Open Access

Decision making on helminths in cattle: diagnostics, economics and human behaviour

  • Johannes Charlier1Email author,
  • Valérie De Waele1,
  • Els Ducheyne1,
  • Mariska van der Voort2,
  • Fiona Vande Velde3 and
  • Edwin Claerebout3
Irish Veterinary JournalIris Tréidliachta Éireann201669:14

DOI: 10.1186/s13620-016-0073-6

Received: 23 August 2016

Accepted: 20 September 2016

Published: 27 September 2016

Abstract

Helminth infections of cattle affect productivity in all classes of stock, and are amongst the most important production-limiting diseases of grazing ruminants. Over the last decade, there has been a shift in focus in the diagnosis of these infections from merely detecting presence/absence of infection towards detecting its impact on production. This has been facilitated by studies observing consistent negative correlations between helminth diagnostic test results and measures of productivity. Veterinarians are increasingly challenged to consider the economic aspects of their work, and the use of these tests should now be integrated in economic evaluation frameworks for improved decision making. In this paper, we review recent insights in the farm-specific economic impact of helminth infections on dairy cattle farms as well as in farmer attitudes and behaviour regarding helminth control. Combining better economic impact assessments of helminth infections together with a deeper understanding of the non-economic factors that drive a farmer’s animal health decisions should result in more effective control strategies and increased farmer satisfaction.

Keywords

Cattle Helminth Diagnosis Nematode Liver fluke Helminth Economics Communication

Background

Cattle are parasitized by various helminth species, the most important being gastrointestinal nematodes (GIN), lungworms and liver fluke. These pathogens can cause severe disease, affect productivity in all classes of stock, and are amongst the most important production-limiting diseases of grazing ruminants. Essentially all herds/flocks in a grass-based production system are affected. Infections with GIN and liver fluke are more chronic and the major economic impact is due to sub-clinical infections causing reduced growth, milk yield and fertility [1]. Infections with lungworm are more acute and can place a sudden high economic burden on a farm due to mortalities and sharp decreases in milk yield [2].

Over the last decade, the pressure on farm income has further increased due to higher production costs and fluctuating output prices [3]. Subtle changes in production efficiency can make the difference between profit and loss. Efficient farming with an optimal management of inputs such as stock, feed, and labour has therefore become increasingly important. Animal health decisions have a significant impact on production efficiency, but are also subject to resource scarcity and budget constraints. Veterinarians are thus increasingly challenged to consider the economic aspects of their work for a farmer. Hence, economic evaluation frameworks are needed that can be integrated in decision making.

Once the economic value of specific animal health interventions can be demonstrated, veterinarians are faced with a second problem. How can they convince the farmer to implement their advice? Often the claim of an economic benefit will not be sufficient to induce a real change in farm management, even if it is grounded on solid scientific evidence. In other words, we need to understand the complete rationality of farmers’ behaviour in order to improve compliance with the provided advice [4].

In recent years, research in these 2 fields (i.e. economics and socio-psychology) is emerging in the field of animal health in general as well as in the field of helminth control in ruminants. In this paper, we discuss the diagnostic tools and methods that are available to assess the economic impact of helminth infections on (dairy) cattle farms as well as recent insights in farmer attitudes and behaviour that can help in the development of effective communication strategies to increase the uptake of proposed intervention strategies.

Diagnosis to assess production impact

Over the last decade, an important paradigm shift occurred in the diagnosis of parasitic helminth infections in cattle. There has been a shift in focus from merely detecting presence/absence of infection towards detecting its impact on production. This is important because i) helminth infections are highly prevalent (“a cow without parasites is not a cow”) and ii) not every infection is of economic relevance. For example, fasciolosis is mostly a chronic disease, and often it is already known when the infection is around on the farm. Instead of demonstrating presence/absence of infection in a cow or herd, it is more relevant to identify the associated production losses to convince farmers that further diagnosis, and control measures, are worth considering [5]. This paradigm shift has been made possible by epidemiological research that observed consistent negative correlations between helminth diagnostic test results and measures of productivity.

In first-season grazing cattle, the serum pepsinogen concentration can be used to discriminate between different levels of Ostertagia ostertagi-infection and morbidity and associated production losses [6]. However, the lack of standardization between laboratories, the relatively high cost of the test and the fact that much of its informative value is lost soon after housing of the animals, when there is no new exposure to incoming infective larvae, are important constrains to its widespread uptake [7, 8]. Consequently, current research is investigating the value of O. ostertagi serum antibody levels in assessing production impacts, as it could overcome some of these drawbacks [9]. Faecal egg counts (FECs) of GIN correlate well with initial infection rates approximately 2 months after turnout on pasture for first-season grazing animals. However, after that period, host immunity reduces the correlation with actual worm burden and it seems impossible to indicate what weight gains are obtained by the end of the first grazing season, from FECs measured early in the season [10]. Therefore, FECs are primarily considered useful for understanding epidemiology rather than assessing infection levels or production impact [11].

In adult cattle, consistent negative relationships have been demonstrated between antibody levels to GIN or liver fluke in bulk tank milk and herd-average milk production [1214]. In beef cattle, the quantification of antibody levels against GIN and liver fluke in meat juice obtained in the abattoir has been proposed, showing negative correlations with carcass weight and conformation score [15]. Studies have also shown negative relationships between helminth-specific antibody levels and reproduction and mortality indices at the herd level [16, 17]. Most recently, negative correlations have been established between a bulk tank milk ELISA for lungworm infection and milk production. Results showed a difference in milk production and milk fat of 1.0–1.7 kg/cow per day and 0.08–0.14 % between lungworm positive and negative herds, respectively [18], providing for the first time evidence of the economic importance of subclinical lungworm infections.

These established relationships can be used to indicate helminth-induced production losses associated with a test result of a specific farm. Several limitations with this approach remain, such as the lack of species-specificity of the measured antibody levels and the rather weak relationship between detected antibody levels and production responses after anthelmintic treatment. Nonetheless, it provides an ally to communicate to farmers on the importance (or not) of a helminth infection and to help monitor potential production losses [19].

From production to economic impact

The impact of helminths on animal productivity is increasingly well understood [19], but the economic impact depends on multiple other factors such as farm-specific input and output prices and local regulations. The established links between diagnostics for different helminth infections with production losses, now allow to include this information in models that aim to assess the economic impact of the infection at regional or even farm-level. Such economic models of animal diseases are important because they contribute to balance expenditures on disease control with the actual disease costs and to evaluate the economic attractiveness of animal health interventions compared to other investment opportunities [20].

Considerable progress has been made in recent years with models to estimate the cost of helminth infections and/or interventions measures at the farm level. Some of these models are available to veterinarians at www.ParaCalc.com [21]. First, there is a deterministic spread-sheet model (“cost of worm infections”) where results from diagnostic methods (i.e. pepsinogen assay and serum ELISA for growing cattle and bulk tank milk ELISAs for adult cattle) to monitor the helminth infection status on a dairy herd and anthelmintic usage are used as input parameters. It produces a report with the expected annual loss due to infections with GIN and liver fluke to discuss with the farmer. The model is useful to evaluate the general importance of the infections, to monitor the evolution of costs across different years and to benchmark the results with peers. However, it does not consider the principle of “recoverable loss” [22]. How much of the total costs induced by helminth infections can be avoided by intervention measures? This is often difficult to determine because: (i) it is impossible to eliminate the infection from a farm; (ii) there can be remaining tissue damage after effective treatment or (iii) re-infection can occur at varying levels. Obtaining such information requires the set-up of experiments, by preference under commercial farming conditions, that evaluate the impact of specific intervention measures. Such information is increasingly available, especially to evaluate the production effects of strategic anthelmintic usage e.g. [23, 24], and this information was used to develop the second tool “treatment strategies against gastrointestinal worms” on ParaCalc.com. It estimates the likely economic benefit and uncertainty of a number of anthelmintic treatment strategies of adult cows and produces a report to discuss with the farmer.

Most recently, the farm-specific economic impact of helminth infections has also been studied using efficiency analysis [25]. Efficiency analysis studies the conversion of input(s) into output(s) and compares the current performance level of a farm with the performance level of peer farms with similar production technologies [26]. Using this approach, GIN infections appeared to mainly constrain the efficient transformation of pasture, health related costs and labour into milk. The inefficiency related with GIN infections was reduced when both high levels of concentrates, and also high levels of roughage were supplied [27]. Efficiency analysis has the potential to identify different improvement paths depending on the farm-specific production process and this was recently investigated by van der Voort et al. [28]. Farms were clustered in 3 groups depending on technical efficiency (TE) and input use. In low TE farms with a relatively low use of concentrates, there was no correlation between TE and level of exposure to GIN. Therefore, they are unlikely to improve economic performance by lowering the exposure to GIN infections. Analysis suggested they could best improve economic performance by making more use of concentrates. In farms with an intermediate TE and relatively high use of concentrates, there was a strong negative correlation between GIN exposure and TE. In addition, analysis showed that economic performance could be improved by substituting part of concentrates by grazing, which could lead to a higher infection pressure. This makes monitoring GIN infection and intervening by anthelmintic treatment when significant GIN exposure is observed, crucial in this group. In farms with the highest TE and intermediate use of concentrates, there was also a negative correlation between TE and GIN exposure. Analysis suggested that the economic performance could be improved by both reducing input use and reducing infection. In conclusion, efficiency analysis allows to establish links between animal disease and input use and input transformation. It can detect trade-offs and synergies between animal health interventions and input-output transformation. Whereas the implications of a vet’s advice are traditionally restrained to animal health issues and the improvement of technical key performance indicators, with this technique, we should be able to place our advice better in the whole-farm economic context. This approach is still in the research phase, but it is to be expected that it will be integrated in practical decision support tools for herd health management in the medium term.

Non-economic factors that drive animal health decisions

Suppose that we have a high quality economic assessment report at hand to discuss with the farmer and that we are able to distil clear suggestions to improve his/her animal health management. Will this be sufficient for the farmer to implement our proposed strategies? It is now well understood that farmers’ decisions about their enterprises are not solely based on financial and business criteria. Farmers’ motives are rooted in deeply held values and also influenced by attitudes, beliefs and social norms [4]. Understanding all the values that drive farmer behaviour requires socio-psychological research, aimed to increase understanding of a farmer’s rationality and more effective advisory interventions [4, 29].

In the field of helminth control, Vande Velde et al. [30] investigated farmers’ intention to adopt diagnostic methods before implementing anthelmintic drugs in cattle. Based on two fundamental theories in the fields of behavioural and health psychology, a survey was carried out in 574 Flemish dairy farms to investigate the influence of the following variables: ‘attitude towards preventive use of anthelmintics’, ‘attitude towards diagnostic tools’, ‘subjective norms’, ‘behavioural control’ and ‘perceived risk’. The results showed that ‘attitude towards diagnostic methods’ and ‘subjective norms’; i.e. the influence of significant others, had the strongest, positive influence on adoption intention of diagnostic methods. ‘Attitude towards the preventive use of anthelmintic drugs’ had a negative effect on adoption intention of the diagnostic methods. ‘Perceived risk’, which was defined as the perceived susceptibility and severity of anthelmintic resistance on their farm, had no effect on the intention to adopt diagnostic methods. These results implicate that if we want to persuade farmers to make more use of diagnosis before anthelmintic treatment decisions are made, we should reinforce their positive attitude towards diagnosis and make use of their social network, which could implicate family, peer-farmers and the veterinarian. At present, the argument of anthelmintic resistance has no or little effect on dairy farmers’ intention to use diagnostics for helminth diseases, at least in this study population.

In order to investigate how veterinarians can improve their communication, we can learn from socio-psychological studies that have been conducted on different topics such as biosecurity, notification of notifiable diseases, antimicrobial usage and mastitis management [3133]. Although the results cannot be extrapolated beyond their scope, similar patterns often emerge. Identification of different behavioural types is a first step towards better adapted advice and increased compliance. In the UK, Rehman et al. [34] differentiated farmers with a family orientation from entrepreneurs, life-stylers, hobbyists and independent farmers, respectively. In Brazil, Pereira et al. [35] were able to classify beef farmers that were considered receptive towards novel technology adoption based on their main sets of goals and values: the professional farmer, the committed environmentalist, the profit maximiser and the aspirant top farmer. The study showed a considerable diversity of values and goals even within this subset of progressive farmers. This diversity should be taken into account, because the advice that is in accordance with and reinforce the farmer’s core values will have the highest uptake. Age may also be an important criterion as Hamilton et al. [32] showed that young farmers (<45 years) tend be more entrepreneurial and amenable to change. Finally, the subjective norms, i.e. the social network surrounding the farmer, is often one of the most influential factors in driving animal health decisions [4, 36]. This can be exploited by the organization of farmer groups to provide a forum where farmers can explore management options and learn from each others’ views and experience [37]. Group learning is most successful if it includes experiential learning, group autonomy and builds on ongoing relationships and learning opportunities [38]. A catch can be that endemic livestock disease can be viewed as a problem for ‘bad’ farmers and not an issue for those individuals who manage their stock well. As such, there may be a low motivation to form groups to address what is largely perceived as an individual problem [39].

Conclusion

Several diagnostic tools and methods are now available to assess the economic impact of helminth infections on (dairy) cattle farms. These include herd anamnesis in combination with serum pepsinogen assay and bulk tank milk ELISA for O. ostertagi, F. hepatica and D. viviparus. The use of these diagnostics is being integrated in decision support tools that should allow the veterinarian to estimate the economic consequences of his/her interventions and advice regarding helminth control. This can contribute in general to a ‘diagnosis before treatment’ approach and thus increase the sustainability of anthelmintic control by a better grounded and selective treatment [40].

Besides economic evaluations, more emphasis will have to be put on how advice is most effectively communicated. With the current plethora in websites, blogs and other communication channels, farmers are looking for trustworthy sources where they find reliable information that fits their situation. Private veterinarians are widely seen as such credible sources of information [36, 41]. Yet it appears that our communicative skills can still be improved. Farmers in general do not voluntarily communicate on their needs regarding animal health [42] and, therefore, veterinarians should actively seek those needs. Further, being more explicit during farm visits in discussing the farmer’s goals and priorities and providing a clear summary at the end of the visit of any advice given, would mean a significant step forward towards improved veterinary communication [42]. By understanding the core goals and values of different types of farmers, advice can be better targeted and framed in order to achieve higher compliance and farmer satisfaction.

Abbreviations

FEC: 

Fecal egg count

GIN: 

Gastrointestinal nematodes

TE: 

Technical efficiency

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on an invited keynote presentation at the World Buiatrics Congress, 3-8th July 2016 in Dublin. We are grateful to the congress organisers for this invitation and the Editorial Office of the Irish Veterinary Journal for the review invitation.

Funding

Not applicable.

Availability of data and material

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Authors’ contributions

JC wrote the manuscript. JC and EC conceived the overall structure of the manuscript. MvdV contributed to economic impact assessment; FVdV contributed to the human behaviour aspects. VdW and ED read and commented on the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Avia-GIS
(2)
Chair Group Business Economics, Wageningen University
(3)
Department of Virology, Parasitology and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University

References

  1. Morgan ER, Charlier J, Hendrickx G, Biggeri A, Catalan D, von Samson-Himmelstjerna G, Demeler J, et al. Global Change and Helminth Infections in Grazing Ruminants: Impacts, Trends and Sustainable Solutions. Agriculture. 2013;3:484–502.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Holzhauer M, van Schaik G, Saatkamp HW, Ploeger HW. Lungworm outbreaks in adult dairy cows: estimating economic losses and lessons to be learned. Vet Rec. 2011;169(19):494.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Thornton PK. Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010;365(1554):2853–67.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Garforth C. Livestock keepers’ reasons for doing and not doing things which governments, vets and scientists would like them to do. Zoonoses Public Health. 2015;62 Suppl 1:29–38.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Charlier J, Vercruysse J, Morgan E, van Dijk J, Williams DJ. Recent advances in the diagnosis, impact on production and prediction of Fasciola hepatica in cattle. Parasitology. 2014;141(3):326–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dorny P, Shaw DJ, Vercruysse J. The determination at housing of exposure to gastrointestinal nematode infections in first-grazing season calves. Vet Parasitol. 1999;80(4):325–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Charlier J, Dorny P, Levecke B, Demeler J, von Samson-Himmelstjerna G, Höglund J, et al. Serum pepsinogen levels to monitor gastrointestinal nematode infections in cattle revisited. Res Vet Sci. 2011;90(3):451–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Eysker M, Ploeger HW. Value of present diagnostic methods for gastrointestinal nematode infections in ruminants. Parasitology. 2000;120(Suppl):S109–19.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Merlin A, Chauvin A, Madouasse A, Froger S, Bareille N, Chartier C. Explaining variability in first grazing season heifer growth combining individually measured parasitological and clinical indicators with exposure to gastrointestinal nematode infection based on grazing management practice. Vet Parasitol. 2016;225:61–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Shaw DJ, Vercruysse J, Claerebout E, Dorny P. Gastrointestinal nematode infections of first-grazing season calves in Western Europe: associations between parasitological, physiological and physical factors. Vet Parasitol. 1998;75(2–3):133–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Sargison ND. Understanding the epidemiology of gastrointestinal parasitic infections in sheep: What does a faecal helminth egg count tell us? Small Rumin Res. 2013;110:78–81.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Charlier J, Claerebout E, Duchateau L, Vercruysse J. A survey to determine relationships between bulk tank milk antibodies against Ostertagia ostertagi and milk production parameters. Vet Parasitol. 2005;129(1–2):67–75.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Mezo M, Gonzalez-Warleta M, Castro-Hermida JA, Muino L, Ubeira FM. Association between anti-F. hepatica antibody levels in milk and production losses in dairy cows. Vet Parasitol. 2011;180(3–4):237–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Sanchez J, Dohoo I. A bulk tank milk survey of Ostertagia ostertagi antibodies in dairy herds in Prince Edward Island and their relationship with herd management factors and milk yield. Can Vet J. 2002;43(6):454–9.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Charlier J, De Cat A, Forbes A, Vercruysse J. Measurement of antibodies to gastrointestinal nematodes and liver fluke in meat juice of beef cattle and associations with carcass parameters. Vet Parasitol. 2009;166(3–4):235–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Delafosse A. The association between Ostertagia ostertagi antibodies in bulk tank milk samples and parameters linked to cattle reproduction and mortality. Vet Parasitol. 2013;197(1–2):212–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Sanchez J, Nødtvedt A, Dohoo I, DesCoteaux L. The effect of eprinomectin treatment at calving on reproduction parameters in adult dairy cows in Canada. Prev Vet Med. 2002;56(2):165–77.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Dank M, Holzhauer M, Veldhuis A, Frankena K. Association between Dictyocaulus viviparus status and milk production parameters in Dutch dairy herds. J Dairy Sci. 2015;98(11):7741–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Charlier J, van der Voort M, Kenyon F, Skuce P, Vercruysse J. Chasing helminths and their economic impact on farmed ruminants. Trends Parasitol. 2014;30(7):361–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Yalcin C, Stott AW, Logue DN, Gunn J. The economic impact of mastitis-control procedures used in Scottish dairy herds with high bulk-tank somatic-cell counts. Prev Vet Med. 1999;41(2–3):135–49.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Charlier J, van der Voort M, Hogeveen H, Vercruysse J. ParaCalc®-a novel tool to evaluate the economic importance of worm infections on the dairy farm. Vet Parasitol. 2012;184(2–4):204–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Perry BD, Randolph TF. Improving the assessment of the economic impact of parasitic diseases and of their control in production animals. Vet Parasitol. 1999;84(3–4):145–68.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Höglund J, Dahlstrom F, Sollenberg S, Hessle A. Weight gain-based targeted selective treatments (TST) of gastrointestinal nematodes in first-season grazing cattle. Vet Parasitol. 2013;196(3–4):358–65.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Verschave SH, Vercruysse J, Forbes A, Opsomer G, Hostens M, Duchateau L, et al. Non-invasive indicators associated with the milk yield response after anthelmintic treatment at calving in dairy cows. BMC Vet Res. 2014;10:264.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. van der Voort M, Charlier J, Lauwers L, Vercruysse J, Van Huylenbroeck G, Van Meensel J. Conceptual framework for analysing farm-specific economic effects of helminth infections in ruminants and control strategies. Prev Vet Med. 2013;109(3–4):228–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Coelli TJ, Rao DSP, O’ Donnell CJ, Battese GE. An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis. Secondth ed. New York: Springer Science and Business Media; 2005.Google Scholar
  27. van der Voort M, Van Meensel J, Lauwers L, Vercruysse J, Van Huylenbroeck G, Charlier J. A stochastic frontier approach to study the relationship between gastrointestinal nematode infections and technical efficiency of dairy farms. J Dairy Sci. 2014;97(6):3498–508.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. van der Voort M, Van Meensel J, Lauwers L, Van Huylenbroeck G, Charlier J. The relation between input–output transformation and gastrointestinal nematode infections on dairy farms. Animal. 2016;10(2):274–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Charlier J, Vande Velde FV, van der Voort M, Van Meensel J, Lauwers L, Cauberghe V, et al. ECONOHEALTH: Placing helminth infections of livestock in an economic and social context. Vet Parasitol. 2015;212(1–2):62–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Vande Velde F, Claerebout E, Cauberghe V, Hudders L, Van Loo H, Vercruysse J, et al. Diagnosis before treatment: Identifying dairy farmers’ determinants for the adoption of sustainable practices in gastrointestinal nematode control. Vet Parasitol. 2015;212(3–4):308–17.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Delgado AH, Norby B, Dean WR, McIntosh WA, Scott HM. Utilizing qualitative methods in survey design: examining Texas cattle producers’ intent to participate in foot-and-mouth disease detection and control. Prev Vet Med. 2012;103(2–3):120–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Hamilton W, Ruto E. Entrepreneurial younger farmers and the “Young Farmer Problem” in England. Agric For. 2016;62:61–9.Google Scholar
  33. Jansen J, van den Borne BH, Renes RJ, van Schaik G, Lam TJ, Leeuwis C. Explaining mastitis incidence in Dutch dairy farming: the influence of farmers’ attitudes and behaviour. Prev Vet Med. 2009;92(3):210–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Rehman T, Garforth K, McKemey C, Yates C, Rana R. Farmers’ behavioural inclinations and their influence on the anticipated response to the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy in England. J Farm Manag. 2008;13:281–308.Google Scholar
  35. Pereira MA, Fairweather JR, Woodford KB, Nuthall PL. Assessing the diversity of values and goals amongst Brazilian commercial-scale progressive beef farmers using Q-methodology. Agric Syst. 2016;144:1–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Jones PJ, Marier EA, Tranter RB, Wu G, Watson E, Teale CJ. Factors affecting dairy farmers’ attitudes towards antimicrobial medicine usage in cattle in England and Wales. Prev Vet Med. 2015;121(1–2):30–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Vaarst M, Nissen TB, Ostergaard S, Klaas IC, Bennedsgaard TW, Christensen J. Danish stable schools for experiential common learning in groups of organic dairy farmers. J Dairy Sci. 2007;90(5):2543–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Millar J, Curtis A. Moving farmer knowledge beyond the farm gate: An Australian study of farmer knowledge in group learning. Eur J Agric Educ Ext. 1997;4:133–42.Google Scholar
  39. Heffernan C, Nielsen L, Thomson K, Gunn G. An exploration of the drivers to bio-security collective action among a sample of UK cattle and sheep farmers. Prev Vet Med. 2008;87(3–4):358–72.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Charlier J, Morgan ER, Rinaldi L, van Dijk J, Demeler J, Höglund J, et al. Practices to optimise gastrointestinal nematode control on sheep, goat and cattle farms in Europe using targeted (selective) treatments. Vet Rec. 2014;175(10):250–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Frössling J, Nöremark M. Differing perceptions - Swedish farmers’ views of infectious disease control. Vet Med Sci. 2016;2:54–68.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Derks M, van Woudenbergh B, Boender M, Kremer W, van Werven T, Hogeveen H. Veterinarian awareness of farmer goals and attitudes to herd health management in The Netherlands. Vet J. 2013;198(1):224–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016