Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:20:02.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

European organic dairy farmers’ preference for animal health management within the farm management system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 July 2015

F. J. S. van Soest ,
M. C. M. Mourits  and
H. Hogeveen
F. J. S. van Soest*
Affiliation:
Business Economics Group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, the Netherlands
M. C. M. Mourits
Affiliation:
Business Economics Group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, the Netherlands
H. Hogeveen
Affiliation:
Business Economics Group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, the Netherlands Department of Farm Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 7, 3584 CL Utrecht, the Netherlands
*
†E-mail: felix.vansoest@wur.nl
Get access

Abstract

The expertise and knowledge of veterinary advisors on improving animal health management is key towards a better herd health status. However, veterinary advisors are not always aware of the goals and priorities of dairy farmers. To dairy farmers animal health is only one aspect of farm management and resources may be allocated to other more preferred areas. Veterinary advisors may experience this as non-compliant with their advice. To explore the preferences of European Union (EU) organic dairy farmers for improved animal health management relative to other farm management areas an adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA) was performed. A total of 215 farmers participated originating from organic dairy farms in France (n=70), Germany (n=60), Spain (n=28) and Sweden (n=57). The management areas udder health and claw health represented animal health management whereas barn, calf and pasture management represented potential conflicting management areas. Results indicate that EU organic dairy farmers differ in their preferences for improved animal health management within the farming system. In general, improved calf management was the most preferred area and improved claw health management was found to be least preferred, the remaining areas were of intermediate interest. Cluster analyses on claw health measures and udder health measures resulted in respectively seven and nine distinct preference profiles. The results indicate a high degree of variation in farmers’ preference, which cannot be explained by the typical herd characteristics. With the individual preferences revealed by ACA, a veterinary advisor can now find out whether his intended advice is directed at a favourable or unfavourable management area of the farmer. If the latter is the case the veterinarian should first create awareness of the problem to the farmer. Insights in individual farmers preferences will allow veterinary advisors to better understand why farmers were incompliant with their advice and improve their advice by showing, for example, the potential benefits of their advice.

Keywords

dairy cowsorganic farmingpreferencesfarm managementadaptive conjoint analysis
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 11 , November 2015 , pp. 1875 - 1883
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahlman, T, Berglund, B, Rydhmer, L and Strandberg, E 2011. Culling reasons in organic and conventional dairy herds and genotype by environment interaction for longevity. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 1568–1575.Google Scholar
Bicalho, RC, Warnick, LD and Guard, CL 2008. Strategies to analyze milk losses caused by diseases with potential incidence throughout the lactation: a lameness example. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 2653–2661.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boersema, JSC, Noordhuizen, JPTM and Lievaart, JJ 2013. Hazard perception of Dutch farmers and veterinarians related to dairy young stock rearing. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 5027–5034.Google Scholar
Bruijnis, M, Hogeveen, H, Garforth, C and Stassen, E 2013. Dairy farmers’ attitudes and intentions towards improving dairy cow foot health. Livestock Science 155, 103–113.Google Scholar
Bruijnis, MRN, Hogeveen, H and Stassen, EN 2010. Assessing economic consequences of foot disorders in dairy cattle using a dynamic stochastic simulation model. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 2419–2432.Google Scholar
Burton, M, Rigby, D and Young, T 1999. Analysis of the determinants of adoption of organic horticultural techniques in the UK. Journal of Agricultural Economics 50, 47–63.Google Scholar
Da Silva, JC, Noordhuizen, JPTM, Vagneur, M, Bexiga, R, Gelfert, CC and Baumgartner, W 2006. Veterinary dairy herd health management in Europe constraints and perspectives. Veterinary Quarterly 28, 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derks, M, van Woudenbergh, B, Boender, M, Kremer, W, van Werven, T and Hogeveen, H 2013. Veterinarian awareness of farmer goals and attitudes to herd health management in the Netherlands. The Veterinary Journal 198, 224–228.Google Scholar
Dufour, S, Fréchette, A, Barkema, HW, Mussell, A and Scholl, DT 2011. Invited review: effect of udder health management practices on herd somatic cell count. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 563–579.Google Scholar
Edwards-Jones, G 2006. Modelling farmer decision-making: concepts, progress and challenges. Animal Science 82, 783–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eurostat 2014. Statistics on Certified organic livestock by type of species. Retrieved 1 August, 2014, from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat.Google Scholar
Halasa, T, Huijps, K, Osteras, O and Hogeveen, H 2007. Economic effects of bovine mastitis and mastitis management: a review. Veterinary Quarterly 29, 18–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hogeveen, H, Huijps, K and Lam, TJGM 2011. Economic aspects of mastitis: new developments. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 59, 16–23.Google Scholar
Hovi, M, Sundrum, A and Thamsborg, SM 2003. Animal health and welfare in organic livestock production in Europe: current state and future challenges. Livestock Production Science 80, 41–53.Google Scholar
Hughner, RS, McDonagh, P, Prothero, A, Shultz, CJ and Stanton, J 2007. Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 6, 94–110.Google Scholar
Huijps, K, Hogeveen, H, Lam, TJGM and Huirne, RBM 2009. Preferences of cost factors for mastitis management among Dutch dairy farmers using adaptive conjoint analysis. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 92, 351–359.Google Scholar
Huijps, K, Lam, TJ and Hogeveen, H 2008. Costs of mastitis: facts and perception. The Journal of Dairy Research 75, 113–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jansen, J, van Schaik, G, Renes, RJ and Lam, TJ 2010. The effect of a national mastitis control program on the attitudes, knowledge, and behavior of farmers in the Netherlands. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 5737–5747.Google Scholar
Mathijs, E. 2003. Social capital and farmers’ willingness to adopt countryside stewardship schemes. Outlook on Agriculture 32, 13–16.Google Scholar
Mingoti, SA and Lima, JO 2006. Comparing SOM neural network with Fuzzy c-means, K-means and traditional hierarchical clustering algorithms. European Journal of Operational Research 174, 1742–1759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, C and Gasson, R 1988. Farmer participation in voluntary land diversion schemes: some predictions from a survey. Journal of Rural Studies 4, 365–375.Google Scholar
Rosati, A and Aumaitre, A 2004. Organic dairy farming in Europe. Livestock Production Science 90, 41–51.Google Scholar
Sawtooth Software 2006. Technical papers series. The ACA/HB module for hierarchical bayes estimation. Version 3. Sawtooth Software Inc., Sequin, WA.Google Scholar
Sawtooth Software 2007. ACA system for adaptive conjoint analysis. Version 6. Sawtooth Software Inc., Sequin, WA.Google Scholar
Sawtooth Software 2014. ACA user manual system. Version 8. Sawtooth Software Inc., Orem, UT.Google Scholar
Seegers, H, Beaudeau, F, Fourichon, C and Bareille, N 1998. Reasons for culling in French Holstein cows. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 36, 257–271.Google Scholar
Solano, C, León, H, Pérez, E and Herrero, M 2003. The role of personal information sources on the decision-making process of Costa Rican dairy farmers. Agricultural Systems 76, 3–18.Google Scholar
Stiglbauer, KE, Cicconi-Hogan, KM, Richert, R, Schukken, YH, Ruegg, PL and Gamroth, M 2013. Assessment of herd management on organic and conventional dairy farms in the United States. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 1290–1300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutherland, M, Webster, J and Sutherland, I 2013. Animal health and welfare issues facing organic production systems. Animals 3, 1021–1035.Google Scholar
Valeeva, NI, Lam, TJ and Hogeveen, H 2007. Motivation of dairy farmers to improve mastitis management. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 4466–4477.Google Scholar
Vanslembrouck, I, Van Huylenbroeck, G and Verbeke, W 2002. Determinants of the willingness of Belgian farmers to participate in agri-environmental measures. Journal of Agricultural Economics 53, 489–511.Google Scholar
Warnick, LD, Janssen, D, Guard, CL and Gröhn, YT 2001. The effect of lameness on milk production in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 1988–1997.Google Scholar