Cargando…

Farmers' Uptake of Animal Health and Welfare Technological Innovations. Implications for Animal Health Policies

The paper analyses the uptake of animal health and welfare technologies by livestock farmers focusing on the identification of different behavioral patterns occurring in subpopulations of farmers and the assessment of the effect socio-economic and attitudinal factors have on these patterns. The tech...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Jiayi, Toma, Luiza, Barnes, Andrew P., Stott, Alistair
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6879451/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31824968
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00410
_version_ 1783473595729575936
author Liu, Jiayi
Toma, Luiza
Barnes, Andrew P.
Stott, Alistair
author_facet Liu, Jiayi
Toma, Luiza
Barnes, Andrew P.
Stott, Alistair
author_sort Liu, Jiayi
collection PubMed
description The paper analyses the uptake of animal health and welfare technologies by livestock farmers focusing on the identification of different behavioral patterns occurring in subpopulations of farmers and the assessment of the effect socio-economic and attitudinal factors have on these patterns. The technologies of interest include new genomic technologies, animal electronic identification (EID) for farm management, cattle surveillance, welfare qualitative behavioral assessment, anaerobic digestion, pedometers or activity monitors to detect oestrus and increase fertility/conception, and webcams/smart phones/tablets for animal husbandry. We use latent class analysis modeling and cross-section survey data to construct typologies of farmers based on technological uptake and heterogeneous characteristics. Our results suggest that, while three fifths of the farmers are “non-adopters,” a third is classified as “current adopters” of animal EID for farm management, and a twelfth as “future adopters” of either or more types of animal health and welfare technologies. Age, agricultural income, perceived difficulty to invest in new technologies, agri-environmental scheme membership, and frequency of access to information on animal EID for farm management and cattle surveillance through British Cattle Movement Service, are significant predictors of typology membership. The findings are policy relevant as they give quantitative evidence on the factors influencing technological uptake and, as such, help identify the most likely adopters and optimize the cost of targeting them. As information access was found to be among the factors influencing multiple technology adoption, policy instruments should include the provision of training as regards the implementation of technologies and their combined impact on farm. Farmers' adoption of interrelated innovations suggests the need to coordinate individual policies aimed at encouraging uptake of different technologies. As shown here, this would concern not only synchronizing animal health and welfare policies, but also their interaction with others such as agri-environmental ones. Moreover, the results show that animal health policies requiring regulatory compliance may lead to voluntary uptake of additional or complementary technologies which relate to not just meeting but exceeding standards of animal welfare and health practices.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6879451
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68794512019-12-10 Farmers' Uptake of Animal Health and Welfare Technological Innovations. Implications for Animal Health Policies Liu, Jiayi Toma, Luiza Barnes, Andrew P. Stott, Alistair Front Vet Sci Veterinary Science The paper analyses the uptake of animal health and welfare technologies by livestock farmers focusing on the identification of different behavioral patterns occurring in subpopulations of farmers and the assessment of the effect socio-economic and attitudinal factors have on these patterns. The technologies of interest include new genomic technologies, animal electronic identification (EID) for farm management, cattle surveillance, welfare qualitative behavioral assessment, anaerobic digestion, pedometers or activity monitors to detect oestrus and increase fertility/conception, and webcams/smart phones/tablets for animal husbandry. We use latent class analysis modeling and cross-section survey data to construct typologies of farmers based on technological uptake and heterogeneous characteristics. Our results suggest that, while three fifths of the farmers are “non-adopters,” a third is classified as “current adopters” of animal EID for farm management, and a twelfth as “future adopters” of either or more types of animal health and welfare technologies. Age, agricultural income, perceived difficulty to invest in new technologies, agri-environmental scheme membership, and frequency of access to information on animal EID for farm management and cattle surveillance through British Cattle Movement Service, are significant predictors of typology membership. The findings are policy relevant as they give quantitative evidence on the factors influencing technological uptake and, as such, help identify the most likely adopters and optimize the cost of targeting them. As information access was found to be among the factors influencing multiple technology adoption, policy instruments should include the provision of training as regards the implementation of technologies and their combined impact on farm. Farmers' adoption of interrelated innovations suggests the need to coordinate individual policies aimed at encouraging uptake of different technologies. As shown here, this would concern not only synchronizing animal health and welfare policies, but also their interaction with others such as agri-environmental ones. Moreover, the results show that animal health policies requiring regulatory compliance may lead to voluntary uptake of additional or complementary technologies which relate to not just meeting but exceeding standards of animal welfare and health practices. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-11-20 /pmc/articles/PMC6879451/ /pubmed/31824968 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00410 Text en Copyright © 2019 Liu, Toma, Barnes and Stott. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Veterinary Science
Liu, Jiayi
Toma, Luiza
Barnes, Andrew P.
Stott, Alistair
Farmers' Uptake of Animal Health and Welfare Technological Innovations. Implications for Animal Health Policies
title Farmers' Uptake of Animal Health and Welfare Technological Innovations. Implications for Animal Health Policies
title_full Farmers' Uptake of Animal Health and Welfare Technological Innovations. Implications for Animal Health Policies
title_fullStr Farmers' Uptake of Animal Health and Welfare Technological Innovations. Implications for Animal Health Policies
title_full_unstemmed Farmers' Uptake of Animal Health and Welfare Technological Innovations. Implications for Animal Health Policies
title_short Farmers' Uptake of Animal Health and Welfare Technological Innovations. Implications for Animal Health Policies
title_sort farmers' uptake of animal health and welfare technological innovations. implications for animal health policies
topic Veterinary Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6879451/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31824968
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00410
work_keys_str_mv AT liujiayi farmersuptakeofanimalhealthandwelfaretechnologicalinnovationsimplicationsforanimalhealthpolicies
AT tomaluiza farmersuptakeofanimalhealthandwelfaretechnologicalinnovationsimplicationsforanimalhealthpolicies
AT barnesandrewp farmersuptakeofanimalhealthandwelfaretechnologicalinnovationsimplicationsforanimalhealthpolicies
AT stottalistair farmersuptakeofanimalhealthandwelfaretechnologicalinnovationsimplicationsforanimalhealthpolicies