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

Jarkko K. Niemi (), Leena Sahlström, Jonna Kyyrö, Tapani Lyytikäinen and Alina Sinisalo
Additional contact information
Jarkko K. Niemi: Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke)
Leena Sahlström: Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira
Jonna Kyyrö: Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira
Tapani Lyytikäinen: Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira
Alina Sinisalo: Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke)

Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, 2016, vol. 97, issue 4, No 1, 215-223

Abstract: 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.

Keywords: Livestock; Biosecurity; Costs; Questionnaire; Logistic regression; Disease risk; Q12; Q16; Q19 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41130-016-0022-5 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:roafes:v:97:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s41130-016-0022-5

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.springer ... nomics/journal/41130

DOI: 10.1007/s41130-016-0022-5

Access Statistics for this article

Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies is currently edited by Stephan Marette and Ronan Le Velly

More articles in Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().