Skip to main content

Farm characteristics and perceptions regarding costs contribute to the adoption of biosecurity in Finnish pig and cattle farms

Abstract

The goal of this study was to estimate how the perceived costs of biosecurity measures and the characteristics of the farm and the producer influence the adoption of four biosecurity measures: (1) the use of protective clothing when entering an animal shelter and (2) the use of protective shoes when entering an animal shelter, (3) the verification of the health status of animals coming to the farm, and (4) the use of a carcass container to temporarily store dead animals at the farm. Questionnaire data from 852 Finnish livestock farms were analysed by a logistic regression model. The higher the producers perceived the cost of the biosecurity measure the less likely they were to adopt that measure. However, this response was inelastic. The results suggest that the use of biosecurity could be promoted by providing producers with economic incentives to follow stricter biosecurity policy. University education and the producer’s activity to maintain his/her professional knowledge had a positive effect on the adoption of biosecurity measures. Also factors such as the producer’s gender, farm size and production type contributed significantly to the adoption of biosecurity measures. The ongoing structural change in the livestock sector likely increases the use of biosecurity measures as larger farms were more likely to adopt biosecurity measures.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Bennett R (2003) The ‘direct costs’ of livestock disease: the development of a system of models for the analysis of 30 endemic livestock diseases in Great Britain. J Agric Econ 54:55–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Berentsen PBM, Dijkhuizen AA, Oskam AJ (1992) A dynamic model for cost-benefit analyses of foot-and-mouth disease control strategies. Prev Vet Med 12:229–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Boklund A, Toft N, Alban L, Uttenthal Å (2009) Comparing the epidemiological and economic effects of control strategies against classical swine fever in Denmark. Prev Vet Med 90:180–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brandt AW, Sanderson MW, DeGroot BD, Thomson DU, Hollis LC (2008) Biocontainment, biosecurity, and security practices in beef feedyards. J Am Vet Med Assoc 15:262–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Burrell A (2002) Animal disease epidemics: implications for production, policy and trade. Outlook Agric 31:151–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Casal J, de Manuel A, Mateu E, Martin M (2007) Biosecurity measures on swine farms in Spain: perceptions by farmers and their relationship to current on-farm measures. Prev Vet Med 82:138–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Civic Consulting (2011) Management of risks from epidemic livestock diseases: overview of key issues and comparison of compensation and cost-sharing systems in selected countries, background report led by Frank Alleweldt (Germany) for OECD (2012) report: livestock diseases: prevention, control and compensation schemes. OECD Publishing, Paris

  8. Fasina FO, Lazarus DD, Spencer BT, Makinde AA, Bastos AD (2012) Cost implications of African swine fever in smallholder farrow-to-finish units: economic benefits of disease prevention through biosecurity. Transbound Emerg Dis 59:244–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fraser RW, Williams NT, Powell LF, Cook AJC (2010) Reducing campylobacter and salmonella infection: two studies of the economic cost and attitude to adoption of on-farm biosecurity measures. Zoonoses Public Health 57:109–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gramig BM, Horan RD (2011) Jointly-determined livestock disease dynamics and decentralised economic behaviour. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 55:393–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gramig BM, Horan RD, Wolf CA (2009) Livestock disease indemnity design when moral hazard is followed by adverse selection. Am J Agric Econ 91:627–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Heikkilä J (2010) Economics of biosecurity across levels of decision-making: a review. Agron Sustain Dev 31:119–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hennessy DA (2007) Behavioral incentives, equilibrium endemic disease, and health management policy for farmed animals. Am J Agric Econ 89:698–711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hennessy DA, Roosen J, Jensen HH (2005) Infectious disease, productivity, and scale in open and closed animal production systems. Am J Agric Econ 87:900–917

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kahn CM, Line S (eds) (2010) The Merck veterinary manual, 10th edn. Merck, U.S.A, 2945 p

    Google Scholar 

  16. LeSage JP (2005) Econometrics Toolbox. http://www.spatial-econometrics.com, Downloaded March 2006

  17. Mangen M-JJ, Burrell AM (2003) Who gains, who loses? Welfare effects of classical swine fever epidemics in the Netherlands. Eur Rev Agric Econ 30:125–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Neumann EJ, Kliebenstein JB, Johnson CD, Mabry JW, Bush EJ, Seitzinger AH, Green AL, Zimmerman JJ (2005) Assessment of the economic impact of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome on swine production in the United States. J Am Vet Med Assoc 227:385–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Niemi JK, Sinisalo A, Lehtonen H, Lyytikäinen T, Sahlström L, Virtanen T (2012) Kotieläintalouden rakennemuutos – millainen tila jatkaa ja missä? In: Schulman N, Kauppinen H (eds) Maataloustieteen Päivät 2012, Helsinki, Suomen Maataloustieteellisen Seuran julkaisuja no 28. Available at: www.smts.fi. (In Finnish)

  20. Pyykkönen P, Bäckman S, Puttaa E (2013) Structural change in Finnish livestock farming. PTT Working Papers 143, Helsinki. 51 p. (In Finnish with an English abstract)

  21. Ribbens S, Dewulf J, Koenen F, Mintiens K, de Sadeleer L, de Kruif A, Maes D (2008) A survey on biosecurity and management practices in Belgian pig herds. Prev Vet Med 83:228–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sahlström L, Virtanen T, Kyyrö J, Lyytikäinen T (2014) Biosecurity on Finnish cattle, pig and sheep farms—results from a questionnaire. Prev Vet Med 117:59–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schoenbaum MA, Disney WT (2003) Modeling alternative mitigation strategies for a hypothetical outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the United States. Prev Vet Med 58:25–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Siekkinen KM, Heikkilä J, Tammiranta N, Rosengren H (2012) Measuring the costs of biosecurity on poultry farms: a case study in broiler production in Finland. Acta Vet Scand 54:12, 8 p

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Stott AW, Gunn GJ (2008) Use of a benefit function to assess the relative investment potential of alternative farm animal disease prevention strategies. Prev Vet Med 84:179–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Thompson D, Muriel P, Russell D, Osborne P, Bromley A, Rowland M, Creigh-Tyte S, Brown C (2002) Economic costs of the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the United Kingdom in 2001. Rev Sci Tech Off Int Epizooties 21:675–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tisdell CA, Harrison SR, Ramsay GC (1999) The economic impacts of endemic diseases and disease control programmes. Rev Sci Tech Off Int Epizooties 18:380–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Toma L, Stott AW, Heffernan C, Ringrose S, Gunn GJ (2013) Determinants of biosecurity behaviour of British cattle and sheep farmers—a behavioural economics analysis. Prev Vet Med 108:321–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Valeeva N, van Asseldonk MAPM, Backus GBC (2011) Perceived risk and strategy efficacy as motivators of risk management strategy adoption to prevent diseases in pig farming. Prev Vet Med 102:284–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. van Schaik G (2000) Risk and economics of disease introduction into dairy farms, PhD thesis, Wageningen University, 195 p

  31. Velthuis AGJ, Mourits MCM (2007) Effectiveness of movement-prevention regulations to reduce the spread of foot-and-mouth disease in The Netherlands. Prev Vet Med 82:262–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jarkko K. Niemi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Niemi, J.K., Sahlström, L., Kyyrö, J. et al. Farm characteristics and perceptions regarding costs contribute to the adoption of biosecurity in Finnish pig and cattle farms. Rev Agric Food Environ Stud 97, 215–223 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41130-016-0022-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Livestock
  • Biosecurity
  • Costs
  • Questionnaire
  • Logistic regression
  • Disease risk

JEL classifications

  • Q12
  • Q16
  • Q19