Highlights
- •Surveys of small-scale ruminant keepers in Scotland: smallholders and crofters.
- •Sheep are more commonly kept than cattle, by each population.
- •Sheep movements are local, frequent, and often exempt from movement reporting.
- •Vets are an important source of animal health advice, alongside peer networks.
- •Self-reported biosecurity knowledge was associated with implementing more measures.
Abstract
Livestock keepers who operate on a small scale in the United Kingdom are often described as either smallholders or hobby farmers; however, this is not always the case. There is another distinct population in Scotland. The crofting system promotes the preservation of a way of life that is significant to the cultural heritage of Scotland, whilst at the same time utilising and maintaining marginal land that could otherwise be deemed of very low productive value. We developed two cross-sectional questionnaire surveys to gather descriptive data about individuals from two populations (crofters and smallholders) who kept biosecurity sheep and/or cattle. Our aim was to explore demographics, animal health, husbandry, and practices of these two communities, including how they may interact with other livestock sectors. Most respondents in each population kept sheep, with far fewer keeping cattle. There was a distinct geographical difference in the approximate location of respondents’ holdings. Movement of sheep was often local, temporary, and exempt from reporting to national databases. Visits from the vet were infrequent, but the vet remained an important source of animal health advice, alongside peer networks. The information from these surveys is valuable because policy decisions taken with predominantly larger, commercial-scale enterprises in mind also frequently apply to small-scale enterprises, even though these smaller enterprises may not have the same opportunity to influence those decisions or implement the requirements. Aspects of agricultural activity and food production at the scale explored in these surveys – including plurality of employment and diversification away from purely agricultural activities – are relevant to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals of sustainable cities and communities, zero hunger and life on land. In this context, competent authorities should support this type of context-sensitive agriculture, alongside seeking to maintain animal health and welfare standards at the highest possible level on a national scale. Our surveys contribute to improved understanding of how these enterprises function and therefore will support policy makers when considering the breadth of keepers and circumstances affected by rules and regulations governing agriculture.
Abbreviations
FVE
Federation of Veterinarians of Europe
SCF
Scottish Crofting Federation
CC
Crofting Commission
ECCS
Economic Conditions of Crofting Survey
JAC
June Agricultural Census
HIVSS
Highlands and Islands Veterinary Services Scheme
SEFARI
Scottish Environment, Food and Agriculture Research Institutions
IACS
Integrated Administration and Control System
CPH
County/Parish/Holding number
LSS
limited smallholder survey
Small holder ofter sheep biosecurity livestock movements
Introduction
Agricultural activities around the globe fall into a range of categories from subsistence farming through to vast enterprises engaged in intensive food production at the commercial level. The distribution of agriculture land and activity across this spectrum can vary between and within countries, and is likely to be influenced by factors including the interaction between topography, climate, and human society. Statistics collated by Eurostat demonstrate the ongoing importance of smaller holdings to the agricultural landscape of the European Union, with over 60% of EU holdings smaller than 5 ha in size. In light of challenges including climate change food insecurity, political instability and negative perception of some agricultural practices among some consumer groups, sustainability and resilience are becoming key requirements for agricultural systems. The potential for smaller-scale production to support food security and rural sustainability will be an important component of efforts to pursue the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals of sustainable cities and communities, zero hunger and life on land.
The system of crofting was established in the Scottish during the 19th century. Crofts differ from other agricultural holdings in the specific legislative framework that exists around them – more detailed description and discussion of which can be found. Crofts are typically small-scale enterprises. They are often sited on land that is less suited to modern commercial agricultural activities, but also have access to common grazing areas. Crofting occupies a unique space promoting the maintenance of marginal land and cultural heritage, with the capacity to contribute to the wider agri-food landscape through local food production. Anecdotally, agriculture in remote crofting communities is characterised by extensivity, with hardier livestock that are less productive in terms of output volume, but better suited to their environment. There can be challenges with access to and provision of veterinery services in remote locations. Some biosecurity measures that are considered standard practice in modern agricultural settings may be much less feasible for the crofting system. There is a cultural – and pragmatic – dimension, as the use of common grazing and sharing of breeding stock are traditional approaches, without which some livestock keepers might struggle to stay viable. More recently, changing demographics within the crofting sector have led to changes in how livestock are managed and the extent to which cooperative approaches are taken, with potential for a resultant effect on animal health and biosecurity.
The aim of this study was to gather information on respondent demographics, livestock numbers, basic management approaches, animal health and biosecurity from these two distinct small-scale ruminant-keeping populations. Despite anticipated similarities between these groups, the potential for important distinctions in how they function and contribute to Scottish agriculture cannot be overlooked. The objectives were to improve understanding of the management of sheep and cattle at this scale within Scotland, and to highlight potential areas of interest for further research in relation to animal health and biosecurity. This information could support policymaking in relation to national guidelines on biosecurity for sheep and cattle enterprises, such that those guidelines would include measures relevant to and feasible for keepers operating at this scale, or the scope for these keepers to adapt guidelines to be more practicable in their production context.
Materials and methods
Two cross-sectional questionnaire surveys were administered during the late spring of 2019: one survey targeted smallholders and the other targeted crofters.
3. Case definitions for the target populations
There is a mandatory requirement in the United Kingdom (UK) to register holdings with cattle and sheep ; in Scotland the Scottish Government’s Rural Payments and Services (RPS) department administers this register. A full master list of such holdings was made available to the research team, in pseudo-anonymised format, with an additional field included to identify holdings as either a croft or non-croft holding. The target respondent was the individual listed as the owner/occupier of a holding that met the criteria for the population in question. Crofts were defined as any holdings appearing on the RPS register with a flag to identify them as crofts and having at least one animal in any category of sheep or cattle. Smallholdings were defined as any holdings appearing on the RPS register with a flag to identify them as non-croft holdings, which were smaller than 20 ha in size and with no more than 5 cattle and/or 20 sheep in the Scottish Government June Agricultural Census (JAC)-2017. The limitation around holding size which was applied to the definition of a smallholding was based on information from Scottish Government. The delimiters of 5 cows or 20 sheep were selected because this represented the median number of cattle/sheep present on holdings smaller than 20 ha in size in JAC-2017.
Random sampling in R was used to select a) the sample frames and b) a reserve list from each sampling frame. The reserve list was intended as a source of additional suitable holdings, should any questionnaires be returned as undeliverable due to incorrect contact details (an experience gained from previous surveys). The contact details for the randomly selected individuals were then requested from and provided by Scottish Government, so that the questionnaires could be sent by post.
4. Sample size calculations
The number of questionnaires to send for each survey was calculated based on the size of the target population according to data from JAC-2017. It was assumed that responses to yes/no questions would be 50% each of “yes” and “no”, with an error of ± 5%, a desired confidence of 95%, and with an overall survey response rate of 40%. The final sample sizes were 800 for the smallholder survey and 1000 for the crofter survey.
5. Questionnaire development
The two questionnaires were designed to be self-administered. They were developed with input from veterinary and agriculturel buisness specialists with experience of the smallholding and crofting sectors. Whilst the overall subject matter was broadly replicated between questionnaires, for certain questions it was important to account for differences in the two populations under investigation. Preliminary versions were piloted with a representative from each of the target populations; amendments were then made to remove erroneous response options and to improve clarity. The final questionnaires included sections that explored.
- ii.The location of the cattle/sheep enterprise, e.g. whether the holding or croft was on marginal land or close to a town;
- iii.Husbandry, including housing of livestock and supplementary feeding;
- iv.Movement and sale of livestock, e.g. the reasons for moving cattle or sheep on/off the holding or croft, how often this occurred and by what means;
- v.Cattle and sheep health and biosecurity, including questions about the frequency of veterinary visits, membership of health schemes, approach to routine parasite treatment and vaccination.
Within these sections, differences between the populations – such as the practice of accessing common grazing for crofters, which is not relevant for smallholders – were accounted for. Respondents were also asked to evaluate – as low, medium, or high – their own levels of knowledge in relation to sheep and cattle health, nutrition, health and welfare legislation, and biosecurity. Copies of the final questionnaires are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
6. Ethical approval
Finalised questionnaires were submitted for internal ethical approval at Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), and then Scottish Government ethical approval according to SEFARI (Scottish Environment, Food and agriculture Research Institutions) requirements.
7. Survey methodology
The surveys ran concurrently in May 2019. The questionnaires were sent by post and a pre-paid return envelope was included to encourage response.
When a questionnaire was returned via the postal service as undeliverable, the first unused contact details from the appropriate replacement list were selected and a questionnaire posted to that individual.
As there was no identifier on the questionnaire forms to indicate the identity of the intended respondent, in the event of a questionnaire being apparently successfully delivered but no response being received it was not possible to identify the non-respondent; we therefore did not send targeted reminder letters to try and improve overall response rate.
8. Questionnaire data analysis
The surveys were initially analysed separately. Questionnaire responses were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet then converted into csv files. Data were analysed using within R version 4.0.2, and using STATA version 13.0.
Smallholders and crofters were designated as keeping sheep/cattle if they reported keeping more than zero of these animals on their holding/croft during 2018, and/or if they reported sheep/cattle in the “other” category of livestock present on their holding/croft (e.g. kept as pets).
As the list of biosecurity measures was extensive, when a respondent reported that they “Always” or “Usually” implemented a given measure, they were assigned a score of one for that measure. Any other response (“Half the time”, “Seldom”, “Never”) scored zero. This helped to summarise the information and demonstrate relative adoption of biosecurity measures between respondents.
Datasets were cleaned and summary statistics calculated. The denominator for each question was calculated based on the proportion of respondents eligible to answer. For example, where a subset of respondents indicated that they sold products from their livestock, further questions relating to product sales used only those individuals as the denominator. Where respondents could select more than one answer per question, total percentages did not necessarily sum to 100. Binary and categorical variables were summarised using percentages. Continuous variables were summarised using either the median and the interquartile range (IQR) for observations with a skewed distribution or the mean and standard deviation (SD) for those with a normal distribution.
Comparisons were made between the two questionnaires as well as within. The statistical tests used were the Spearman’s rho, Wilcoxon, or Kruskal-Wallis to compare continuous outcome variables with a skewed distribution, and the Chi-squared or Fishers Exact test to make comparisons between binary and categorical outcome variables. Associations between variables were tested where it was anticipated that one variable might influence the value of another – e.g. the influence of reported level of biosecurity knowledge on total biosecurity score. Representativeness of the data for respondents with sheep was evaluated by comparison with available data from ScotEID– a national sheep movement database recording all sheep movements that occur fully or partially within Scotland – for the 12-month period prior to the survey. These summary data were made available through collaboration with the Scottish Government’s Centre of Expertise on Animal Disease Outbreaks. Data from the surveys were compared with available ScotEID data in relation to three characteristics: i) number of sheep present; ii) geographical distribution of holdings by region; and iii) proportion of holdings with a recorded sheep movement (inward or outward) in the 12 months prior to the survey. Because ScotEID records movements based on County/Parish/Holding (CPH) number, and information on additional crofts was available for crofter survey respondents, the crofter data was analysed per croft, rather than per crofter, for the purposes of comparison with ScotEID. As the definition of a smallholding in the ScotEID data was based on a maximum of 20 sheep, comparisons were made in relation to those same three characteristics firstly for all smallholder data recorded in the survey and secondly for only those smallholder survey respondents with 20 sheep or fewer, termed the “limited smallholder survey” (LSS) here, for the purpose of presenting results.
Results
9.1. Survey response rate and eligibility
A total of 823 smallholder questionnaires were posted, five of which were returned by the postal service as undeliverable; five replacements were selected from the smallholder reserve list. A total of 163 questionnaires were returned – a response rate of just under 20%. A total of 993 crofter questionnaires were distributed, 18 of which were returned by the postal service as undeliverable; 18 replacements were selected from the crofter reserve list. A total of 102 questionnaires were returned – a response rate of just over 10%.
Respondents were considered eligible if they were designated as keeping cattle and/or sheep. Questionnaires were excluded from analysis if they were incomplete (i.e. only the first couple of questions were answered) or the respondent was ineligible.
Of the smallholder questionnaires, 46 (c. 28% of those returned) were excluded on the basis that they were incomplete, and two were excluded on the basis that the respondent kept neither sheep nor cattle. This left 115 smallholder questionnaires eligible for analysis, resulting in an eligible response rate of just under 14%.
Of the returned crofter questionnaires, five were excluded on the basis that they were incomplete, and one was excluded on the basis that the respondent kept neither sheep nor cattle. This left 96 crofter questionnaires eligible for analysis, resulting in an eligible response rate of just under 10%.
Based on this approach, there were in total:
98 smallholders who kept only sheep, 9 who kept sheep and cattle, and 8 who kept only cattle;
81 crofters who kept only sheep, 12 who kept sheep and cattle, and 3 who kept only cattle.
Due to differences in the design of the two questionnaires, to include questions that were appropriate for one population but not the other, not all questions are comparable. A brief comparison of results is made where it is a) appropriate, i.e. the wording allowed for a direct comparison; and b) relevant, i.e. there is scientific interest in understanding how the two populations differed. For brevity, respondents to the smallholder questionnaire and respondents to the crofter questionnaire will be referred to from this point onwards as “smallholders” and “crofters”, respectively.
10. Geographic representativeness
Location was requested at postcode district level (the first three or four characters of the full postcode). Due to the low response rate to both questionnaires, it was more informative to aggregate responses by postcode area (i.e. just the first two characters of the code). There was evidence, for each survey, that the proportion of questionnaires received from each postcode area differed from the proportion of questionnaires sent to each postcode area (smallholder p <0.001 and crofter p = 0.03). The effect was that slightly more smallholder responses were received from eastern central Scotland (EH) and slightly fewer from southwestern Scotland (KA) than would have been expected based on the distributed questionnaires. For crofters, many respondents from the herbides (HS; Western Isles) reported more than one croft, which led to an increased proportion of crofts in this area.
The geographic distribution of smallholders and crofters appeared to be very different, with a clear East-West divide. Crofters were predominantly in the highland and island , on marginal land, whilst smallholders were found close to more urbanised areas and across Scotland as a whole.
When compared to ScotEID, the Shetland Isles were under-represented in the smallholder survey and Lothian and the Scottish Borders were over-represented in the LSS. Grampian and the Orkney Isles were not represented in the crofter survey, and the Shetland Isles and Western Isles were both under-represented. In the data from ScotEID, there was an association between region and total number of sheep both for smallholdings and crofts (data not shown). This association was not observed in the survey data.
11. Respondents
The majority of respondents in each population were over 55 years old; a greater proportion of crofters were male than smallholders (p <0.01), and within the smallholder survey only, younger respondents were more likely to be female (p = 0.03). There was no evidence from either survey that age or gender was associated with biosecurity knowledge, biosecurity score or animal health knowledge.
Livestock Health
Veterinary were reported to be an important source of health advice about sheep and cattle, with 52.4% of smallholders and 49.5% of crofters listing the vet as their main advice source. Other sources of advice reported included smallholder/crofter friends, livestock associations, websites and for crofters the Scottish Crofting Federation (Table SI-4, supplementry inflamation. There was no evidence for a difference in how frequently smallholders reportedly contacted their vet, compared to crofters (p = 1). For each population, respondents most commonly indicated that they contact the vet less than once per year but always if there is a health problem (44 smallholders {38.3%} and 45 crofters {46.9%}), with approximately one quarter of respondents in each population reporting veterinary consultation twice per year or more (data not shown). Parasites and locomotor problems were common health issues reported by respondents to each survey. Internal and external parasite treatments were administered routinely, on the basis of evidence, and/or at time of purchase by 108 smallholders (93.9%) and 91 crofters (94.8%), although faecal egg counting (FEC) was reported by fewer than half of respondents to each survey (data not shown) and there was no difference between the two populations in reported use of FEC (p = 0.74 for cattle-keepers and p = 0.75 for sheep-keepers). Respondents to each survey reported that they used antibiotics under veterinary direction and most commonly for foot conditions (foot rot and lameness), pneumonia, and issues around lambing for both lambs and ewes. There was no evidence of a difference between populations in the proportions of respondents reporting routine antibiotic use for cattle (p = 1) or sheep (p = 0.22). The questions dealing with the source of veterinary medicinal products had a high non-response rate (17–39%) but, where information was provided, the vet was reported to be the principal source of vaccines and antibiotics. Specialist agricultural suppliers were also reported (by 49 smallholders {42.6%} and 56 crofters {58.3%}) and were more commonly the source of parasite treatments. Approximately half of smallholders (n = 57; 49.6%) and crofters (n = 43; 44.8%) reported that their sheep were vaccinated. Sheep were mainly vaccinated against Clostridial and Pastreulla Figures for cattle are not reported due to very low number of eligible respondents and low response rate within that group.
Table 4. Reported frequency of occurrence of generalised health problems in cattle and sheep owned by smallholders and crofters.
| Survey | Smallholders | Empty Cell | Crofters | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Empty Cell | Health issue | F | O/S | R/N | n/a | MD | Empty Cell | F | O/S | R/N | n/a | MD |
| N % | ||||||||||||
| Cattle n = 17 | Respiratory | 0 0% | 2 11.8% | 15 88.2% | 0 0% | 0 0% | Cattle n = 15 | 0 0% | 1 6.7% | 14 93.3% | 0 0% | 0 0% |
| Digestive | 0 0% | 2 11.8% | 15 88.2% | 0 0% | 0 0% | 0 0% | 1 6.7% | 14 93.3% | 0 0% | 0 0% | ||
| Locomotor | 0 0% | 4 23.5% | 12 70.6% | 0 0% | 1 5.9% | 0 0% | 1 6.7% | 12 80.0% | 0 0% | 2 13.3% | ||
| Reproductive | 0 0% | 0 0% | 14 82.4% | 2 11.8% | 1 5.9% | 0 0% | 0 0% | 12 80.0% | 2 13.3% | 1 6.7% | ||
| Internal parasites | 0 0% | 2 11.8% | 13 76.5% | 0 0% | 2 11.8% | 1 6.7% | 3 20.0% | 10 66.7% | 0 0% | 1 6.7% | ||
| External parasites | 0 0% | 5 29.4% | 11 64.7% | 0 0% | 1 5.9% | 0 0% | 6 40.0% | 8 53.3% | 0 0% | 1 6.7% | ||
| Sudden death | 0 0% | 1 5.9% | 13 76.5% | 0 0% | 3 17.6% | 0 0% | 0 0% | 14 93.3% | 0 0% | 1 6.7% | ||
| Sheep n = 107 | Respiratory | 1 0.9% | 13 12.1% | 86 80.4% | 1 0.9% | 6 5.6% | Sheep n = 93 | 0 0% | 8 8.6% | 77 82.8% | 0 0% | 8 8.6% |
| Digestive | 2 1.9% | 23 21.5% | 67 62.6% | 1 0.9% | 5 4.7% | 0 0% | 23 24.7% | 60 64.5% | 0 0% | 10 10.8% | ||
| Locomotor | 8 7.5% | 48 44.9% | 47 43.9% | 1 0.9% | 3 2.8% | 3 3.2% | 30 32.3% | 53 57.0% | 0 0% | 6 6.5% | ||
| Reproductive | 0 0% | 9 8.4% | 68 63.6% | 24 22.4% | 6 5.6% | 0 0% | 10 10.8% | 70 75.3% | 4 4.3% | 9 9.7% | ||
| Internal parasites | 1 0.9% | 27 25.2% | 75 70.2% | 1 0.9% | 3 2.8% | 1 1.1% | 27 29.0% | 58 62.4% | 0 0% | 7 7.5% | ||
| External parasites | 2 1.9% | 26 24.3% | 73 68.2% | 1 0.9% | 5 4.7% | 7 7.5% | 35 37.6% | 45 48.4% | 0 0% | 6 6.5% | ||
| Sudden death | 0 0% | 11 10.3% | 92 86.0% | 1 0.9% | 3 2.8% | 0 0% | 19 20.4% | 66 71.0% | 0 0% | 8 8.6% | ||
F = Frequently = more than 4 times a year or for several months in a year; O/S = Occasionally/Sometimes = between 1 and 4 times a year; R/N = Rarely (less than once a year) or never. MD = missing data.
15. Biosecurity Measures
No respondent scored the maximum possible biosecurity score of 32. The highest score for each population was 26 and there was no evidence of a statistical difference in mean score between the two populations (p = 0.21).
Livestock species
In each survey, the proportion of respondents keeping cattle was low. This may be because cattle are physically larger and require more space and feed to keep, which may make them less popular. The availability to crofters of common and seasonal grazing is likely to influence their ability to maintain cattle. For some crofters in particularly remote/harsh landscapes, their available land may be better suited to smaller, more agile species, and therefore sheep in preference to cattle. However, whilst respondents may not have identified themselves as cattle keepers in the formal categories we presented – beef, dairy, or dual purpose – some (from each population surveyed) did report cattle under the “additional livestock” categories. Respondents who included sheep and cattle in this category were included as eligible respondents for analysis of the survey data. The terminology used to report these animals included “stirks”, “pet cows” and “Highland cows”, suggesting that respondents felt our classification was not appropriate for the animals they kept. We may have captured these animals more easily by simply requiring respondents to report any bovine animals, rather than trying to establish differences in intended use from the outset; but the choice a respondent makes to define their animal is informative in itself, providing insight into motivation for keeping these animals. It can be challenging to strike a balance between the ideal of obtaining information in as much detail as possible, and the need to make questions straightforward and clear.
As a majority in each population reported keeping additional species besides sheep or cattle, the potential exists for biosecurity risk from the presence of multiple species close together, managed by the same person. This is an aspect of small-scale livestock keeping which may differ substantially from the situation on commercial farms, which may typically focus on a single species or, where multiple species are present, manage these as very separate enterprises or with different personnel. Reported species were most commonly poultry, which is significant given the documented transmission of Avian inflenza(H5N1) to cattle and goats in the United States of America, and in some cases respondents kept both poultry and pigs and/or goats as well as sheep/cattle. Most respondents keeping these species also reported inward and outward sheep movement, creating a potential for transmission of disease between their holding and others.
18. Biosecurity and movements
Biosecurity is a fundamental principle of livestock health management and offers keepers substantial “value” for their efforts, since many basic measures are relevant for multiple diseases. There is evidence that encouraging livestock keepers to engage with biosecurity approaches and put into place basic measures can be challenging and that improved understanding of farmers attitudes and behaviours towards biosecurity, as well as identity and influence networks, could facilitate more widespread uptake. The results from our study suggest financial motivators for biosecurity activities in both populations, implying that the cost of implementing measures could be a key consideration, particularly for small-scale keepers whose income generation may be supplementary to a primary income source.
Our study has highlighted, by the choice of biosecurity measures we include in the questionnaire, that biosecurity is context specific. Based on our data, smallholders were more likely to double-fence their holding boundaries than crofters, and to source sheep/cattle from holdings of known disease status. These findings may well reflect the different circumstances and locations in which these populations are managing their stock, and the fact that they must focus efforts where they can expect to have the most impact – possibly due to financial constraints, as mentioned above, or due to the way in which their own livestock system functions. It is arguably less important for a crofter to double-fence a portion of the land they occupy if their livestock will mingle with other livestock via common grazing, than it may be for a smallholder wishing to maintain high levels of external biosecurity on their holding. The findings relating to burial of livestock in areas where the practice was illegal also suggests that practical considerations may take precedence for some smallholders, even where they state that their knowledge of biosecurity is high. There was evidence for quarantine of new animals, though the cross-sectional nature of the study meant that we were not able to further explore how and where quarantine is carried out, nor to understand the reasons it is not done by those respondents who did not report quarantine of new stock. Practical considerations, such as availability of space and appropriate facilities, may be an issue for the livestock keepers targeted by these surveys. There is also scope for variation in how the term “quarantine” might be interpreted.
Several initiatives exist at the European level to address challenges around biosecurity implementation on farms, and the resulting implications for animal health. The BETTER consortium Action funded by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) is tackling challenges around understanding, communication and implementation of biosecurity measures among livestock keepers from participating countries. Crucially, within this project are components that focus on improving understanding among the scientific community of the barriers and drivers that exist within the farming community, which is likely to be particularly relevant for keepers of livestock operating at a smaller scale, who may have less opportunity to adopt biosecurity measures designed for commercial farms. The Action is also working to develop training materials to disseminate biosecurity knowledge to vets and farmers, which are two groups identified by respondents to our surveys as being a primary source of information and advice on animal health. Parallel to this COST Action there is the Horizon Europe FARM2FORK project, BIOSECURE working to develop and enhance current biosecurity systems, to engage in knowledge transfer to stakeholders throughout the production chain, and to assess the impact of these activities as the project progresses. These projects exemplify the importance of biosecurity to those involved in promotion of animal health and the economic health of livestock production more generally. Each of them will improve understanding of why certain producers do or do not adopt certain biosecurity measures, which may seem to be obvious or essential choices from an external perspective.
