Search

Veterinarians are trusted by farmers and play an important role in assisting them to implement biosecurity. More research is needed that particularly focuses on the impact of joint farmer-veterinarian discussions to further understand the role of communication in altering biosecurity behaviours. The aim of this study was to analyse joint dairy cattle farmer-veterinarian discussions about the adoption of on-farm biosecurity using novel social interaction methodologies. Farmer and veterinarian stakeholders were invited to take part in a face-to-face meeting. Introductory presentations were given, followed by separate facilitated veterinarian and farmer discussions. All stakeholders were brought together for a final facilitated group discussion which was audio recorded. Corresponding transcripts from the recordings were analysed via thematic and conversation analyses. Conversation analysis assessments such as turn taking, repair, sequence organisation, overlap and asymmetry were employed to investigate the nature of the conversation. Thematic analysis identified the negative repercussions of conflicting information or ineffective communication surrounding biosecurity implementation. The type of, and importance of, the relationship farmers had with veterinarians and other stakeholders was highlighted. The need to provide personalised biosecurity protocols on farms was identified. Four key factors were identified via conversation analyses. These included: 1) how the conversation facilitated agreement, 2) how the conversation allowed the farmer and veterinarian participants to learn from one another in real time, 3) how the discussion enabled participants to expand upon points they were making, and 4) how participants were able to obtain a greater understanding of the other participants' opinions, even without total resolution. Debate around the effective implementation of biosecurity measures on farms, explored using novel techniques, demonstrated the potential for utilising a discussive approach between veterinarians and farmers to lead to solutions not previously considered. Because of the nature of the discussion, conversation analysis resulted in an informative approach to encapsulating the nuanced dialogue between stakeholders, highlighting the potential of this analysis framework., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

There is a lack of robust data on antibiotic use on sheep and beef farms in the UK, particularly for farms with mixed species. On mixed farms, quantification of antibiotic use is reliant on accurate farmers' records as veterinary prescription data does not provide information at the species level. Previous studies that have investigated multiple antibiotic use collection methods were conducted on single species farms and failed to collect data on the reasons why differences in methods may exist. This study aimed to evaluate sheep and beef farmers' antibiotic recording practices by comparing quantities of antibiotics measured from medicine records and empty antibiotic packaging collection bins, and identify barriers and facilitators of the antibiotic use collection methods. Thirty-five farms were followed for a year period. Farmers were asked to record their antibiotic treatments and deposit empty antibiotic packaging used in sheep or beef cattle into a bin. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted to understand the experiences of farmers taking part in the study and explore the possible differences in methods. Bins and medicine records were collected and the mass of active ingredient (mg) was calculated. The level of agreement between the two antibiotic use collection methods was measured using rank parameters of Kendall's T a . The bins were 67 % (CI = 29-87 %) more likely to measure more antibiotic use than the medicine records. The scale of variability of the measurements between two random farms was 33 % (CI = 6-56 %) larger for the antibiotic waste bins than the scale of variability between the medicine records. Sheep farmers often missed neonatal lamb treatments off their medicine records, with a median of 32.5 missing treatments per farm (IQR = 18-130). Of the mixed species farms, 28 % of treatment entries were missing the species the antibiotic was used in. Farmers reported that the bin was easy to use but they also reported that there was a tendency to under-report actual use where there were multiple workers on the farm or where treatments were administered by the veterinarian. The qualitative analysis identified contextual barriers to accurate medicine recording, such as difficulties with animal identification, with recording in the field, and with recording during lambing time. This study demonstrated that there were significant differences in antibiotic use measured by the bins and the medicine records. The mixed-methods approach provided an understanding of the contextual barriers that impacted farmers' medicine recording and use of the bin. This information on the contextual barriers can be used to inform the design of data collection methods to improve antibiotic consumption data in the sheep and beef sectors., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Resistance to antimicrobials is one of the biggest challenges worldwide for public health. A key strategy for tackling this is ensuring judicious use of antimicrobials in human and veterinary medicine. Whilst there are many studies in human medicine investigating prescribing behaviour of doctors, there is limited work to understand what factors influence veterinarian prescribing behaviour. Veterinarians often prescribe antimicrobials to sheep and beef farmers in contexts other than at a clinical consultation, and decision-making behind this has not been explored. The aim of this study was to measure, for the first time, the influence of factors from social theories on veterinarians' decision to prescribe antimicrobials to sheep and beef farmers without a clinical consultation, using a factorial survey approach. Respondents were presented with eight vignette scenarios, where a farmer asks for antimicrobials at the veterinary practice. Seven factors, identified from constructs of social theories, were included in the vignettes. Random intercept and random slope models were built to estimate the effects of the vignette factors and vet characteristics on the respondents' willingness to prescribe ratings. A total of 306 surveys were completed. The vignette factors: case type, farmer relationship, other veterinarians in practice, time pressure, habit, willingness to pay, and confidence in the farmer, were significant in the decision to prescribe. Confidence in the farmer was the most influential vignette variable, and was included as a random slope effect. Respondent variables with significant influence on the decision to prescribe were agreeableness personality score, region of veterinary practice, and presence of a small animal department. These influential factors could be considered to target interventions in beef and sheep farm animal veterinary practice for improved antimicrobial stewardship., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

The farm animal veterinary profession in the UK has faced a number of challenges in recent decades related to the withdrawal of government funding and a contraction of the agricultural sector. They have come under pressure to respond by developing skills and focusing on disease prevention advisory services. However, this puts veterinarians in competition with other providers of these services, and moves in this direction have only been partial. Failure to respond to these challenges puts the veterinary profession at risk of de-professionalisation-a loss of their monopoly over knowledge, an erosion of client beliefs in their service ethos and a loss of work autonomy. This paper explores how farm animal veterinarians in England perceive these challenges and are responding to them. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were carried out with 28 veterinarians from Royal College of Veterinary Surgeon farm accredited practices. Veterinarians were chosen from high, medium and low density cattle farming regions. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and themes identified through the constant comparison method. The majority of respondents recognised the challenges facing the veterinary profession. Most believed their role had changed, moving towards that of a disease prevention adviser who was part of the farm management team. In terms of maintaining and redefining their professional status, farm animal veterinarians do have a defined body of knowledge and the ability to develop trusting relationships with clients, which enhances their competitiveness. However, while they recognise the changes and challenges, moves towards a disease prevention advisory model have only been partial. There seem to be little effort towards using Farm accreditation status or other strategies to promote their services. They do not appear to be finding effective strategies for putting their knowledge on disease prevention into practice. Disease prevention appears to be delivered on farm on an ad hoc basis, they are not promoting their disease prevention services to farmers effectively or using their professional position to stave off competition. Farm animals veterinarians will need to realign their veterinary expertise to the demands of the market, work together rather than in competition, improve their skills in preventive medicine, consolidate information given by non-veterinary advisors, develop new business models appropriate to their services and develop entrepreneurial skills to demonstrate their market value if they are to avoid becoming marginalised., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Recent independent UK government reports and studies have highlighted the importance, but lack, of flock health services provided by veterinarians. Qualitative interviews were analysed by thematic analysis to construct belief statements to understand veterinarians' opinions on preventative advice and drivers for current services to sheep farmers. A postal questionnaire was sent to 515 sheep practices registered with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeon (RCVS) in England and Wales in 2012 to gather quantitative data on these belief statements and to gather demographic information and current services provided by the veterinarian. Exploratory factor analysis with heuristic approaches was conducted on the respondents' belief statements to identify common factors of veterinarian beliefs. Three main factors were identified: motivation for proactiveness, perceived capability to offer preventative services and perceived opportunity to deliver these services. A beta regression model was built to identify the factors significantly associated with the time veterinarians spent in an advisory role. The relative proportion of time increased by 10% (1.01-1.19), 16% (1.03-1.30) and 29% (CI: 1.09-1.53) for each unit increase in score for factor 1 motivation, factor 2 capability and factor 3 opportunity respectively, indicating that these latent factors explained time veterinarians spent in an advisory role with sheep clients. There was a significant correlation between these factors suggesting influence of the associated beliefs between factors. This study provides insight into the nature and drivers of veterinarians' current behaviour and beliefs. These results could be further tested in behaviour intervention studies and help in designing efficient strategies aiming at promoting proactive health services offered by veterinarians on sheep farms in England and Wales., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

A 2009 UK Government report on veterinary expertise in food animal production highlighted that there was insufficient herd health expertise among veterinarians and lack of appropriate business models to deliver veterinary services to the livestock sector. Approximately two thirds of sheep farmers only contact their veterinarian for emergencies and one fifth have all year round contact. The aim of the current study was to understand sheep farmers' perception, the current and future role of veterinarians in flock health management using qualitative methodology. The eligibility criteria were male farmers with a flock size of at least 200 adult sheep. Seven focus groups of farmers (n=45) stratified by three regions and two age groups (≤50 and >50) were conducted. Thematic analysis of the discussions indicated that most farmers considered and used their veterinarian as a fire-fighter, whilst other advice was gathered free of charge when the veterinarian was on the farm for other reasons (typically seeing cattle) or by telephone. A small group of farmers were using their veterinarian or a sheep consultant proactively with regular contact and found this financially beneficial. Farmers indicated that the key barriers to using a veterinarian proactively were inconsistent service, high turnover of veterinarians, lack of expertise of sheep farming among veterinarians and concern about independence of advice. Although economics was also mentioned as a key barrier to using veterinarians more proactively, most farmers did not know where they gained and lost income from their flock; there was heavy reliance on the single farm payment scheme (SPS) and very few farmers kept records from which they could investigate where there were inefficiencies in production. Overall sheep farmers considered sheep farming complex and that each farm was unique and that they themselves were the experts to manage their flock. We conclude that there is an impasse: veterinarians might need to provide consistency and wide expertise beyond knowledge of disease and a model of how flock planning would be financially beneficial but until sheep farmers keep production records flock health planning cannot be rigorous and the financial benefits cannot be evaluated. Given the reliance on SPS by farmers an alternative model would be to require farmers to keep production records to comply with SPS. This might lead to flock health planning being adopted at a faster rate and so develop the UK sheep industry and make it more environmentally sustainable by reducing waste from disease and low productivity., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Responsibility for biosecurity in UK farming is being devolved from government to industry, with a greater emphasis on the veterinarian (vet)‐farmer relationship. Although social science has shown that care for animals is part of ‘good farming’, the British dairy sector sees a need to improve biosecurity. This research uses the good farmer concept to compare how vets and dairy farmers define good farming for biosecurity based on qualitative interviews with 28 vets and 15 dairy farmers in England. The results revealed two conflicting ‘good farmer’ identities: the large, commercial farmer who has the economic capital to invest in biosecurity and veterinary services; and the self‐sufficient stock keeper whose cultural and social capital lead them to manage herd health independently. These identities reflect changing ‘rules of the game’, following Bourdieu's use of the term, and increasing penetration of vets’ cultural capital into the sector. They involve different constructions of risk which need to be recognised within debates about good biosecurity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Footrot is a widespread, infectious cause of lameness in sheep, with major economic and welfare costs. The aims of this research were: (i) to quantify how veterinary surgeons’ beliefs regarding the efficacy of two treatments for footrot changed following a review of the evidence (ii) to obtain a consensus opinion following group discussions (iii) to capture complementary qualitative data to place their beliefs within a broader clinical context. Grounded in a Bayesian statistical framework, probabilistic elicitation (roulette method) was used to quantify the beliefs of eleven veterinary surgeons during two one-day workshops. There was considerable heterogeneity in veterinary surgeons’ beliefs before they listened to a review of the evidence. After hearing the evidence, seven participants quantifiably changed their beliefs. In particular, two participants who initially believed that foot trimming with topical oxytetracycline was the better treatment, changed to entirely favour systemic and topical oxytetracycline instead. The results suggest that a substantial amount of the variation in beliefs related to differences in veterinary surgeons’ knowledge of the evidence. Although considerable differences in opinion still remained after the evidence review, with several participants having non-overlapping 95% credible intervals, both groups did achieve a consensus opinion. Two key findings from the qualitative data were: (i) veterinary surgeons believed that farmers are unlikely to actively seek advice on lameness, suggesting a proactive veterinary approach is required (ii) more attention could be given to improving the way in which veterinary advice is delivered to farmers. In summary this study has: (i) demonstrated a practical method for probabilistically quantifying how veterinary surgeons’ beliefs change (ii) revealed that the evidence that currently exists is capable of changing veterinary opinion (iii) suggested that improved transfer of research knowledge into veterinary practice is needed (iv) identified some potential obstacles to the implementation of veterinary advice by farmers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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