TYPE Original Research PUBLISHED 08 February 2023 DOI 10.3389/fvets.2023.1043966 Government veterinarians’ OPEN ACCESS perceptions of routine biosecurity focused on dairy cattle farms in EDITED BY Carola Sauter-Louis, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institute, Germany REVIEWED BY Laura Tomassone, north-western and north-eastern University of Turin, Italy Kirrilly Thompson, The University of Newcastle, Australia Spain *CORRESPONDENCE Sebastián Moya Sebastián Moya1*, José Navea2 , Jordi Casal3 , Giovanna Ciaravino3 , sebastian.moya_duran@envt.fr SPECIALTY SECTION Eduardo Yus4 , Francisco Javier Diéguez5 , Bibiana Benavides6 , This article was submitted to Francisco Tirado7 and Alberto Allepuz3 Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics, 1 a section of the journal Host-Pathogen Interactions (IHAP) - National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment Frontiers in Veterinary Science (INRAE) - École Nationale Vétérinaire de Toulouse (ENVT), Toulouse, France, 2 Latin American Center for Rural Development (RIMISP), Santiago, Chile, 3 Department of Animal Health and Anatomy, Universitat Autònoma RECEIVED 14 September 2022 de Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona, Spain, 4 Department of Animal Pathology, Universidade de Santiago de ACCEPTED 23 January 2023 Compostela (USC), Lugo, Spain, 5 Department of Anatomy, Animal Production and Veterinary Clinical PUBLISHED 08 February 2023 Sciences, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela (USC), Lugo, Spain, 6 Department of Animal Health, CITATION Universidad de Nariño (UDENAR), Pasto, Colombia, 7 Department of Social Psychology, Universitat Autònoma Moya S, Navea J, Casal J, Ciaravino G, Yus E, de Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona, Spain Diéguez FJ, Benavides B, Tirado F and Allepuz A (2023) Government veterinarians’ perceptions of routine biosecurity focused on dairy cattle farms in north-western and north-eastern The implementation of biosecurity measures in livestock production systems Spain. Front. Vet. Sci. 10:1043966. can be affected by the psychosocial factors of its stakeholders, which can be doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1043966 observed through their knowledge, attitudes and perceptions/practices. In Spain, COPYRIGHT there are no regulations per se to promote biosecurity. Of all stakeholders, farmers © 2023 Moya, Navea, Casal, Ciaravino, Yus, and veterinarians have been addressed in previous biosecurity studies, but not Diéguez, Benavides, Tirado and Allepuz. This is an open-access article distributed under the veterinarians belonging specifically to the government services. This study explores terms of the Creative Commons Attribution this particular group’s perceptions of routine biosecurity in livestock production License (CC BY). The use, distribution or systems in north-western and north-eastern Spain, an understanding of which could reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the help to improve the implementation of biosecurity measures on farms. Eleven copyright owner(s) are credited and that the interviews were conducted with veterinarians from different levels of the government original publication in this journal is cited, in services in Galicia and Catalonia, and were analyzed through content analysis. Dairy accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is cattle farms were considered as the reference livestock production systems. The permitted which does not comply with these respondents stress the limited availability of staff and time resources for biosecurity. terms. The advisory role of government veterinarians is not well recognized among farmers, who feel that their services prioritize their sanctioning role. In fact, government veterinarians consider that farmers only implement biosecurity measures to avoid being sanctioned, and not because they are aware of the importance of biosecurity. Meanwhile, the participants comment that biosecurity regulations should be flexible and need to consider the contexts of the farms where biosecurity measures are implemented. Finally, government veterinarians are willing to attend biosecurity meetings together with all farm stakeholders, at which the government services could be informed about biosecurity issues on farms. The person who could take on the biosecurity advisory role should be defined, along with further discussion of such matters as the responsibilities of each stakeholder. Government veterinary services need to be considered in studies of biosecurity operations in order to improve their implementation. It is therefore concluded that government veterinarians are seeking to balance their own institutional perspective with that of farmers and veterinarians in the routine implementation of biosecurity measures. KEYWORDS biosecurity, content analysis, dairy cattle farm, interview, government veterinarian, perception Frontiers in Veterinary Science 01 frontiersin.org Moya et al. 10.3389/fvets.2023.1043966 1. Introduction led farmers to not view these veterinarians as a source of advice (10). It has been pointed out that government veterinarians are unaware of In livestock production systems, biosecurity can be defined as the realities and problems of farms, and acquire a mainly sanctioning “a set of management and physical measures designed to reduce the role, while their advisory role is only secondary. This might explain risk of introduction, establishment and spread of animal diseases, why the government veterinarians’ advice may not be fully adapted to infections or infestations to, from and within an animal population” farms and why some farmers may not take this advice into account in (1). Biosecurity can benefit animal health and, consequently, the their biosecurity decision-making (32). performance of livestock production (2). The implementation of Pig and poultry farms tend to have a high level of biosecurity biosecurity measures by farm stakeholders, such as farmers and due to mandatory measures, while cattle farms tend to have a veterinarians, can be influenced by individual, collective, local and low level due to such measures being voluntary and hence poorly general psychosocial factors. Individual factors include age and implemented. Improved biosecurity in cattle farming could help gender, whereby older farmers are stricter about the entry of animals prevent the transmission of zoonotic diseases that are such a threat of unknown health status and women have a higher level of education to public health (35). In making these improvements, all stakeholders (3); information sources, for which purpose farmers can turn to should be considered, including not just farmers and veterinarians, veterinarians, magazines and media, other professionals, and the but also government veterinarians, for example. However, the government (4, 5); education and knowledge, whereby farmers and biosecurity studies that have been carried out to date do not veterinarians with higher levels in this regard are more willing to include government veterinarians as crucial actors in biosecurity, promote biosecurity and to invest money and time in it (3, 6– as they have mainly focused on the farmers and/or veterinarians 9); and risk-benefit perception, whereby more perceptive farmers that most frequently work on farms (6, 10, 18, 28–34). Knowledge and veterinarians prevent animals from interacting with others that of the regulations concerning government veterinary services and are at risk of infectious disease, and less perceptive veterinarians the farmers’ opinions about government veterinarians in relation to in this regard do not consider themselves a risk, and do not biosecurity is important for animal health interventions on farms. organize their visits in consideration of the risk of a farm having an It is also crucial to know more about government veterinarians’ infectious disease (10–12). Collective factors include communication own opinions on farm biosecurity and the psychosocial factors dynamics, whereby poor communication between veterinarians and that might affect the implementation of biosecurity measures in farmers can negatively affect biosecurity (13, 14); and interpersonal order to improve the services that they offer. The aim of this relationships, where a trusting relationship between veterinarians and study was to explore perceptions of the implementation of routine farmers encourages collaboration to improve biosecurity (15–17). biosecurity measures on livestock farms by government veterinarians Local factors include the location, size and infrastructure of farms, in the Autonomous Communities (AC) of Galicia (north-west) whereby family farms (which are smaller and older) implement fewer and Catalonia (north-east) in Spain. In particular, it sought their biosecurity measures (18–21). General factors include economics, opinion about government biosecurity services and their sanctioning whereby farmers who do not see the short-term economic benefits and advisory actions; and on the government services’ knowledge of biosecurity measures do not implement them (3, 9, 18, 22, 23); and of the reality and problems of routine biosecurity on farms. This legislation and government actions, where the absence of legislation study is one of the first to consider and involve government and abundance of government bureaucracy makes farmers reluctant veterinary services. to implement biosecurity (24, 25). It is therefore plain to see that there Eleven remote interviews were conducted with government are psychosocial factors that can positively or negatively affect the veterinarians, which focused on dairy cattle farms in Galicia and implementation of biosecurity measures on farms, and which can be Catalonia. The main findings were grouped into constraints on observed through the knowledge, attitudes and perceptions/practices biosecurity implementation on farms, roles of government veterinary of stakeholders. services, biosecurity awareness, biosecurity training, knowledge The European Union (EU) Animal Health Law (Regulation about farms, biosecurity meetings on livestock production, and 2016/429 on transmissible animal diseases, 26) stresses the mandatory biosecurity measures on farms. importance of biosecurity, not only in case of outbreaks of exotic diseases but also in day-to-day routines. This legislation encourages the development and establishment of biosecurity plans that are flexible and adaptable to different types of animal production, 2. Materials and methods mainly considering local factors. In this sense, the Member States are encouraged to promote more detailed biosecurity regulations. In 2.1. Study area Spain, there are no current regulations per se on the implementation of biosecurity measures in livestock production systems. However, a Spain has a total of 17 AC, which are regional entities with regulation on minimum biosecurity measures is expected in the near their own institutions and representatives and certain legislative, future (27), which will give more competencies in animal health to executive and administrative competencies, including animal health the veterinarians belonging to government veterinary services. competencies. Each AC is divided into provinces, and each province Previous studies have shown that veterinarians are the main into counties. This study was carried out in the ACs of Galicia (north- source of information on biosecurity for farmers and can influence west) and Catalonia (north-east), mainly because the different types their decision-making in a positive way, but also in a negative way. of dairy cattle farms in each region were considered to offer a good This is especially true with regard to government veterinarians (6, comparative framework, for the former are mainly family farms and 18, 28–31), who farmers often conceive as “bad policemen” (18, 32). the latter are mainly industrial (18, 19, 32), and so the similarities and Together with distrust of the government services (33, 34), this has differences between the participants’ responses can be highlighted. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 02 frontiersin.org Moya et al. 10.3389/fvets.2023.1043966 2.2. Participant recruitment significant restriction of mobility between and within its territories (39, 40). Hence the data was collected by means of remote interviews In Spain there are three types of veterinarians who usually via an online conference program, as in other fields of study (41, 42), work on livestock farms. First, there are private veterinarians, who which also offered advantages in terms of less displacement in the advise farmers in technical areas related to herd health management. field and more flexibility in participants’ schedules (43). Second, there are veterinarians employed by the Health Defense The remote interviews were conducted and recorded between 19 Associations (HDA), which support farm associations with disease March 2020 and 19 October 2020. They were conducted by SM, who control programs. HDAs are managed by farmers and receive was at the time a PhD candidate and had conducted similar studies financial subsidies from the government services. Third, there are on dairy cattle farms with farmers and veterinarians (18, 19, 32). veterinarians belonging to the government veterinary services, who The interviews involved only the participants and SM and lasted make sure that farmers and veterinarians carry out certain mandatory between 45 and 120 min. They were semi-structured, which allowed practices. This study focuses on this third type of veterinarian, who the participants to express their views through their knowledge work on four different levels that are linked to each of the territorial and experiences without following an established order (44). Two divisions of Spain, the national, autonomous community, provincial pilot interviews were conducted with government veterinarians at and county levels. The national and autonomous community levels the national level, which were included in the study. The thematic take a political-administrative approach with legislative implications, guide included general and specific questions (Table 1). The former while the operations at the provincial and county levels are was related to the levels of government veterinary services and sanctioning-advisory through direct contact with farmers in their their resources, priorities, actions, proposals, and constraints in public offices or on farm visits. terms of biosecurity; and the specific questions were related to the For the purposes of the study, government veterinarians were reality and problems of farms, mandatory and minimum regulations, considered to be the key informants. This is partly due to their sanctioning and advisory roles, and participatory meetings. The knowledge and experience (36, 37), but also enabled the researchers interviewees were also able to add any additional information that to collect quality data in a short amount of time (38). Key informants they could offer. The interviews were subsequently transcribed and were identified through an initial exploration of all structural and analyzed in their entirety by SM. organizational levels of the government services according to the territoriality of Spain to ensure that the key informants offered a good representation of all these different levels. Government veterinarians with knowledge and experience of biosecurity on livestock farms and who were known to be willing 2.4. Data analysis to participate in the study were contacted and recruited through purposive sampling. The authors used their research networks to The interviews were analyzed through content analysis using the contact government veterinarians with whom they had worked qualitative ATLAS.ti software. The approach proposed by Elo and on other projects or studies. JC and AA contacted government Kyngas (45) and Elo et al. (46) was considered. As biosecurity was veterinarians at the national and autonomous community levels in being explored through a limited number of participants, a mainly Catalonia, while EY and FD contacted other potential respondents deductive logic was used (47). The transcriptions were read for a at the autonomous community, provincial and county levels in general understanding of their content, and then established codes Galicia. However, veterinarians at the autonomous community level (i.e., deductive approach) were created along with their meaning also helped the authors to contact veterinarians from the provincial units (Table 2), which are sections of text that are related to the and county government services. These potential respondents were objective of the study. Each meaning unit was coded according to its presented with a fact sheet that informed them about the objectives content in the established codes, but emerging codes (i.e., inductive and characteristics of the study, stating that the topic was biosecurity approach) were also created as the texts were analyzed. Finally, all with specific reference to Spanish dairy cattle farms, and particularly codes were compared, and similar codes were grouped and labeled those in Galicia and Catalonia. into categories. Preliminary categories were discussed and agreed Eleven government veterinarians finally issued their informed between SM and AA. consent to participate in the study, representing both the higher For validity and reliability of findings, sampling adequacy, (national and autonomous community) and lower (provincial and positionality, data triangulation, peer debriefing and methodological county) levels. There were two from the national level (labeled N1 consistency were included (48, 49). Sampling adequacy was and N2), two from the autonomous community level (labeled GA and evidenced through data saturation (50), which is the point when CA), three from the provincial level (labeled GP1, CP1, and CP2), and participants’ statements are merely repeated without providing new four from the county level (labeled GC1, GC2, CC1, and CC2) in both findings. Regarding positionality, the authors adopted a critical Galicia and Catalonia. stance in relation to the participants’ statements, which involves questioning the reasoning and making judgements based solely on these responses. Regarding data triangulation, previous studies on biosecurity on dairy cattle farms were used to compare the opinions 2.3. Data collection of farmers and veterinarians with those of government veterinarians. For peer debriefing, meetings were held with all authors, specifically Data was collected during the COVID-19 pandemic. Europe had between SM and each of the authors separately. At these meetings one of the highest rates of positive cases in the world from early 2020 the authors shared their ideas and interpretations with regard to until early 2021, and Spain established containment policies, with a the final categories. For the purposes of methodological consistency, Frontiers in Veterinary Science 03 frontiersin.org Moya et al. 10.3389/fvets.2023.1043966 TABLE 1 Thematic guide on perceptions of government veterinary services TABLE 2 Codes and meaning units in content analysis. in relation to biosecurity measures. Codes Meaning units General questions - What was your previous profession? What is your current position? How long Measures Biosecurity measures that are implemented on farms have you been in this position? What are your routine tasks in relation to animal according to government veterinarians. health? Constraints Constraints to implement biosecurity measures - What resources do the government services have available to implement according to government veterinarians. biosecurity measures? What resources do you use or have you used? Why? How are these resources managed? Resources Resources available to government veterinary services - What biosecurity measures are currently a priority in your position? Why? to lead the implementation of biosecurity measures - What is the current position of government services on improving the according to government veterinarians. implementation of biosecurity measures? What position should it take? What actions are being (or should be) taken to achieve this improvement? How are Roles Sanctioning and advisory role of government veterinary these actions being (or should these actions be) applied? What proposals exist services and its approaches and consequences (or should exist) to achieve this improvement? How are these proposals being according to government veterinarians. (or should these proposals be) applied? Why? - What constraints exist (or could exist) to improve the implementation of Importance Importance of biosecurity measures for government biosecurity measures? Why? How relevant is the regulatory framework to these veterinary services and farmers according to constraints? How can (or could) biosecurity measures be improved within this government veterinarians. framework? Awareness and training Awareness and training programs for farmers, Specific questions veterinarians, and government veterinarians according - In previous studies, farmers and veterinarians have pointed out that the to government veterinarians. government services do not know the reality on farms, as the government Knowledge Knowledge of the reality and problems of farms services promote biosecurity measures that are difficult to implement. What according to government veterinarians. is your opinion on this lack of knowledge? Why? What is the reality, or the problems, on farms in relation to biosecurity? How could the reality and Meetings Feasibility of holding meetings between different problems on farms be better known? stakeholders and government veterinary services - In previous studies, farmers and veterinarians have pointed out that biosecurity according to government veterinarians. measures from the government services are perceived with reluctance, due to the few arguments to justify its implementation. What is your opinion on this Mandatory Mandatory biosecurity measures on farms according to situation? What is your position on the mandatory nature of some biosecurity government veterinarians. measures? What biosecurity measures should be mandatory? What biosecurity measures should be minimum? How could these measures be implemented? What position should the government services take on these mandatory and minimum measures? Why? - In previous studies, farmers and veterinarians have pointed out that the participate in the study was entirely voluntary, and participants could government services have mainly a sanctioning role but also an advisory role. stop and leave the interview at any time they wanted. The informed What is your position on the sanctioning role of the government services as consent was then signed by the participants and SM, with both parties perceived by farmers and veterinarians? What is your position on the advisory role that the government services should have with farmers? What actions receiving a copy. should be taken to achieve this role? How? - Finally, farmers and veterinarians share the idea that there should be biosecurity meetings between all actors. What is your opinion on these meetings? Why? What constraints are there (or could there be) to holding 3. Results these meetings? How could these meetings be held? What is your position on binding participatory processes? 3.1. Constraints on biosecurity implementation on farms The provincial and county levels pointed out that farmers’ congruencies were found between the research questions, the economic resources may be a constraint for the implementation materials and methods used, and the research results. of biosecurity measures, such as wheeled rains, footbaths, changing Finally, it is important to note that only the codes with rooms, animal quarantine, animal unloading and loading areas, their respective quotations linked to the study objectives were and perimeter fencing. However, the national levels commented incorporated in the results. Representative quotations were included that farmers sometimes used this as an excuse to skirt their for illustrative purposes. These quotations were selected by SM responsibilities, for they also fail to implement measures that do and AA and translated from Spanish into English. The quotations not require a major financial investment, such as records of the were presented in relation to the four existing levels of government entry and exit of people and vehicles, transit from clean to dirty veterinary services. areas, and non-shared tools in animal handling. Furthermore, government veterinary services were aware of other constraints on the implementation of biosecurity measures, such as small farms 2.5. Ethics statement with small herds, which are usually family-run, and farms with an atomised infrastructure or which share the same roads with other The Ethics Committee of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona farms. However, the autonomous community levels believed that if approved the study proposal (CEEAH 4055) and helped design the the sector were to request incentives for biosecurity, the government informed consent for participants, which explained the objective of services could set up subsidization programs for this purpose. the study and the conditions and guarantees of its participants. It also All levels of government veterinary services agreed on the stated that the data collected would be confidential and anonymous, limited budgetary resources allocated to biosecurity, with the that there would be no financial benefit for participating, and that exception of those associated with disease eradication programs (e.g., the interviews would be audio and/or text recorded. The decision to cleaning and disinfection procedures in positive cases). However, Frontiers in Veterinary Science 04 frontiersin.org Moya et al. 10.3389/fvets.2023.1043966 the provincial levels noted the existence of budgets for biosecurity teams, one of inspectors and the other of advisors, to fully develop training programs, mainly through agricultural schools, while these functions. the autonomous community levels considered that the staff of government veterinary services working in biosecurity were also CP2: “(. . . ) It is difficult to give advice when you carry out a resource. However, the autonomous community representatives inspections (...). It would not be a bad idea to create a body of pointed out that these staff are limited in number and the time inspectors, one the person for inspection. If you get it wrong, you available to perform these tasks due to overwork in other areas. get it wrong (...). And then there should be other veterinarians [who would also be part of government veterinary services as CC2: “(. . . ) There is a limitation on staff to monitor more inspectors] who, without being inspectors, can give advice to the directly on a day-to-day basis (...). The only problem is that we farms (. . . )” cannot reach all the farms. If we could inspect all the farms every year, it would raise the quality of the sector (. . . )” The provincial representatives criticized the fact that the government services have been prioritizing their sanctioning role County levels mentioned that the existence of regional over their advisory one, as this advice was previously offered by the administrative divisions was a constraint. They felt that government agricultural extension services, which do not exist anymore. veterinarians from different levels of the organizational structure could have different criteria for the implementation of some biosecurity measures and that this generates comparative grievances. 3.3. Biosecurity awareness The government veterinary services want all livestock farms to 3.2. Roles of government veterinary services implement the different biosecurity measures adequately. However, according to its veterinarians, farmers implemented different Government veterinary services recognized that they could measures in a heterogeneous manner. For example, at the provincial serve a sanctioning or advisory role, but that they should not be levels, measures related to animal movements were efficiently paternalistic toward farmers. The national levels did not agree with and effectively implemented, as the farmers were aware of their the sanctioning role either, as it left aside actions focused on ensuring importance, but this was not the case with measures related to records public health in terms of preventing the entry and spread of infectious of the entry and exit of visitors (both persons and vehicles) to and diseases. Furthermore, the autonomous community levels stressed from farms. The provincial representatives believed that inadequate that farmers should be made aware of the importance of biosecurity implementation of biosecurity measures was mainly due to traditions measures and not only implement them to avoid being sanctioned. and acquired farm routines, which are difficult to change. CA: “(. . . ) I don’t think that the government services should GP1: “(. . . ) The sector tries to do things well here (...), but be seen as a sanctioning entity (...). If you implement biosecurity very often they have acquired biosecurity routines. It is difficult measures, your animals are healthy. However, biosecurity has to to change these routines because their parents and grandparents be here [inside your head], not in files (...). It is a change of already implemented them (. . . )” thinking, not to avoid a fine (. . . )” For county levels, farmers were not aware of the importance On the contrary, government veterinary services commented that of biosecurity due to overwork in other areas, such as managerial sanctions allow biosecurity measures to be implemented. In spite duties. This was evidenced by the fact that farmers only implemented of this, the county levels highlighted that the resources that farms biosecurity measures to obtain subsidies. possess should be considered before applying sanctions, as some On the other hand, government veterinary services also had farms are limited in this regard. Besides, the consideration of these different degrees of awareness of biosecurity measures, both between resources could help to further adapt biosecurity measures on farms different levels and within the same level of the organizational through enforceable legislation for farmers. structure of the government services. For instance, the county In relation to the advisory role toward farmers, the autonomous levels considered farm records of entry and exit of visitors to be community levels pointed out that the government services should important, as these records allow efficient traceability, and may mainly enforce compliance with regulations, generally applying establish comprehensive disinfection points or restrict entry to and sanctions. Meanwhile, the provincial and county levels commented exit from farms. Meanwhile, the autonomous community and other that whenever possible government veterinarians should try to county levels considered animal movements to be crucial. However, inform and train farmers on legislative and practical aspects prior to the county representatives recognized that these movements were the issue of a sanction, through courses or visits by farmers to their often not audited, as these biosecurity measures depended on the services, for instance. awareness of farmers. Despite the above, government veterinary The autonomous community levels recognized that the services thought that new dairy cattle farms should comply with sanctioning role of government veterinarians can be a drawback as a set of minimum biosecurity measures, while old farms should it means they tend to be perceived in a negative light. In contrast, also comply, but with certain deadlines; although for the provincial the autonomous community representatives wish to be positively levels these biosecurity measures might already be established in the perceived for their advisory role. To address this drawback, the autonomous community legislation. Nevertheless, the government provincial levels suggested that it would be ideal to have two different services believed that the implementation of minimum biosecurity Frontiers in Veterinary Science 05 frontiersin.org Moya et al. 10.3389/fvets.2023.1043966 measures should be flexible and consider the conditions of farmers 3.5. Knowledge about farms and their farms. Government veterinarians were aware of the reality and problems CP2: “(. . . ) A program with some minimums and then you of farms. However, while the county representatives were constantly adapt it. However, the minimums must be mandatory (...). Three in contact with farms, they acknowledged that the higher levels might or four minimum biosecurity measures if necessary, and then you have inaccurate knowledge about them. adapt them to the conditions of the farmer and the farm (. . . )” CC1: “(. . . ) People indeed have the perspective that those who legislate [higher levels] do not know what the reality is. However, people who are at the lower level like me (...), I know 3.4. Biosecurity training the farmers perfectly well, I know not only their way of working but also their problems (. . . )” For the national levels, farmers did not recognize their own responsibility for implementing biosecurity measures due to a lack of For government veterinary services, the higher levels should have training and, consequently, a lack of awareness of their importance. more contact with farms and their farmers and veterinarians. They In this regard, the provincial levels stressed that there should also be also acknowledged that spending most of their time in the office was mandatory training for all farmers to understand the rationale behind a constraint to understanding the problems on farms, and that the biosecurity implementation. different levels of government veterinary services, together with their respective tasks, seems to influence and affect the flow of information CP1: “(. . . ) We try to provide training so that people try to about what really happens on farms. understand what they are obliged to do (...). I believe that the function of the government services is to legislate and try to train N2: “(. . . ) There are many levels of government veterinary people voluntarily or mandatorily so that they understand the services with many people, there are many realities (...). We try regulations (. . . )” to be very aware of the reality of the field. The problem is that sometimes in the flow of information, the information does not Government veterinary services pointed out that farmers not arrive or arrives badly or incompletely (. . . )” only had a lack of training due to time restrictions, but also that farmers were reluctant and unwilling to understand the rationale In this respect, the government veterinary services wished of biosecurity. For example, farmers did not agree with some to hold meetings to learn more details about the reality and biosecurity measures, such as perimeter fencing, because of the problems of farms, where there would be a reciprocal flow feasibility issues. In contrast, the provincial levels commented that of information between both parties (the government services although government veterinarians constantly try to train farmers on and farms). infectious diseases, farmers were already aware of their consequences and, therefore, of the objectives of biosecurity measures. On the other hand, government veterinarians commented that other training tools should be developed to make farmers aware of 3.6. Biosecurity meetings on livestock the importance of biosecurity. In this respect, the national levels production highlighted the challenges associated with increased biosecurity awareness among farmers through training. These challenges were In relation to the organization of meetings on biosecurity due to the absence of outbreaks of exotic diseases in the country with all stakeholders (farmers, representatives of farm associations, for several years and veterinarians prioritizing fields other than private veterinarians, veterinarians employed by the HDA and prevention, such as nutrition and reproduction. In this regard, government veterinarians), the government veterinary services the national representatives mentioned that government veterinary proposed voluntary attendance. In addition, while the national services try to train veterinarians in animal health (including levels addressed the importance of biosecurity whenever possible infectious diseases and biosecurity) to transmit a unified message to in meetings on other topics, government veterinarians commented farmers. And in turn, the national levels believed that the government that time was the main constraint on attendance of biosecurity services should not only be responsible for the technical training meetings. The autonomous community and provincial levels pointed of veterinarians, but also for raising awareness among sectorial out that these meetings could lead to consensual advice developed associations, as the government services had limited resources by all stakeholders to facilitate awareness-raising among them. In for this. fact, for the government veterinary services, these meetings could allow farmers to learn from each other, but they should strengthen N2: “(. . . ) Veterinarians are a group in which we invest their social networks beforehand in order to present their collective a lot of resources, perhaps a little more technical than those demands to the government services. dedicated to awareness-raising (...). Awareness-raising in my opinion should be approached from the point of view of the GA: “(. . . ) Farmers do not move anything either, they do not sectorial associations (. . . )” get together for anything. The logical thing would be for them The national representatives commented that all government to get together among themselves and to make an effort to solve veterinary services were also trying to raise biosecurity awareness, not the problems, or to raise these problems with the government just among farmers, but also among veterinarians. services (...). This should be the starting point for farmers (. . . )” Frontiers in Veterinary Science 06 frontiersin.org Moya et al. 10.3389/fvets.2023.1043966 On the contrary, the autonomous community levels sense the 4. Discussion need to explore the scope of consensual advice in accordance with legislation. The government veterinary services pointed out that The results of the present study have presented the perceptions these meetings should be managed by the farmers’ unions, which of government veterinarians of the implementation of routine should propose initiatives on biosecurity, and not by the government biosecurity measures in Galicia and Catalonia. In particular, these services, who lacked the means to convene them. results revealed their opinions of government veterinary services with Regarding the participation of farmers in biosecurity meetings, regard to biosecurity and their sanctioning and advisory actions, the autonomous community levels sense drawbacks, as farmers and of their own knowledge of the realities and problems of routine prioritize their political positions over possible solutions to their biosecurity on farms. biosecurity problems. Similarly, for government veterinarians, Government veterinary services have limited resources for another drawback was the time spent at biosecurity meetings, as biosecurity, which tend to be focused on animal health programs, farmers could get tired of them and not attend, even if they such as bovine tuberculosis (TB) (51) based on Royal Decree have a voice at them. Furthermore, the provincial levels pointed 2611/1996 (52), or infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) based on out that the viability of holding these meetings with farmers and Royal Decree 554/2019 (53). However, the government veterinarians veterinarians was low, as the two groups were worlds apart, with also mention the possibility that farmers could apply for subsidies their own languages, understandings, and interests. The provincial for certain biosecurity measures. In fact, these subsidies could representatives pointed out that there might be areas that should be beneficial as incentives for farmers to implement biosecurity not be dealt with at these meetings, such as purely legislative measures and, in turn, make the government services aware issues. Despite the above, the provincial levels commented on the of farmers’ biosecurity needs (54, 55). However, they must be existence of sectoral round tables, with representation of the different accompanied by awareness-raising to ensure that the routine groups in the sector, in which various issues, such as biosecurity, implementation of biosecurity measures is efficient and effective. were discussed. Indeed, the national levels highlighted the so-called Regarding the roles of government veterinary services, their “local sanitation commissions” that still existed in some places, veterinarians feel that the sanctioning and advisory roles perceived where representatives of the different groups in the sector meet to by farmers and veterinarians were equally necessary, even though coordinate actions on an annual basis, although these commissions the former is more recognized than the latter. One of the possible were disappearing due to the limited availability of staff. reasons for this recognition may be the limited resources available to the government services in terms of staff and time. This may also N1: “(. . . ) The legislation described the so-called “local affect the training and advice that government veterinary services can sanitation commissions” (...). Before starting an action offer to farmers, which is not viewed as efficient or effective in terms in a municipality, we called together all the farmers, the of their impact on farmers, a situation that could be evidenced by the representatives of the municipality, and the veterinarians in the advisory role being under-recognized (32). area. And the government services would explain what we were The advisory role of government veterinary services was going to do (...) so that these people could tell us what problems previously served by the agricultural extension services in the form they saw with that action (. . . )” of technical advice on efficient and effective practices, organization of training, refresher programs and technical-scientific dissemination events (56). These objectives could also be taken up by government veterinary services. However, there is an interest in reinforcing 3.7. Mandatory biosecurity measures on this advisory role toward farmers, possibly though the veterinarian farms responsible for each farm [Regulation 2016/429 (26); Royal Decree 993/2014 (57); Law 8/2003 (58)], or by a veterinarian belonging The county levels thought that mandatory biosecurity measures to a HDA. The latter also serve an advisory role in the routine would allow all actors in the sector to implement them to higher implementation of biosecurity measures for TB and bovine viral biosecurity standards, which would also boost their public image. diarrhea (BVD). In this respect, irrespective of who takes on this advisory role, this person could not only complement the government CC2: “(. . . ) There would be no problem with making veterinary services, but also private veterinarians, who need to biosecurity mandatory, with high standards, because farmers are improve their biosecurity and infectious disease awareness (59–62). also interested in having a good public image (...), a good image Some government veterinary services highlighted a lack of of good biosecurity (. . . )” biosecurity awareness among farmers, which could be the fault of government veterinarians, or of private veterinarians, to whom On the other hand, the national levels pointed out that farmers often turn to for reliable information (63). Hence it considering biosecurity measures as an imposition is a mistake, as could be interesting to evaluate the impact of the sanctioning and the sector should really be made aware of the need to achieve these advisory roles served mainly by the government veterinary services, standards. Besides, according to the national representatives, farmers but also by private veterinarians, regarding the ultimate day-to- conceived government veterinary services as an enemy because of day implementation of biosecurity measures by farmers. Indeed, the mandatory biosecurity measures that its veterinarians had to both roles could be rethought and new awareness strategies could enforce. However, the government veterinary services also felt that be proposed. For example, in relation to the advisory role, the this conception was changing because they were getting closer to the government veterinarians did not mention their own training in farmers. In addition, the national levels also commented that these teaching skills, which some levels of the government veterinary measures had been permissive despite their mandatory nature. services might not be receiving. This could in turn affect the training Frontiers in Veterinary Science 07 frontiersin.org Moya et al. 10.3389/fvets.2023.1043966 that government veterinarians provide to farmers. The government were, a situation that should be further discussed among all farm veterinary services should therefore not only offer training on stakeholders in view of their respective responsibilities. Furthermore, biosecurity and infectious diseases, but also on teaching skills, at it is important to consider that the responsibility for routine least for the county levels that have the most contact with farms. biosecurity does not only lie with farmers, but also with other actors, This training should not only consider routine biosecurity, but also including the dairy industry and transport companies, as well as outbreaks of exotic diseases, for which the sector is often unprepared. the government services (65). In this regard, biosecurity meetings The biosecurity training that farmers receive could also suffer could be designed on the basis of participatory methods with from other drawbacks. For example, it might not consider the consensus-based decisions across the board (66). Similar initiatives particular conditions of farmers and their farms (20), and different could be considered for this design, such as those carried out biosecurity materials might offer contradictory advice, leading by Bugeza et al. (67) and Vaarst et al. (68), or those evidenced farmers not to implement biosecurity measures out of confusion through AgriLink (69) and LIVERUR (70). These meetings and their (64). Therefore, the training that farmers receive should consider decisions could generate greater awareness and commitment among their particular contexts, as well as provide unified advice based on their participants, as already occurs, for instance, in healthcare with scientific evidence, which the government veterinarians are aware of patients, thus generating realistic and informed expectations about from their day-to-day routines. healthcare and increasing satisfaction and trust in it (71, 72); or in According to the participants, certain biosecurity measures on corporate organizations with employees, who are able to contribute dairy cattle farms are often not audited. We could note here to the organisation’s productivity (73). that private veterinarians are not entitled to audit biosecurity It is important to note that there are practically no studies measures in these production systems, but they can give advice involving government veterinary services on the issue of biosecurity and negotiate with farmers on biosecurity implementation. In (24, 25). Hence this is the first contribution to offer evidence from contrast, veterinarians employed by HDAs can audit biosecurity the perspective of government veterinarians through their discourses measures linked to control programs for TB and BVD, although on biosecurity on livestock farms, and specifically dairy cattle farms many farms are not members of a farmers’ association and in Galicia and Catalonia. Government veterinarians may share the therefore have no contact with any HDA veterinarians. Hence, in opinions of farmers and private veterinarians on the intervention of order for biosecurity measures to be fully audited by these HDA government veterinary services in the implementation of biosecurity veterinarians, all farms would need to join a farmers’ association. measures, but they may be constrained by the regulations that they Alternatively, HDA veterinarians could be a support for the have to enforce. Despite this, biosecurity regulations could be viewed government veterinary services when the legislation comes into as an advantage for government veterinary services, as they are force, which will endow them with greater competencies in terms of generally absent on dairy cattle farms, only a few of which are linked animal health. to TB and IBR. This would increase the scope for dialogue between The government veterinarians were aware that family farms face government veterinary services and farmers and private veterinarians more constraints on the implementation of biosecurity measures to agree on and adjust biosecurity measures in accordance with the than industrial farms. They did not offer details about the differential real context of the affected farms. treatment of family farms, possibly to avoid causing grievances, but Government veterinarians are aware that the services they they did mention that older farms (which tend to be family farms) represent prioritize a sanctioning rather than an advisory role. This should have more time to implement minimum biosecurity measures situation can be a drawback for the implementation of biosecurity. than newer farms. It would be interesting to look further into the Therefore, the interventions carried out by government veterinary different treatment of family and industrial farms by government services should consider and reinforce their interaction with other veterinarians in relation to particular biosecurity measures. actors in order to gain a better understanding of the reality of the In previous studies on biosecurity on dairy cattle farms, farmers farms and to adapt their advisory role to these contexts, and thus and veterinarians pointed out that the government services were support the implementation of biosecurity measures. In addition, unaware of the reality and problems on farms, as they generated these interventions could also assist the transition toward the biosecurity regulations and legislation that were complicated to implementation of mandatory biosecurity measures that could be implement on a day-to-day basis (18, 32). However, the government enacted in future regulations. veterinary services agreed that only the higher levels, such as the Therefore, it could be interesting to incorporate government national and autonomous community ones, were unaware of the veterinary services in future studies on biosecurity or related topics, reality and problems that farms face. To address this, the government as there is a tendency for farmers and veterinarians to question them, veterinarians have agreed to hold meetings specifically on biosecurity and this would give them the chance to share their own perspective. that all actors in the sector could attend on a voluntary basis. Better knowledge of all stakeholders’ perspectives would also mean a However, although similar meetings already exist, they mainly deal better understanding of the psychosocial dynamics involved in such with management issues and only some farm stakeholders are matters as heterogeneity in the routine implementation of biosecurity involved in them. But all stakeholders need to have a voice and be measures (9, 74–76). Furthermore, from a health perspective, aware of the biosecurity problems on farms, and all levels of the stakeholders could also include public health professionals, especially government services need to take these problems into consideration. in cases of zoonotic infectious diseases. Moreover, the agreements that could be reached at these meetings In conclusion, government veterinary services have a similar could be binding, as long as they do not affect or are not affected by perspective to that of farmers and veterinarians. They generally existing legislation. disagree with actions and initiatives that prioritize sanctions over Biosecurity meetings were not fully discussed and clarified advice, and claim to be willing to visit farms to learn about in terms of who attends them and how, or what their aims farmers’ realities and their problems with routine biosecurity, Frontiers in Veterinary Science 08 frontiersin.org Moya et al. 10.3389/fvets.2023.1043966 thus leading to greater flexibility of certain regulations that may Data availability statement be complicated for farmers to carry out. Government veterinary services do try to balance their own institutional perspectives with The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be those of the sector, such as those of farmers and veterinarians, made available by the authors, without undue reservation. to ensure that biosecurity measures are implemented efficiently and effectively on a day-to-day basis. Thus, this study is useful for the generation and improvement of biosecurity interventions Ethics statement and regulations involving government veterinarians, which will help to regain farmers’ trust in the government services by The studies involving human participants were reviewed and reinforcing their interaction with other stakeholders and their approved by the Ethics Committee of the Universitat Autònoma de advisory role in the implementation of biosecurity measures. Barcelona (CEEAH 4055). The patients/participants provided their Hence, the government veterinary services and the dairy cattle written informed consent to participate in this study. sector will benefit from this study. Government veterinary services could intervene internally at their different levels to improve the performance of their government veterinarians in the institution Author contributions and in the field, while the dairy sector could improve the implementation of routine biosecurity measures. Therefore, it is SM conducted the study, wrote the article as part of his doctoral relevant to consider the perceptions of government veterinary thesis (2017–2021), collected, analyzed, and presented the data, services in biosecurity studies. This in turn makes it possible to along with its critical aspects. AA was SM’s supervisor and was appreciate the small differences within the different levels of the extensively involved throughout the study and draft of this article. same institution. JC and AA recruited government veterinarians at the national and autonomous community levels in Catalonia. EY and FD recruited government veterinarians at the autonomous community, provincial 5. Limitations and county levels in Galicia. All authors approved the article submitted for publication. Eleven interviews were conducted with government veterinarians belonging to the four territorial levels of the government veterinary services in two ACs. However, the population sample is only Funding representative of Galicia and Catalonia and not of all 17 ACs The present study was supported by the National Scientific in Spain. Government veterinarians belonging to the other ACs and Technological Research Commission of Chile (CONICYT), may have different opinions from those in Galicia and Catalonia, the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (B18P0040), the Ministry even though the dairy cattle farms present in other ACs may be of Science and Innovation of Spain (AGL2016-77269-C2-1-R and similar to those of Galicia and Catalonia. These results are framed AGL2016-77269-C2-2-R), and the European Regional Development within a particular context with its own legislations and regulations, Fund (ERDF). and it is hard to compare them with other results obtained with the same methodology, both in other regions of Spain and in different countries. Acknowledgments Also, only government veterinarians with knowledge and experience of livestock farm biosecurity were considered. The authors thank the different levels of government veterinary Government veterinarians could have knowledge and experience services belonging to the AC of Galicia and Catalonia, as well as not only in dairy cattle farming, but also in other production government veterinarians belonging to the Ministry of Agriculture, systems, such as pig and poultry farming. The methodology could Fisheries and Food of Spain, for their participation in this study. therefore be replicated in other farming sectors. The results related to these livestock production systems and their regulations could be different from those of this study, but the results linked to Conflict of interest the government services, roles of government veterinarians and participatory processes could be similar. This is because dairy cattle The authors declare that the research was conducted in the farms are managed differently from pig and poultry farms, which absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be tend to have higher levels of biosecurity due to the stricter mandatory construed as a potential conflict of interest. regulations on the latter. For example, pig farms are governed by Royal Decree 324/2000 (77), Royal Decree 3483/2000 (78), and Royal Decree 1221/2009 (79) mainly related to management, and Publisher’s note poultry farms are affected by Order APA/2442/2006 (80) and Royal Decree 445/2007 (81) mainly related to avian influenza. There are no All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the regulations on mandatory measures for dairy cattle farms other than authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated the stipulations of Regulation 2016/429 (26). These more stringent organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. measures for pig and poultry farms have mainly come about as a Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may result of recent outbreaks of African swine fever and avian influenza be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the (82, 83). publisher. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 09 frontiersin.org Moya et al. 10.3389/fvets.2023.1043966 References 1. World Organisation for Animal Health. Biosecurity. Glossary (2022). Available auxiliary industries. Prev Vet Med. (2008) 84:310–23. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2007. online at: https://www.woah.org/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahc/current/ 12.003 glossaire.pdf (Accessed August 28, 2022). 24. Kristensen E, Jakobsen E. Danish dairy farmers’ perception of biosecurity. Prev Vet 2. European Commission. How Are Farmers Dealing With Biosecurity? Healthy Med. (2011) 99:122–9. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.01.010 Animals, Less Medication and Better Prices Through Biosecurity. (2016). Available online 25. Hovi M, Mcleod A, Gunn G. Assessing UK farmer attitudes to biosecurity on sheep at: https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/sites/agri-eip/files/2015-press11-biosecurity_ and cattle farms. Res Vet Sci. (2005) 78:1–46. final.pdf (Accessed August 28, 2022). 26. Regulation. Official Journal of the European Union. Strasbourg: Official Journal of 3. Frössling J, Nöremark M. Differing perceptions: Swedish farmers’ views of infectious the European Union (2016). disease control. Vet Med Sci. (2016) 2:54–68. doi: 10.1002/vms3.20 27. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación. Consulta Pública del Proyecto de 4. Laanen M, Maes D, Hendriksen C, Gelaude P, De Vliegher S, Rosseel Y, et al. Real Decreto por el que se Establece la Normativa Básica de Ordenación de las Granjas Pig, cattle and poultry farmers with a known interest in research have comparable de ganado bovino. (2019). Available online at: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/ganaderia/ perspectives on disease prevention and on-farm biosecurity. Prev Vet Med. (2014) participacion-publica/consultapreviardordenacionbovina_tcm30-502616.pdf (Accessed 115:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.03.015 August 28, 2022). 5. Toma L, Stott A, Heffernan C, Ringrose S, Gunn G. Determinants of biosecurity 28. Denis-Robichaud J, Kelton D, Bauman C, Barkema H, Keefe G, Dubuc J. Canadian behaviour of British cattle and sheep farmers-a behavioural economics analysis. Prev Vet dairy farmers’ perception of the efficacy of biosecurity practices. J Dairy Sci. (2019) Med. (2013) 108:321–33. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2012.11.009 102:10657–69. doi: 10.3168/jds.2019-16312 6. Kuster K, Cousin M, Jemmi T, Schüpbach-Regula G, Magouras I. Expert 29. Damiaans B, Sarrazin S, Heremans E, Dewulf J. Perception, motivators and opinion on the perceived effectiveness and importance of on-farm biosecurity obstacles of biosecurity in cattle production. Vlaams Diergeneeskd Tijdschr. (2018) measures for cattle and swine farms in Switzerland. PLoS ONE. (2015) 87:150–63. doi: 10.21825/vdt.v87i3.16079 10:e0144533. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144533 30. Shortall O, Green M, Brennan M, Wapenaar W, Kaler J. Exploring expert 7. Toma L, Low J, Vosough B, Matthews L, Stott A. An analysis of cattle farmers’ opinion on the practicality and effectiveness of biosecurity measures on dairy farms perceptions of drivers and barriers to on-farm control of Escherichia coli O157. Epidemiol in the United Kingdom using choice modeling. J Dairy Sci. (2017) 100:2225–39. Infect. (2015) 143:2355–66. doi: 10.1017/S0950268814003045 doi: 10.3168/jds.2016-11435 8. García J, Coelho A. Evaluación del conocimiento de los ganaderos sobre la 31. Brennan M, Wright N, Wapenaar W, Jarratt S, Hobson-West P, Richens I, et al. tuberculosis bovina e implicaciones para su control. Rev Mex Cienc Pecu. (2014) 5:213– Exploring attitudes and beliefs towards implementing cattle disease prevention and 29. doi: 10.22319/rmcp.v5i2.3662 control measures: a qualitative study with dairy farmers in Great Britain. Animals. (2016) 9. Brennan M, Christley R. Biosecurity on cattle farms: a study in north-west England. 6:61. doi: 10.3390/ani6100061 PLoS ONE. (2012) 7:1–8. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028139 32. Moya S, Chan K, Hinchliffe S, Buller H, Espluga J, Benavides B, et al. 10. Broughan J, Maye D, Carmody P, Brunton L, Ashton A, Wint W, et al. Influence on the implementation of biosecurity measures in dairy cattle farms: Farm characteristics and farmer perceptions associated with bovine tuberculosis Communication between veterinarians and dairy farmers. Prev Vet Med. (2021) incidents in areas of emerging endemic spread. Prev Vet Med. (2016) 129:88– 190:105329. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2021.105329 98. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.05.007 33. Christley R, Robinson S, Moore B, Setzkorn C, Donald I. Responses of farmers to 11. Renault V, Humblet M, Moons V, Bosquet G, Gauthier B, Cebrián L, et al. Rural introduction in England and Wales of pre-movement testing for bovine tuberculosis. Prev veterinarian’s perception and practices in terms of biosecurity across three European Vet Med. (2011) 100:126–33. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.02.005 countries. Transbound Emerg Dis. (2018) 65:e183–93. doi: 10.1111/tbed.12719 34. Enticott G. The ecological paradox: social and natural consequences of the 12. Ciaravino G, Ibarra P, Casal E, López S, Espluga J, Casal J, Napp S, Allepuz geographies of animal health promotion. Trans Inst Br Geogr. (2008) 33:433– A. Farmer and veterinarian attitudes towards the bovine tuberculosis eradication 46. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-5661.2008.00321.x programme in Spain: What is going on in the field? Front Vet Sci. (2017) 35. Renault V, Humblet M, Pham P, Saegerman C. Biosecurity at cattle 4:202. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2017.00202 farms: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Pathogens. (2021) 13. Sayers R, Good M, Sayers G, A. survey of biosecurity-related practices, opinions 10:1315. doi: 10.3390/pathogens10101315 and communications across dairy farm veterinarians and advisors. Vet J. (2014) 200:261– 36. Kogan M. Researching the powerful in education and elsewhere. In: Walford G, 9. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.02.010 editor. Researching the Powerful in Education. London: UCL Press (1994). p. 67–80. 14. Heffernan C, Nielsen L, Thomson K, Gunn G. An exploration of the drivers to 37. Kennedy A, Christie D, Fraser C, Reid L, McKinney S, Welsh M, et al. Key biosecurity collective action among a sample of UK cattle and sheep farmers. Prev Vet informants’ perspectives on teacher learning in Scotland. Br J Educ Stud. (2008) 56:400– Med. (2008) 87:358–72. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2008.05.007 19. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8527.2008.00416.x 15. Cardwell J, Van Winden S, Beauvais W, Mastin A, De Glanville W, Hardstaff 38. Marshall M. The key informant technique. Fam Pract. (1996) J, et al. Assessing the impact of tailored biosecurity advice on farmer behaviour and 13:92–7. doi: 10.1093/fampra/13.1.92 pathogen presence in beef herds in England and Wales. Prev Vet Med. (2016) 135:9– 16. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.10.018 39. Pillai S, Siddika N, Apu E, Kabir R. COVID-19: Situation of European countries so far. Arch Med Res. (2020) 51:723–5. doi: 10.1016/j.arcmed.2020.05.015 16. Shortall O, Ruston A, Green M, Brennan M, Wapenaar W, Kaler J. Broken biosecurity? Veterinarians’ framing of biosecurity on dairy farms in England. Prev Vet 40. Henríquez J, Gonzalo-Almorox E, García-Goñi M, Paolucci F. The first Med. (2016) 132:20–31. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.06.001 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain. Health Policy Technol. (2020) 9:560– 74. doi: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2020.08.013 17. Ellis-Iversen J, Cook A, Watson E, Nielen M, Larkin L, Wooldridge M, et al. Perceptions, circumstances and motivators that influence implementation 41. Jones R, Abdelfattah K. Virtual interviews in the era of COVID-19: a primer for of zoonotic control programs on cattle farms. Prev Vet Med. (2010) 93:276– applicants. J Surg Educ. (2020) 77:733–4. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2020.03.020 85. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2009.11.005 42. Joshi A, Bloom D, Spencer A, Gaetke-Udager K, Cohan R. Video 18. Moya S, Tirado F, Espluga J, Ciaravino G, Armengol R, Diéguez J, et al. Dairy interviewing: a review and recommendations for implementation in the era of farmers’ decision making to implement biosecurity measures: a study of psychosocial COVID-19 and beyond. Acad Radiol. (2020) 27:1316–22. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2020. factors. Transbound Emerg Dis. (2019) 67:698–710. doi: 10.1111/tbed.13387 05.020 19. Moya S, Tirado F, Diéguez F, Allepuz A. From biosecurity to security 43. Davis M, Haas M, Gottlieb M, House J, Huang R, Hopson L. Zooming in versus ecologies: an analysis between old dairy farming traditions and routines and veterinary flying out: virtual residency interviews in the era of COVID-19. AEM Educ Train. (2020) recommendations in Spain. Sociol Ruralis. (2020) 61:372–97. doi: 10.1111/soru.12333 4:443–6. doi: 10.1002/aet2.10486 20. Sayers R, Sayers G, Mee J, Good M, Bermingham M, Grant J, et al. 44. Longhurst R. Interviews: In-depth, semi-structured. In: Kitchin R, Thrift N, editors. Implementing biosecurity measures on dairy farms in Ireland. Vet J. (2013) 197:259– International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Amsterdam: Elsevier (2009). p. 580– 67. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2012.11.017 4. doi: 10.1016/B978-008044910-4.00458-2 21. Hoe F, Ruegg P. Opinions and practices of Wisconsin dairy producers 45. Elo S, Kyngas H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. (2008) about biosecurity and animal well-Being. J Dairy Sci. (2006) 89:2297– 62:107–15. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x 308. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72301-3 46. Elo S, Kaariainen M, Kanste O, Polkki T, Utriainen K, Kyngas H. 22. Pritchard K, Wapenaar W, Brennan M. Cattle veterinarians’ awareness and Qualitative content analysis: a focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open. (2014) understanding of biosecurity. Vet Rec. (2015) 176:546–8. doi: 10.1136/vr.102899 4:1–10. doi: 10.1177/2158244014522633 23. Gunn G, Heffernan C, Hall M, McLeod A, Hovi M. Measuring and comparing 47. Hsieh H, Shannon S. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health constraints to improved biosecurity amongst GB farmers, veterinarians and the Res. (2005) 15:1277–88. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687 Frontiers in Veterinary Science 10 frontiersin.org Moya et al. 10.3389/fvets.2023.1043966 48. Creswell J, Poth, C. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five 66. Cioni L. Participative Methods and Consensus Theory (Technical Report: TR-08-23). Approaches. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications (2013). (2008). Available online at: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/downloadjsessionid= D0778437B61B6015A13B97EA911FDCF3?doi=10.1.1.163.9862&rep=rep1&type=pdf 49. Morse J, Barrett M, Mayan M, Olson K, Spiers J. Verification strategies for (Accessed August 28, 2022). establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods. (2002) 1:13–22. doi: 10.1177/160940690200100202 67. Bugeza J, Kankya C, Muleme J, Akandinda A, Sserugga J, Nantima N, et al. Participatory evaluation of delivery of animal health care services by 50. Hennink M, Kaiser B. Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative community animal health workers in Karamoja region of Uganda. PLoS ONE. (2017) research: a systematic review of empirical tests. Soc Sci Med. (2022) 12:e0179110. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179110 292:114523. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523 51. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación. Programa Nacional de 68. Vaarst M, Byarugaba D, Nakavuma J, Laker C. Participatory livestock Erradicación de Tuberculosis Bovina Presentado por España para el año 2020. (2020). farmer training for improvement of animal health in rural and peri-urban Available online at: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/ganaderia/temas/sanidad-animal- smallholder dairy herds in Jinja, Uganda. Trop Anim Health Prod. (2007) higiene-ganadera/pnetb_2020final_tcm30-523317.PDF (Accessed August 28, 2022). 39:1–11. doi: 10.1007/s11250-006-4439-8 52. Royal Decree 2611/1996. Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado. Madrid, 69. AgriLink. Living Labs. (2019). Available online at: https://old.agrilink2020.eu/our- Spain (1996). work/living-labs/ (Accessed August 28, 2022). 53. Royal Decree 554/2019. Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado. Madrid, 70. European Commission. Living Lab Research Concept in Rural Areas. (2018). Spain (2019). Available online at: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/773757/es (Accessed August 28, 2022). 54. Oliveira V, Anneberg I, Voss H, Sørensen J, Thomsen P. Attitudes of danish dairy farmers towards biosecurity. Livest Sci. (2018) 214:153– 71. Vahdat S, Hamzehgardeshi L, Hessam S, Hamzehgardeshi Z. Patient involvement 60. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2018.06.004 in health care decision making: a review. Iran Red Crescent Med J. (2014) 16:12454. doi: 10.5812/ircmj.12454 55. McWilliam W, Balzarova M. The role of dairy company policies in support of farm green infrastructure in the absence of government stewardship payments. Land Use 72. WHO. Exploring Patient Participation in Reducing Health-Care-Related Safety Policy. (2017) 68:671–80. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.08.030 Risks. (2013). Available online at: https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/ 185779/e96814.pdf (Accessed October 14, 2022). 56. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación. Imágenes de un Mundo Rural 1955-1980. (2006). Available online at: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/ministerio/archivos- 73. Elegbe O, Ibikunle F. Effective communication and participative decision-making bibliotecas-mediateca/mediateca/imagenes_mundo_rural_tcm30-90020.pdf (Accessed in selected organizations in Ibadan metropolis. Afr J Stab Dev. (2015) 9:38–54. August 28, 2022). 74. Denis-Robichaud J, Kelton D, Bauman C, Barkema H, Keefe G, Dubuc J. Biosecurity 57. Royal Decree 993/2014. Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado. Madrid, and herd health management practices on Canadian dairy farms. J Dairy Sci. (2019) Spain (2014). 102:9536–47. doi: 10.3168/jds.2018-15921 58. Law 8/2003. Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado. Madrid, Spain (2006). 75. Renault V, Damiaans B, Sarrazin S, Humblet M, Dewulf J, Saegerman C. Biosecurity practices in Belgian cattle farming: level of implementation, constraints and weaknesses. 59. Derks M, Van Werven T, Hogeveen H, Kremer W. Veterinary herd health Transbound Emerg Dis. (2018) 65:1246–61. doi: 10.1111/tbed.12865 management programs on dairy farms in the Netherlands: use, execution, and relations to farmer characteristics. J Dairy Sci. (2013) 96:1623–37. doi: 10.3168/jds.2012-6106 76. Sahlström L, Virtanen T, Kyyrö J, Lyytikäinen T. Biosecurity on Finnish cattle, pig and sheep farms - Results from a questionnaire. Prev Vet Med. (2014) 117:59– 60. Derks M, Van de Ven L, Van Werven T, Kremer W, Hogeveen H. The 67. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.07.004 perception of veterinary herd health management by Dutch dairy farmers and its current status in the Netherlands: a survey. Prev Vet Med. (2012) 104:207– 77. Royal Decree 324/2000. Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado. Madrid, 15. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.12.019 Spain, (2000). 61. Da Silva J, Noordhuizen J, Vagneur M, Bexiga R, Gelfert C, Baumgartner W. 78. Royal Decree 3483/2000. Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado. Madrid, Veterinary dairy herd health management in Europe: constraints and perspectives. Vet Spain (2000). Q. (2006) 28:23–32. doi: 10.1080/01652176.2006.9695203 79. Royal Decree 1221/2009. Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado. Madrid, 62. Lievaart J, Noordhuizen J. Veterinary herd health management on dairy farms in Spain (2009). the Netherlands: Assessment by dairy farmers. Tijdschr Diergeneeskd. (1999) 124:734–40. 80. Order APA/2442/2006. Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado. Madrid, 63. Paquette C, Schemann K, Ward M. Knowledge and attitudes of Australian Spain (2006). livestock producers concerning biosecurity practices. Aust Vet J. (2020) 98:533– 81. Royal Decree 445/2007. Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado. Madrid, 45. doi: 10.1111/avj.13005 Spain (2007). 64. Moore D, Merryman M, Hartman M, Klingborg D. Comparison of published 82. World Organisation for Animal Health. African Swine Fever (ASF) – Situation recommendations regarding biosecurity practices for various production animal Report 20. (2022). Available online at: https://www.woah.org/app/uploads/2022/09/asf- species and classes. J Am Vet Med Assoc. (2008) 233:249–56. doi: 10.2460/javma.233. report20.pdf (Accessed October 17, 2022). 2.249 83. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Avian Influenza Overview 65. Maye D, Chan K. On-farm biosecurity in livestock production: farmer June – September 2022. (2022). Available online at: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/ behaviour, cultural identities, and practices of care. Emerg Top Life Sci. (2020) 4:521– default/files/documents/avian-influenza-overview-September-2022_0.pdf (Accessed 30. doi: 10.1042/ETLS20200063 October 17, 2022). Frontiers in Veterinary Science 11 frontiersin.org