [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] understanding of each of them and their interactions might allow 2.3 | In‐depth interviews establishing the individual and collective processes that would be necessary to improve the implementation of biosecurity measures For the in‐depth interviews, a thematic guide was produced based on dairy farms. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the mainly on scientific articles related to psychosocial factors in dairy psychosocial factors of dairy farmers and veterinarians that deter‐ farms. Subsequently, modifications were made based on the differ‐ mine the implementation of biosecurity measures in dairy farms in ent views of the research group, and final corrections were made Spain. The study results could lead to providing recommendations to based on a pilot interview with a dairy farmer. In this way, a thematic improve biosecurity in dairy farms. guide was obtained composed of five topics: (a) knowledge; (b) direct actions; (c) sources of information; (d) experiences; and (e) expecta‐ tions (Annex). The questions asked to the veterinarians were in rela‐ 2 | M ATE R I A L S A N D M E TH O DS tion to the dairy farmers’ attitudes and behaviours. The semi‐structured in‐depth interviews were conducted face‐ 2.1 | Area of study to‐face and tape‐recorded. The interviews were conducted between The present study was carried out in two Autonomous Communities 16 February and 19 July 2018 in Catalonia, and between 3 July and of Spain, Catalonia (northeast) and Galicia (northwest), which 12 July 2018 in Galicia. contain 11% and 38% of dairy cattle population, respectively A total of 32 participants were interviewed. Different profiles of (MAPAMA, 2019a), with a high level of dairy productivity, 66,270 dairy farmers and veterinarians were considered in order to have dif‐ and 231,331 tons per year, respectively (FEGA, 2019). However, ferent views (Table 1). Only the profiles of PV and AHV were consid‐ the type of farms in both areas are very different, while in Catalonia ered, but not OVS. However, for results and analysis, these profiles the dairy farms have a medium–large size (240–890 lactating cows were unified only in farmers and veterinarians. per farm), in Galicia they are smaller (33–73 lactating cows per Each interview lasted between 45–90 min. In the first minutes farm) (MAPAMA, 2019b) and they have been developed around of the interview, general questions were asked to generate a relaxed homes, being small family farms in most cases (De Llano, 1989). atmosphere between the interviewee and the interviewer. These questions were related to personal and professional topics, showing interest in knowing their answers. In the following minutes, in‐depth 2.2 | Study design questions were asked. These questions were directly related to the A qualitative research design was used in this study using individual topics of the thematic guide. In the following minutes, corroborative in‐depth interviews. These interviews were conducted with dairy questions were asked to answer the generated doubts. These ques‐ farmers and veterinarians from both Autonomous Communities. tions were related to their answers to the previous questions. Participants were selected by intentional sampling to identify differ‐ The audios of the in‐depth interviews were reviewed and sub‐ ent discourses through maximum variation (Flick, 2014). sequently transcribed to analyse their data. In the transcripts, the MOYA et al. | 701 TA B L E 1 Profiles of dairy farmers Dairy farmers and veterinarians that participated in the profile Catalonia Galicia Veterinarians profile Catalonia Galicia present study Conventional 7 6 Clinical (PV) 2 1 Reproduction (PV) 2 1 Milk Quality (PV) 0 2 Organic 2 1 Nutrition (PV) 0 1 Finances (PV) 2 1 AHV 2 2 Total (*) 9 (3*) 7 (1*) Total 8 (2*) 8 (3*) Note: Abbreviations: AHV, animal health veterinarians, PV, private veterinarians. *In brackets, number of women participating. participants were labelled with an initial letter ‘F’ for dairy farmers intertwined with the five topics of the thematic guide. In this way, or ‘V’ for veterinarians, followed by a ‘C’ for the people in Catalonia several psychosocial factors influencing the application of biosecu‐ or a ‘G’ for Galicia, with a final numbering from 1 to 9 for their differ‐ rity measures in dairy farms were mentioned during the interviews, entiation (e.g. FC1 refers to a farmer in Catalonia). which can interact with each other in different ways, as is shown in Figure 2. 2.4 | Analysis of data 3.1 | Information sources The data collected (answers of the participants) were analysed using ATLAS.ti 8.2.34, a software based on grounded theory. Grounded The interviewees indicated that farmers can use different sources of theory is a method of interpretative analysis that allows developing information to learn about biosecurity, but they pointed out veteri‐ a theory that includes social processes and specific concepts (Tesch, narians and other farmers as the most relevant sources. 1990; Trinidad, Carrero, & Soriano, 2006). This method is based on The farmers emphasized that veterinarians know the farms in constant comparative processes, theoretical criteria and concep‐ more detail and, therefore, have a greater capacity to influence the tual saturations to provide explanations and important applications decision to apply biosecurity measures by insisting and persisting (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Trinidad et al., 2006). on the possible risks to which the farms are exposed. Veterinarians Throughout the discourses of participants, the software allowed us suggest options to the farmers that may be viable depending on the to recognize a set of segments of information that were of interest for priorities that the farms have. These suggestions, in the opinion of the research objectives (i.e. codes, also called concepts or categories). veterinarians, are given spontaneously or as a result of a direct con‐ Moreover, it allowed to generate a set of stand‐alone ideas based on sultation, since they do not want their farmers to believe that they these discourses for the researchers themselves (i.e. memos) (ATLAS.ti, have a conflict of interest. 2019). In this way, the software introduced the discourses of participants The interviewed also commented that the veterinarian profile as citations, which were associated to codes (codes groups), and memos. can influence advice on biosecurity, for example, the HDA veteri‐ The previous results were then sent via e‐mail to the participants narians. This veterinarian profile advises on biosecurity and raises so that they could provide some feedback. Thus, this feedback was awareness directly or indirectly about these measures in their daily taken into account when interpreting the results of the present study. practice. In addition, the voluntary membership to an HDA by dairy farms was linked to an improvement in the sanitary status of the farm due to a greater biosecurity awareness: 3 | R E S U LT S FG2: "(...) Many workshops in the HDA also helps. In diar‐ A total of 178 citations, 39 codes (nine codes groups) and 25 memos rhoea of small calves (...) it has helped us a lot (...), deaths were selected and used for the final analysis process. These cita‐ are reduced (...). The HDA insist a lot that we are going tions are in their original language (Spanish) in the Annex to the to do this and such, little by little, but it insists on many present study. Comparatively, these citations were the most heter‐ things. He/she is a good technician (...), very involved (...)" ogeneous of all. The citations were organized following the subtop‐ [Original: “(…) Ayuda también muchos talleres en la ADS. ics of: (a) information sources; (b) individual factors of farmer (i.e. En temas de diarreas de terneros pequeños (…) nos ha internal world of the farmer); (c) social dynamics (internal and ex‐ ayudado mucho (…), se reducen las muertes (…). La ADS ternal)); (d) official veterinary services (OVS, bad policemen or nec‐ insiste mucho que vamos a hacer esto y tal, poco a poco, essary enemies?); and (e) other factors (variables of time and space). pero insiste en muchas cosas. Es un buen técnico (…), muy Thus, attitudes and behaviours and their diverse interactions are implicado (…)”] 702 | MOYA et al. F I G U R E 2 Interaction among the various psychosocial factors. Scheme obtained from ATLAS.ti 8.2.34 through the codes [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] VG2: "(...) I had two important outbreaks of IBR (...), one same way, in the interviews, ‘close’ relationships were also described of almost 500 heads, and another of about 100 (...). Since to be characterized by a friendly treatment (i.e. due to the dynamics we have been working in HDA, the numbers have been de‐ of nearby social circles). In these dynamics, there may be interactions creasing (...). We, those of HDA, are those who do the 90% that involve personal areas with reciprocal understandings and deci‐ of biosecurity work (...)" [Original: “(…) Tuve dos brotes im‐ sions mutually agreed directly or indirectly. These relationships were portantes de IBR (…), uno de casi 500 cabezas, y otro de linked to the size of the farms (more on small ones), and the results that unas 100 (…). Desde que llevamos trabajando en ADS, los farmers can observe regarding the advice given by the veterinarian. It números fueron disminuyendo (…). Somos los de ADS los was also mentioned that a friendly treatment could lead to the farmers que hacemos el trabajo de bioseguridad en el 90% (…)”] ignoring a mistake by the veterinarians, unlike an unfriendly treatment. However, there were opposing opinions among veterinarians. Some of In relation to the veterinarian's ability to influence the farmer's them were in favour of a ‘close’ relationship with the farmer, involving decision to apply biosecurity measures, an important factor that personal and professional aspects, while others preferred a purely pro‐ emerged in the interviews was the existing trust relationship between fessional relationship in order to avoid conflicts of interest. the farmer and the veterinarian. This relationship, in the opinion of the The ability of the veterinarian to influence the farmer's decision interviewees, is influenced by the time and treatment given–received, to apply biosecurity measures was also linked to their level of train‐ which in turn is influenced by the profile of the veterinarians and their ing in biosecurity and their communication skills. Some veterinarians level of training and communication skills. In the interviews, different expressed that they did not have enough arguments to defend the ap‐ types of relationships were described. One of them was described plication of biosecurity measures and that they required extra training as ‘close’ and was characterized by the long periods of time farmer– to transfer biosecurity to dairy farms. Similarly, it was mentioned that veterinarian have worked together. In this type of relationship both there was a lack of persuasive skills for farmers to implement such farmers and veterinarians feel heard and, therefore, can agree on their measures due to the lack of observable benefits attributable to the decisions. However, other relationships were also described that were implementation of biosecurity measures in the short term. In addition, ‘more distant’ due to the limited periods of time they share, such as with veterinarians mentioned that farmers require time to come to terms the AHV from public animal health companies of only a few hours per with the proposals, with communication skill being a key factor to year, different from those of clinical, reproduction, or nutrition. In the avoid fatigue by the farmers due to the insistence of the veterinarians: MOYA et al. | 703 VC4: "(...) I do not know if we can convince them enough, measures. In these visits the farmers can find out realities different because I am amused that maybe you told or recom‐ from theirs, being totally disposed to its realization. mended them that they use or do something, and an‐ The events that occur in the neighbouring farms (proximity expe‐ other person can come here and be able to sell them a riences) were highlighted as another relevant factor in the decision tractor (...). We have no power of conviction (...), there to apply biosecurity measures, for example, outbreaks of infectious comes a time that he/she says: ‘it is normal that you diseases in other farms. In these cases, neighbouring farmers that come and tell me this, and others come and tell me that’ have not been affected begin to deploy a series of actions to pre‐ (...)" [Original: “(…) Yo no sé si podemos convencerlos sufi‐ vent the possible entry and spread of that infectious disease in their cientemente, porque me hace gracia que a lo mejor tú les farm. This kind of learning was featured as one of the most import‐ dices o recomiendas que utilicen o hagan cualquier cosa, ant, since the unaffected farmers are placed in a scenario where y es capaz de venir un señor a venderles un tractor (…). that could happen, imagining their possible consequences. In the No tenemos poder de convicción (…), llega un momento same way, this type of event might be used as an example by certain que dice: ‘ya es normal que vengas tú y me digas esto, y veterinarians to encourage their farmers to implement biosecurity viene este y me diga lo otro’ (…)”] measures and thus avoid experiencing similar situations. However, it should not be forgotten that each farmer has its own economic, VG4: "(...) It is something that is so implanted that it is not social, cultural and political contexts. This means that they have their easy to say: ‘we must do this and this’ (...), I think there is own factors that can affect their decision‐making process to imple‐ a lack of more ways to propose it (...). I do not think that ment biosecurity measures. people are closed, I think maybe we do few apostolates (...)" [Original: “(…) Es algo que está tan implantado que 3.2 | Internal world of the farmer no resulta fácil decir: ‘hay que hacer esto y esto’ (…), creo que faltan más formas de proponerlo (…). Yo no creo que Individual factors of farmers can determine their perceptions regard‐ la gente esté cerrada, creo que quizás hacemos pocos ing the feasibility of implementing biosecurity measures. Factors apostolados (…)”] reported in the interviews as most relevant could be grouped in ad‐ aptation, pre‐disposition and individual experiences. As far as gender is concerned, female veterinarians indicated that The ability of farmers to adapt to changes was associated with a farmers that have previously worked with them usually respect their greater capacity to progress. Despite this, the interviewees stressed professionalism, just as they respect that of a man. However, those that these changes are not always easy to carry out since farmers farms that have not worked with women previously tend to value their are usually people with habits, and therefore, they are not always work over time. In the same way, although there may be situations in prepared to face and tolerate these changes, a situation that gen‐ which sexist dynamics persist, such as those involving physical effort, erates their bewilderment and fear, especially when these changes female veterinarians pointed out that farmers have more confidence in are drastic. women to share issues of deeper personal aspects. Despite this, it did The pre‐disposition of farmers to implement biosecurity mea‐ not stand out clearly in these interviews that the fact of being a woman sures was mentioned to be linked to their effectiveness and bene‐ or man made any difference in influencing the decision of the farmers fits. Resistance, carelessness or lack of interest could be generated if in relation to the application of biosecurity measures. they do not see a return to their actions and feel difficulties in their As regards the ability of the farmer to influence the decision to performance. Some farmers believed that biosecurity measures apply biosecurity measures by other farmers, bars, pubs, or restau‐ could avoid disease risk and health problems, improving therefore rants were stressed as a space where there is greater interaction their productivity due to an enhance in the health status of the herd. among farmers, due to them being locations prone to engage in re‐ In this way, some farmers indicated that biosecurity was essential laxed conversations and acquire knowledge (which may be reliable and that without it their farms would not work. The interviewees or not). Indeed, from the point of view of the farmers themselves, also perceived that biosecurity was important to not fear infectious it was emphasized that they could provide information that may be diseases enabling themselves to focus in the improvement of other incomplete if it is related to their own farms. In these places there areas. On the other hand, there were participants who had not con‐ are farmers who are capable of being vocal or leaders and influence vinced that biosecurity measures could generate benefits. For exam‐ others, although those who are considered as reference models are ple, some commented that there are other productive systems (e.g. those farmers who are innovators or pioneers in certain areas, and swine) that have also faced health problems, although implementing who own large farms. several biosecurity measures. In the same way, they revealed that bi‐ The relationship between farmers was not only limited to a col‐ osecurity was not their priority and preferred to invest in other areas lective space such as bars, pubs, or restaurants; in fact, the visits to and that those measures could be complicated to carry out without other farms were emphasized by the veterinarians. These visits tend observable effects in the short term. to have positive effects on the farmers through observations and The pre‐disposition to implement biosecurity measures was a later reflection, which may lead to the application of biosecurity not clearly linked to their financial situation. For example, there 704 | MOYA et al. were farmers who were highly willing to invest in prevention The internal dynamics refer to intrinsic issues of the dairy farms. but whose limitation was their economy, and other farmers who In this way, the participants mentioned that dairy farms have dif‐ were not willing to invest in prevention since they prefer to in‐ ferent characteristics from other productive systems such as swine, vest to grow. Even though the advice of the veterinarian, some which can be a limitation to implement biosecurity measures. These interviewees mentioned that farmers would invest on biosecu‐ characteristics, in the opinion of the people interviewed, might be rity depending on the profitability or the urgency of biosecurity linked to the tradition of certain farms, such as, the visits of people measures. without a previous appointment. However, this tradition is currently Individual experiences of the farmers were reported as the fac‐ undergoing major changes, for example, certain farms are evolving, tor with the greatest impact on farmers to implement biosecurity in words of a veterinarian, ‘from being an extension of the kitchen to measures. For example, farmers who experienced outbreaks of in‐ being a business’. On the other hand, the effect of pressure or social fectious diseases on their farms attributable to not having good bios‐ influence was also highlighted, which may be greater in rural con‐ ecurity had subsequently begun their implementation. In fact, it was texts than in urban contexts, especially when there are events that expressed that if they had not experienced a similar negative situa‐ generate alarm in the population, such as public health issues, which tion, they would not have valued those measures. In addition, these increases interest in biosecurity. experiences motivated farmers to seek more information, such as The external dynamics refer to issues specific to the social fac‐ about infectious diseases, for better understanding. tors (inside and outside the dairy farms) and to the various degrees Other factors, such as the training that farmers have, were also of social cohesion. In this sense, it was pointed out that inside the pointed out. Some farmers commented that they do not know the dairy farms there is a coordination between the farmers and their risk of certain external agents entering their farms, a situation that different veterinarians with a joint task. However, there was no can perpetuate their risk dynamics. Another thing that stood out was perceived coordination outside, between private and official veteri‐ that farmers usually demand information from their veterinarians; narians, as well as with other sectors (universities, dairy industry, or therefore, they have the willingness to learn. However, although laboratories). As regards the OVS, it was mentioned that farms and farmers can receive training from veterinarians, they should learn veterinarians that belong to the OVS are in parallel worlds, since the issues pertinent to livestock as business (e.g. personal management) last ones only watch over the compliance of the protocols and they and on other professional areas: are not involved in the farms like private veterinarians. Furthermore, private veterinarians featured their role as intermediaries between VG3: "(...) That the farmer has training and sees through the farmer and the OVS. It was also mentioned that pressure from training how important it is in his/her business to take private and official veterinarians drives farmers to implement bios‐ biosecurity measures (...). Let's say we give them training ecurity measures. The need for better coordination was stressed, on a day‐to‐day basis, whenever you go to visit them, you with the involvement of all people who interact internally (farm are advising them with training (...)" [Original: “(…) Que el workers, farmers or veterinarians) or externally (OVS, universities, ganadero tenga formación y vea a través de la formación dairy industry or laboratories) on the farms should direct their ef‐ lo importante que es en su negocio llevar medidas de bi‐ forts in the same direction. oseguridad (…). Digamos que la formación se la damos It is important to mention that although it is the farmer that does en el día a día, siempre que vas a visitarlo le estas ase‐ the training or resorts to certain sources of information, it is the farm sorando con formación (…)”] workers who finally perform the actions. These workers have dif‐ ferent types of profiles which can vary mainly by gender (men and VG8: "(...) There is still a lot (...) in the training part (...). women), age (20–55), nationality (national or foreign) and previous The farmer must receive training as a farmer, the farmer experience in farms (present or absent). This diversity of profiles was cannot receive training as a veterinarian, nor as an linked to the scarce availability of labour: agronomist, because for that he/she would have to go to a university (...)" [Original: “(…) Todavía queda mucho (…) VG1: "(...) Here there are young people, from 20 years olds en la parte de formación (…). El ganadero tiene que recibir to people over 55, women, national people, foreign people. formación de ganadero, el ganadero no puede recibir for‐ They do not meet a profile, as you work more with pro‐ mación de veterinario, ni de ingeniero agrónomo, porque tocols, you look for a worker who meets them and that’s para eso tendría que acudir a una universidad (…)”] it (...), they are farm workers (...)" [Original: “(…) Aquí hay desde gente joven de 20 años a gente mayor de 55, mu‐ jeres, gente nacional, gente extranjera. No cumple un per‐ fil, como se trabaja más a protocolos, buscas un trabajador 3.3 | Social dynamics (internal and external) que los cumpla y listo (…), son operarios de granjas (…)”] Dairy farms (farmers and veterinarians) are inserted in different so‐ cial media that can generate different social dynamics, which can be FG5: "(...) If I do not install facilities, no, to have them internal or external. wrong. I'm tired of having things wrong, and it also gives MOYA et al. | 705 a lot of work. And workforce is very limited, there is no the realities of farms and that they should know and have a closer workforce (...). Workforce is needed (...)" [Original: “(…) Si contact with them to subsequently generate legislation that con‐ no hago instalaciones, no, para tenerlas mal. Estoy can‐ siders their realities since, in the opinion of the interviewees, they sado de tener las cosas mal, y además da mucho trabajo. frequently create regulations complicated to perform (e.g. the pe‐ Y la mano de obra es muy escueta, no hay mano de obra rimeter fences). In addition, from their point of view, sometimes (…). La mano de obra hace falta (…)”] the official veterinarians can be very severe and apathetic, creating problems in the farms that previously did not exist. This situation leads to them being defined by some farmers as ‘bad policemen’, who only penalise, although there may be exceptions in that they believe 3.4 | Official veterinary services: bad policemen or that some are understanding and facilitators. necessary enemies? Some farmers were aware that the public administration just Farmers and OVS may interact because of existing legislation. Public do their work and that this can favour their farms. In fact, some administrations force farmers to implement specific biosecurity meas‐ veterinarians used the term ‘necessary enemies’ to define the offi‐ ures that they probably would not do voluntarily unless they expe‐ cial veterinarians (OVS). In this way, farmers highlighted that public rienced certain complications. In fact, some participants pointed out administrations are essential, although they might be slow in their that mandatory actions are important, unlike those of a voluntary management (bureaucracy), a situation that can be evidenced by nature, as they allow farmers to move forward to implement these their late responses, but that can play an essential role in the ap‐ measures. However, it was indicated that some regulations could be plication of biosecurity measures in the farms. Some veterinarians improved to make biosecurity measures feasible to implement. commented that the penalties (e.g. fines) can lead to farmers imple‐ Regardless of the obligatory nature and the feasibility of menting these measures, but also the incentives (e.g. subsidies) if the biosecurity measures, some situations that can generate they meet specific conditions. However, some farmers mentioned mistrust towards the public administration, and consequently that the farms should not operate by incentives, but on their own compromise the credibility of their recommendations, were account as a business without depending on them: mentioned. The situations mentioned by the interviewees could be grouped into questionings about measures and comparative VC2: "(...) The farmers’ perception is that the admin‐ grievances. istration always tries to penalise, rather than advising In relation to the questionings about certain measures, which or helping to solve the problem. They are people who, may vary depending on the infectious disease, the participants at‐ when they come to control routinely, or by surprise, an tributed negative consequences to the farms by applying compul‐ exploitation, always try to look only for the bad, that is sory vaccination programmes (collective experiences). For example, their perception, it's like when the police stop you and some participants reported several productive losses after vacci‐ you do not know why (...)" [Original: “(…) Su percepción nation against bluetongue, causing its use to be feared by farmers es que la administración siempre intenta penalizar, más and not recommended by veterinarians. They also challenged the que asesorar o ayudar a solventar el problema. Son gente real importance of certain measures, such as the perimeter fences, que cuando vienen a controlar de manera rutinaria, o por which went from mandatory to voluntary. In fact, some participants sorpresa, una explotación, siempre intentan buscar solo pointed out that the OVS show contradictions as to whether to lo malo, esa es su percepción, es como cuando te para la implement biosecurity measures. Likewise, the participants ques‐ policía y no sabes por qué (…)”] tioned certain situations in which the official veterinarians recom‐ mended fencing, but leaving the gates open in case a common road VC3: "(...) The administration, in most of the farms, is crossed the farm or dividing the farm with two fences in case a conceived as the bad policeman (...), as a necessary stream crossed the farm. enemy (...). Inspectors who have zero empathy (...), there In relation to the comparative grievances, there were farmers is also someone who (...) is considered as an ally in the who made comparisons with other farmers and other productive sys‐ farm (...)" [Original: “(…) La administración, en la mayor tems. Some farmers pointed out that all dairy farms should be under parte de las granjas, es concebida como el policía malo the same rules to be on equal terms, an issue that could be favour‐ (…), es un enemigo necesario (…). Inspectores que tienen able for dairy production itself. Likewise, they commented that other cero empatía (…), también hay alguno que (…) se le con‐ productive systems (e.g. goats and sheep) should also be subject to sidera como aliado en la granja (…)”] the same rules. Farmers did not want them (OVS) to be more flexible or permissive with their farms, since they agree with them, but they FG1: "(...) People who are there do not understand much demand minimums from all ruminants without exception. about what farming is, they should know more about this All these factors, added to other experiences, have led to the (...). They should generate other stuff that were related farmers having a certain perception of the OVS. There are collective to each zone (...)" [Original: “(…) La gente que está allí no opinions that believe that public administrations do not understand entiende mucho de lo que es una explotación, deberían 706 | MOYA et al. saber más de lo que es una explotación (…). Deberían 2016). In this sense, some researchers have pointed to the fact that sacar otras cosas que fueran relacionadas a cada zona veterinarians usually give more importance to their own knowledge (…)”] than to the opinion of their clients (e.g. farmers), and therefore, they are paternalistic (Bard et al., 2017), which highlights the importance FG2: "(...) The relationship with the head of the health of establishing a dialogue with consensus between farmers and vet‐ area is good, I think they have to do their job and they do erinarians (Kuster et al., 2015). In our study, the interviewed vet‐ it (...), what mistakes everyone has, but they are very un‐ erinarians emphasized that they see farmers as an equal and that derstanding, and I think that they defend themselves in they usually have a horizontal relationship, a situation that can fa‐ their area (...)" [Original: “(…) La relación con el respons‐ cilitate an effective communication. However, some of them men‐ able del área de sanidad es buena, yo pienso que tienen tioned feeling uncomfortable to recommend biosecurity measures que cumplir su trabajo y lo hacen (…), que errores los tiene due to the possible reactions that the farmers may have (e.g. their todo el mundo, pero sí que son muy comprensivos y pi‐ fear that farmers believe that there may be a conflict of interest). enso que se defienden en su área (…)”] Interestingly, this was not mentioned by any farmer. Therefore, the relationship between farmers and veterinarians could incorporate personal and professional aspects with transparent dialogues to be close and reliable without misunderstandings, helping to ensure that 3.5 | Variables of time and space biosecurity measures can be internalised in a better way. Time and space available were two other factors that were high‐ As for the veterinarian's profiles, the HDA veterinarians were lighted as barriers for the application of biosecurity measures. On identified as those that are mainly responsible for biosecurity, being one hand, time was reported as a limitation for farmers and veteri‐ consistent with their role played; however, there are still farms that narians to implement these measures and to conduct training or to scarcely implement biosecurity measures. This could be due to the resort to sources of information, such as visits to farmers. This was existence of obstacles in their relationship, as was described in because the farmers usually perceive to have too many hours of Sweden (Svensson, Alvåsena, Eldh, Frössling, & Lomander, 2018). work and the veterinarians usually work with defined times in each According to these researchers, although the health management farm, depending on their profiles and demands, being able to cover veterinarians are important and have a similar professional profile to (or not) these measures. And, on the other hand, the available space those of the Spanish HDA veterinarians, farmers do not always carry in the farms could also influence the implementation of biosecurity out their suggestions because of difficulties in their relationships. measures, since there are regulations that can restrict infrastructure Furthermore, in this study, these obstacles are not directly linked to constructions. For example, because of this, farmers might buy ex‐ the time that veterinarians spend on the farms, since they visit the ternal animals since they cannot make their own replacements due farms with the same frequency of other veterinarians’ profiles (e.g. to space limitations. clinical and reproduction). Thus, it would be particularly interesting to look deeper into this profile, as their role is directly related to biosecurity measures, unlike other profiles that indirectly approach 4 | D I S CU S S I O N this issue. Other factors were mentioned in relation to the pre‐disposition According to the ‘Animal Health Law’ (European Parliament & EU of providing advice to farmers about biosecurity, such as their lack Council, 2016), the implementation of biosecurity measures at farm of sufficient training in the topic, or the risk of developing fatigue level is the responsibility of the farmers. Therefore, in the context in farmers due to their insistence. Further studies to look deeper where there are no policies that force farmers to implement bios‐ into all the aspects related to the communication process between ecurity measures, and in a sector where the implementation of bi‐ farmer and private veterinarians are, in our opinion, of paramount osecurity measures is scarce (Sahlström et al., 2014; Sarrazin et al., importance, as seems to play a central role in the implementation 2014), developing strategies to motivate farmers is of paramount of biosecurity measures by farmers. Issues such as transparency of importance to achieve an improvement in biosecurity. Nevertheless, relations between farmer and veterinarians or the position that the the development of such strategies should be based on an under‐ veterinarian should have in front of the farmers, together with the standing of the different psychosocial factors influencing farmers’ necessary steps to achieve this, might be required before developing decision‐making. The present study, to the best of our knowledge, adequate motivation strategies. is the first one that has attempted to do so in dairy farms in Spain. Individual experiences were also highlighted to heavily influ‐ One important factor that arose from the interviews was the in‐ ence the decision‐making process of the farmer to implement fluence of the private veterinarian. As previously described in other biosecurity measures. Interviewees mentioned increasing bios‐ studies (e.g. Cardwell et al., 2016), veterinarians are considered to be ecurity in the event of a public health problem or an outbreak the main source of information for farmers to learn about biosecu‐ of a disease in a neighbouring farm (proximity experiences), as rity and therefore their training and communication skills are highly previously described in different studies (e.g. Hernández‐Jover, relevant (Hamood, Chur‐Hansen, & McArthur, 2014; Ruston et al., Taylor, Holyoake, & Dhand, 2012) but, interestingly, none of them MOYA et al. | 707 (farmers nor veterinarians) linked biosecurity as a way to reduce elsewhere (e.g. Oliveira, Anneberg, Voss, Sørensen, & Thomsen, the risk of disease transmission in the scenario of the introduc‐ 2018). The role that OVS should play in the implementation of bi‐ tion of an exotic disease in the country (e.g. foot and mouth dis‐ osecurity measures is subject to debate and might also deserve ease). This could reflect that farmers and veterinarians have a further studies. According to the responses of some interview‐ lack of awareness about these diseases that may deserve further ees, legislation is needed to safeguard dairy farms, although they attention. should be accompanied by an understanding of all the people in‐ Moreover, collective experience may also play a role in the de‐ volved, as proposed by Brennan and Christley (2013). However, cision‐making process, giving rise to doubt about the effectiveness the legislation and their obligatory nature is a complex issue to of some biosecurity measures carried by OVS or resistance to their approach, a situation that becomes even more complex when they implementation. As, for example, there are still farmers today that intersect issues, such as awareness. Thus, it would be interesting remember what happened with the vaccination against bluetongue to look into the effect of the obligatory in future theorized discus‐ (2006–2009) (Sok, Hogeveen, Elbers, & Oude, 2016), and it might sions from a sociological perspective. not let the farmers fully trust in the public administration. This As for the methodology used in this study, we decided to use kind of experience is difficult to approach, since it has a repeated a qualitative methodology (i.e. semi‐structured in‐depth interviews) retrieval and feedback among the farmers (Roediger, Zaromb, & which can be appropriate to investigate and look deeply into the Butler, 2009), and it should be kept in mind when trying to reach the different realities of people (Mason, 2006). Qualitative methods are farmers. Therefore, the strategies to face these experiences must based on interpretivism and constructivism paradigms (multiple re‐ combine unified official discourses with transparency and aware‐ alities), while quantitative research is mainly based on a positivist ness, which together could gradually have an impact on the farmers’ paradigm (only an objective reality) (Sale, Lohfeld, & Brazil, 2002). decision‐making. Therefore, the repeatability of qualitative studies can be lower than On the other hand, the pre‐disposition of farmers to implement for quantitative studies, since it considers that all interviewees have biosecurity measures was linked to the effectiveness and bene‐ unique and unrepeatable realities (Leppink, 2017). However, this fits of the measures, as reported in previous studies (e.g. Alarcon, technique is adequate to determine the different interpretations Wieland, Mateus, & Dewberry, 2014), which is an issue difficult to of reality from the opinion of each of the participants (Della, 2014), demonstrate. However, the perception of benefits does not always which can be influenced by various factors that may be difficult to maintain a univocal relationship with the perception of risks, since perceive by us. sometimes, if benefits are perceived, risks are avoided, while in oth‐ As regards the intrinsic flexibility of the semi‐structured in‐depth ers they do not (Valeeva, Van Asseldonk, & Backus, 2011). This was interviews, it has to be borne in mind that the questions were carried demonstrated in our study, as farmers had different opinions in re‐ out differently with each of the participants, that is, their order and lation to the benefits of implementing biosecurity (from people that content were varied in relation to their development with each of the considered it essential to more sceptic people). The development of participants. For example, gender questions were asked only to the tools and the spreading of the results showing the potential benefits women interviewed at different times. The objective of the above of biosecurity are also recommended in order to improve their per‐ was to be executed a fluent and spontaneous interview, where the ception of the cost‐effectiveness of biosecurity. participants could feel comfortable and free (Ryan, Coughlan, & This study was focused on farmers and veterinarians, but the Cronin, 2009). Nevertheless, there is a possibility that this may have farm workers also appeared in their answers, as they are the ones affected their response to some degree, although this procedure is that implement the biosecurity measures in the field. Interviewees characteristic of this technique. In relation to the number of partic‐ mentioned that farm workers are scarce nowadays, and often with ipants involved in the present study, although a saturation of the a low level of training, which has forced some farms to replace discourse (heterogeneous group) was reached, there is the possibil‐ them with milking robots. The reasons can be varied, for exam‐ ity that other small variables could have arisen if we had carried out ple, it may be due to the existence of high levels of stress due more interviews. This is mainly due to the magnitude of the various to working conditions (health and safety) or workloads (Chen & psychosocial factors that affect each of the contexts, which are not Holden, 2016; Lunner et al., 2013). Considering the importance of generalizable. farm workers in the implementation of the biosecurity measures in Results from our study highlight the need of promoting aware‐ the field, performing studies focused on this group are also highly ness as the key to the implementation of biosecurity measures, since recommended. they must be understood for true implementation. However, mo‐ Although, as previously mentioned, the European ‘Animal tivation strategies might also include other aspects, such as direct Health Law’ attributes the farmer with the responsibility of im‐ participation of farmers and monitoring of efforts by the cohesion of plementing biosecurity measures. In Spain, there have been some all the people involved over time. Nevertheless, the development of attempts by regional and national governments to develop specific such strategies would benefit from a deeper understanding of some legislation to force farmers to implement some recommendations, of the topics identified through this study by using other techniques, which has generated many discussions. Biosecurity measures im‐ such as an ethnography (Naidoo, 2012) or focus groups. Therefore, it posed by legislation usually generate a lot of debate, as described has highlighted the impact that qualitative studies such as these can 708 | MOYA et al. have, which can guarantee a greater representativeness of the data participants. It was pointed out that the data would be confidential if carried out together with quantitative studies. This study was not and analysed anonymously, that there would be no economic bene‐ intended to look deeply into each of the various factors separately, fits to participate, and that the interview would be recorded by audio but to describe a global panorama of those that may exist among or text. The decision to participate in the study was totally volun‐ different dairy farms, identifying the main psychosocial factors that tary, and if they wished they could stop and leave the interview at influence farmers’ decision‐making. any time. In this way, the informed consent was signed by the inter‐ viewee and interviewer, with a copy for each one of them. 5 | CO N C LU S I O N ORCID The decision to comply with the existing regulations and suggestions Sebastián Moya https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8751-6533 on the implementation of biosecurity measures in dairy farms are Jordi Casal https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6909-9366 influenced by various psychosocial factors. In this study, we have Alberto Allepuz https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3518-1991 identified the main psychosocial factors (and their interactions) that influence dairy farmers’ decision‐making in Spain. These factors are related to the relationship between farmers and veterinarians, the REFERENCES feasibility of implementing these measures, and the influence of so‐ cial dynamics and OVS, together with the available time and space. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational All these psychosocial factors were identified as factors that influ‐ Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https​://doi. ence the attitude and behaviour of farmers to implement biosecurity org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t Alarcon, P., Wieland, B., Mateus, A., & Dewberry, C. (2014). Pig farm‐ measures. In this way, the farmers function as complex systems that ers' perceptions, attitudes, influences and management of informa‐ have certain psychosocial factors, which in turn can interact in dif‐ tion in the decision‐making process for disease control. Preventive ferent ways according to their economic, social, cultural and political Veterinary Medicine, 116(3), 223–242. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j. contexts (i.e. they are heterogeneous). preve​tmed.2013.08.004 ATLAS.ti. (2019). Atlas.ti 8 Windows – Q uick Tour. Retrieved from http:// In addition, these farmers can interact with other systems (e.g. downl​oads.atlas​ti.com/docs/quick​tour/Quick​Tour_a8_win_en.pdf?_ veterinarians). The veterinarians appeared to play an important role ga=2.14791​6596.20031​2 5532.15475​3 3210-16190​7 8827.15475​ in the dairy farmers’ decision‐making to implement biosecurity. 33210. Therefore, all the aspects that can influence the communication be‐ Bard, A., Main, D., Haase, A., Whay, H., Roe, E., & Reyher, K. (2017). The future of veterinary communication: Partnership or persuasion? A tween dairy farmers and veterinarians such as trust, level of training qualitative investigation of veterinary communication in the pursuit or fears to provide recommendations, might play an important role of client behaviour change. PLoS ONE, 12(3), e0171380. https​://doi. and may deserve a deeper study in order to provide future recom‐ org/10.1371/journ​al.pone.0171380 mendations to improve biosecurity. However, all these system in‐ Barkema, H., Von Keyserlingk, M., Kastelic, J., Lam, T., Luby, C., Roy, J., teractions (farmers and veterinarians) can be further complicated if … Kelton, D. (2015). Invited review: Changes in the dairy industry af‐ fecting dairy cattle health and welfare. Journal Dairy Science, 98(11), we consider other systems (e.g. farm workers and OVS). Thus, other 7426–7445. https​://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9377 aspects such as the internal social dynamics of farm workers and the Brennan, M., & Christley, R. (2012). Biosecurity on cattle farms: A study role that OVS and the compulsory should play in the improvement of in north‐west England. PLoS ONE, 7(1), 1–8. https​://doi.org/10.1371/ biosecurity were also identified as issues which need further analy‐ journ​al.pone.0028139 Brennan, M., & Christley, R. (2013). Cattle producers’ percep‐ sis. In this way, this research represents a starting point to develop tions of biosecurity. BMC Veterinary Research, 9, 71. https​://doi. future recommendations to improve the implementation of biosecu‐ org/10.1186/1746-6148-9-71 rity measures. Broughan, J., Maye, D., Carmody, P., Brunton, L., Ashton, A., Wint, W., … Enticott, G. (2016). Farm characteristics and farmer perceptions associated with bovine tuberculosis incidents in areas of emerging AC K N OW L E D G M E N T S endemic spread. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 129, 88–98. https​:// doi.org/10.1016/j.preve​tmed.2016.05.007 The authors thank all the dairy farmers and veterinarians who col‐ Cambridge Dictionary. (2019). Biosecurity. Retrieved from https​://dicti​ laborated in the in‐depth interviews. onary.cambr​idge.org/dicti​onary/​engli​sh/biose​curity. Cardwell, J., Van Winden, S., Beauvais, W., Mastin, A., De Glanville, W., Hardstaff, J., … Pfeiffer, D. (2016). Assessing the impact of tailored E T H I C S S TAT E M E N T biosecurity advice on farmer behaviour and pathogen presence in beef herds in England and Wales. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 135, The present study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the 9–16. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.preve​tmed.2016.10.018 Chen, W., & Holden, M. (2016). Social life cycle assessment of average UAB (CEEAH 4055), who also helped design the informed consent Irish dairy farm. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, for the participants. 22(9), 1459–1472. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1250-2 The informed consent was used to mainly to explain the ob‐ Ciaravino, G., Ibarra, P., Casal, E., López, S., Espluga, J., Casal, J., … jectives of the study and the conditions and guarantees of the Allepuz, A. (2017). Farmer and Veterinarian Attitudes towards the MOYA et al. | 709 Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Programme in Spain: What Is Going Kuster, K., Cousin, E., Jemmi, T., Schüpbach‐Regula, G., & Magouras, on in the Field? Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 4, 202. https​://doi. I. (2015). Expert Opinion on the Perceived Effectiveness and org/10.3389/fvets.2017.00202​ Importance of On‐Farm Biosecurity Measures for Cattle and Swine De Llano, P. (1989). Arquitectura popular en Galicia. La Coruña, Spain: Farms in Switzerland. PLoS ONE, 10(12), e0144533. https​://doi. C.O.A.G. org/10.1371/journ​al.pone.0144533 Della, D. (2014). Methodological Practices in Social Movement Research. Laanen, M., Maes, D., Hendriksen, C., Gelaude, P., De Vliegher, S., Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Rosseel, Y., & Dewulf, J. (2014). Pig, cattle and poultry farmers EC (European Commission) (2019). Organic farming in the EU: A with a known interest in research have comparable perspec‐ fast growing sector. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/ tives on disease prevention and on‐farm biosecurity. Preventive sites/info/files/food‐farming‐fisheries/farming/document s/ Veterinary Medicine, 115(1–2), 1–9. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.preve​ market‐brief‐organic‐farming‐in‐the‐eu_mar2019_en.pdf. tmed.2014.03.015 Ellis‐Iversen, J., Cook, A., Watson, E., Nielen, M., Larkin, L., Wooldridge, Laanen, M., Persoons, D., Ribbens, S., De Jong, E., Callens, B., Strubbe, M., & Hogeveen, H. (2010). Perceptions, circumstances and motiva‐ M., … Dewulf, J. (2013). Relationship between biosecurity and tors that influence implementation of zoonotic control programs on production/antimicrobial treatment characteristics in pig herds. cattle farms. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 93, 276–285. https​://doi. The Veterinary Journal, 198, 508–512. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j. org/10.1016/j.preve​tmed.2009.11.005 tvjl.2013.08.029 European Parliament and EU Council. (2016). Animal Health Law. Official Leppink, J. (2017). Revisiting the quantitative–qualitative‐mixed meth‐ Journal of the European Union, 58. ods labels: Research questions, developments, and the need for rep‐ FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (2010). lication. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 12(2), 97–101. Good practices for biosecurity in the pig sector – Issues and options https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2016.11.008 in developing and transition countries. FAO Animal Production and Lunner, C., Kallioniemi, M., Lundqvist, P., Kymäläinen, R., Stallones, L., Health Paper No. 169. Rome, Italy. & Brumby, S. (2013). International Perspectives on Psychosocial FEGA (Fondo Español de Garantía Agraria O.A.). (2019). Declaraciones Working Conditions, Mental Health, and Stress of Dairy Farm Obligatorias del Sector Vacuno de Leche. Retrieved from http:// Operators. Journal of Agromedicine, 18(3), 244–255. https​://doi. w w w.fega.es/sites/​d efau​l t/files/​I nfor​m e-Vacuno-Leche-En‐ org/10.1080/10599​24x.2013.796903 ero-2018.pdf. MAPAMA (Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca, Alimentación y Medio Flick, U. (2014). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. London, Ambiente). (2019a). Informe de coyuntura del sector vacuno de UK: SAGE. leche. Retrieved from https​://www.mapa.gob.es/es/ganad​eria/estad​ Frössling, J., & Nöremark, M. (2016). Differing perceptions ‐ Swedish istic​as/infor​m edec​oyunt​urase​c torv​a cuno​d elec​he-dicie​mbre2​018_ farmers' views of Infectious disease control. Veterinary Medicine and tcm30-436199.pdf. Science, 2(1), 54–68. https​://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.20 MAPAMA (Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca, Alimentación y Medio García, J., & Coelho, A. (2014). Evaluación del conocimiento de los ga‐ Ambiente). (2019b). Informe Nacional de Vacuno de Leche. Retrieved naderos sobre la tuberculosis bovina e implicaciones para su control. from https​://www.mapama.gob.es/es/ganad​eria/temas/​produ​ccion- Revista Mexicana De Ciencias Pecuarias, 5(2), 213–229. https​://doi. y-merca​d os-ganad​e ros/infor​m e_vacuno_arte_final_web_tcm30- org/10.22319/​rmcp.v5i2.3662 379957.pdf. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Mason, J. (2006). Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qualitative Qualitative Research. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Aldine Transaction. Research, 6, 9–25. https​://doi.org/10.1177/14687​94106​058866. Gunn, G., Heffernan, C., Hall, M., McLeod, A., & Hovi, M. (2008). Naidoo, L. (2012). Ethnography: An Introduction to Definition and Measuring and comparing constraints to improved biosecurity Method. An Ethnography of Global Landscapes and Corridors, https​:// amongst GB farmers, veterinarians and the auxiliary industries. doi.org/10.5772/39248​ Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 84(3–4), 310–323. https​://doi. Oliveira, S., Anneberg, I., Voss, H., Sørensen, T., & Thomsen, T. (2018). org/10.1016/j.preve​tmed.2007.12.003 Attitudes of Danish dairy farmers towards biosecurity. Livestock Hamood, W., Chur‐Hansen, A., & McArthur, M. (2014). A qualitative Science, 214, 153–160. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2018.06.004 study to explore communication skills in veterinary medical educa‐ Oliveira, V., Sørensen, J., & Thomsen, P. (2017). Associations between tion. International Journal of Medical Education, 5, 193–198. https​:// biosecurity practices and bovine digital dermatitis in Danish dairy doi.org/10.5116/ijme.542a.975d herds. Journal Dairy Science, 100, 1–11. https​://doi.org/10.3168/ Heffernan, C., Nielsen, L., Thomson, K., & Gunn, G. (2008). An explora‐ jds.2017-12815​ tion of the drivers to bio‐security collective action among a sample Postma, M., Backhans, A., Collineau, L., Loesken, S., Sjolund, M., Belloc, of UK cattle and sheep farmers. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 87, C., Emanuelson, U., Grosse, E., Nielsen, E., Stärk, K., Dewulf, J., and 358–372. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.preve​tmed.2008.05.007 MINAPIG Consortium (2016b). Evaluation of the relationship be‐ Hernández‐Jover, M., Taylor, M., Holyoake, P., & Dhand, N. (2012). Pig tween the biosecurity status, production parameters, herd charac‐ producers' perceptions of the Influenza Pandemic H1N1/09 outbreak teristics and antimicrobial usage in farrow‐to‐finish pig production and its effect on their biosecurity practices in Australia. Preventive in four EU countries. Porcine Health Management, 2, 9. https​://doi. Veterinary Medicine, 106(3–4), 284–294. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j. org/10.1186/s40813-016-0028-z preve​tmed.2012.03.008 Postma, M., Backhans, A., Collineau, L., Loesken, S., Sjolund, M., Belloc, Hoe, F., & Ruegg, P. (2006). Opinions and Practices of Wisconsin Dairy C., Emanuelson, U., Grosse, E., Stärk, K., Dewulf, J., and MINAPIG Producers About Biosecurity and Animal Well‐Being. Journal Consortium (2016a). The biosecurity status and its associations with Dairy Science, 89(6), 2297–2308. https​://doi.org/10.3168/jds. production and management characteristics in farrow‐to‐finish pig S0022-0302(06)72301-3 herds. Animal, 10, 478–489. https​://doi.org/10.1017/S1751​73111​ Hovi, M., Mcleod, A., & Gunn, G.. (2005). Assessing UK farmer attitudes 5002487 to biosecurity on sheep and cattle farms. Research in Veterinary Pritchard, K., Wapenaar, W., & Brennan, M. (2015). Cattle veterinarians’ Science, 78, 22. awareness and understanding of biosecurity. Veterinary Record, 176, Kristensen, E., & Jakobsen, E. (2011). Danish dairy farmers’ perception of 546–548. https​://doi.org/10.1136/vr.102899 biosecurity. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 99, 122–129. https​://doi. Renault, V., Damiaans, B., Sarrazin, S., Humblet, M., Dewulf, J., & org/10.1016/j.preve​tmed.2011.01.010 Saegerman, C. (2018a). Biosecurity practices in Belgian cattle farming: 710 | MOYA et al. Level of implementation, constraints and weaknesses. Transboundary Sok, J., Hogeveen, H., Elbers, A., & Oude, A. (2016). Perceived risk and Emerging Diseases, 1–16, https​://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12865​ and personality traits explaining heterogeneity in Dutch dairy Renault, V., Humblet, M., Moons, V., Bosquet, G., Gauthier, B., Cebrián, farmers’ beliefs about vaccination against Bluetongue. Journal L., … Saegerman, C. (2018b). Rural veterinarian's perception and of Risk Research, 21(5), 562–578. https​://doi.org/10.1080/13669​ practices in terms of biosecurity across three European countries. 877.2016.1223162 Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, 65(1), e183–e193. https​://doi. Stansfeld, S., & Rasul, F. (2007). Psychosocial factors, depression and ill‐ org/10.1111/tbed.12719​ ness. In A. Steptoe (Ed.), Depression and physical illness (pp. 19–52). Roediger, H., Zaromb, F., & Butler, A. (2009). The Role of Repeated Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieval in Shaping Collective Memory. Memory in Mind and Culture, Stonehouse, D., Clark, E., & Ogini, Y. (2001). Organic and Conventional 138–170, https​://doi.org/10.1017/cbo97​8 0511​626999.009 Dairy Farm Comparisons in Ontario. Canada. Biological Agriculture Royal Decree 842/2011. Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado, & Horticulture, 19(2), 115–125. https​://doi.org/10.1080/01448​ Madrid, Spain, 17 June 2011R. 765.2001.9754916 Ruston, A., Shortall, O., Green, M., Brennan, M., Wapenaar, W., & Kaler, Svensson, C., Alvåsena, K., Eldh, A., Frössling, J., & Lomander, H. (2018). J. (2016). Challenges facing the farm animal veterinary profession Veterinary herd health management–Experience among farm‐ in England: A qualitative study of veterinarians' perceptions and ers and farm managers in Swedish dairy production. Preventive responses. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 127, 84–93. https​://doi. Veterinary Medicine, 155, 45–52. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.preve​ org/10.1016/j.preve​tmed.2016.03.008 tmed.2018.04.012 Ryan, F., Coughlan, M., & Cronin, P. (2009). Interviewing in qualitative Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. research: The one‐to‐one interview. International Journal of Therapy New York: The Falmer Press. and Rehabilitation, 16(6), 309–314. https​://doi.org/10.12968/​ Toma, L., Low, J., Vosough, B., Matthews, L., & Stott, A. (2015). An anal‐ ijtr.2009.16.6.42433​ ysis of cattle farmers' perceptions of drivers and barriers to on‐farm Sahlström, L., Virtanen, T., Kyyrö, J., & Lyytikäinen, T. (2014). Biosecurity control of Escherichia coli O157. Epidemiology and Infection, 143(11), on Finnish cattle, pig and sheep farms ‐ results from a question‐ 2355–2366. https​://doi.org/10.1017/S0950​26881​4 003045 naire. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 117(1), 59–67. https​://doi. Toma, L., Stott, A., Heffernan, C., Ringrose, S., & Gunn, G. (2013). org/10.1016/j.preve​tmed.2014.07.004 Determinants of biosecurity behaviour of British cattle and sheep Sale, J., Lohfeld, L., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the Quantitative‐ farmers‐a behavioural economics analysis. Preventive Veterinary Qualitative Debate: Implications for Mixed‐Methods Research. Medicine, 108(4), 321–333. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.preve​ Quality and Quantity, 36(1), 43–53. https​://doi.org/10.1023/a:10143​ tmed.2012.11.009 01607592 Trinidad, A., Carrero, V., & Soriano, R. (2006). Teoría fundamentada Sarrazin, S., Cay, A. B., Laureyns, J., & Dewulf, J. (2014). A survey on “Grounded Theory”. La construcción de la teoría a través del análisis in‐ biosecurity and management practices in selected Belgian cattle terpretacional. Madrid, España: Cuadernos Metodológicos. farms. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 117(1), 129–139. https​://doi. Valeeva, N., Van Asseldonk, M., & Backus, G. (2011). Perceived risk and strat‐ org/10.1016/j.preve​tmed.2014.07.014 egy efficacy as motivators of risk management strategy adoption to Sayers, R., Good, M., & Sayers, G. (2014). A survey of biosecurity‐related prevent animal diseases in pig farming. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, practices, opinions and communications across dairy farm veterinari‐ 102(4), 284–295. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.preve​tmed.2011.08. ans and advisors. The Veterinary Journal, 200(2), 261–269. https​://doi. 005 org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.02.010 Sayers, R., Sayers, G., Mee, J., Good, M., Bermingham, M., Grant, J., & Dillon, P. (2013). Implementing biosecurity measures on dairy farms in Ireland. The Veterinary Journal, 197(2), 259–267. https​://doi. How to cite this article: Moya S, Tirado F, Espluga J, et al. org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2012.11.017 Dairy farmers’ decision‐making to implement biosecurity Shortall, O., Ruston, A., Green, M., Brennan, M., Wapenaar, W., & Kaler, J. measures: A study of psychosocial factors. Transbound Emerg (2016). Broken biosecurity? Veterinarians' framing of biosecurity on dairy farms in England. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 132, 20–31. Dis. 2020;67:698–710. https​://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.13387​ https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.preve​tmed.2016.06.001