Elsevier

Preventive Veterinary Medicine

Volume 92, Issue 4, 1 December 2009, Pages 351-359
Preventive Veterinary Medicine

Preferences of cost factors for mastitis management among Dutch dairy farmers using adaptive conjoint analysis

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2009.08.024Get rights and content

Abstract

Although many control practices to improve the mastitis situation on a farm and to reduce the economic losses of mastitis are available, the adoption rate and level of compliance of these measures are generally low. Implementing new measures involves costs, which can be divided into costs for the milking parlour and other issues. These costs were subdivided into long term investments, short term investments, labour, and change of routines. In traditional cost-benefit analyses all costs belonging to the different factors are set on a comparable monetary value. Although in an economic way this is correct, farmers may value some costs in a different way because of certain preferences, influencing the adoption rate of the mastitis reducing measures. The objectives of this study were to explore differences between preferences of cost factors according to Dutch dairy farmers, and to distinguish different groups of farmers accordingly. 136 farmers were questioned by adaptive conjoint analysis about their individual preferences. A large difference between these preferences was found. Taking individual preferences together, overall, long term investments in issues other than milking parlour were preferred most and changing routines in issues other than milking parlour were preferred least. The results of this study show that, given the large variation in the valuations, to improve the adoption rate of management measures it is important to take the preference of cost factors into account in advice given.

Introduction

Mastitis is an endemic disease that is considered to be one of the most frequent and costly disease in the dairy industry (Halasa et al., 2007). Although many control practices regarding the improvement of mastitis management are available, the adoption rate of these measures and the level of compliance of advice given are generally low. Several studies on the cost-efficiency of mastitis management measures have been conducted (e.g., Miller et al., 1993) but it is unclear why cost-efficient measures are not implemented by dairy farmers. One explanation can be that advice is based on averages, where a farmer feels that his farm is different from the average and thus considers the results as not valid for his specific situation. Farm-specific advice and calculations might overcome that problem (Huijps et al., 2008). Rehman et al. (2007) described that a positive attitude of farmers is essential for the successful adoption of new technologies or measures. This indicates that for an effective promotion of these new technologies or measures, the beliefs of the recipients have to be examined. Farmer's decisions are influenced by a range of factors: socio-demographics of the farmer, psychological make-up of the farmer, the characteristics of the farm household, structure of the farm business, the wider social environment, and the characteristics of the innovations to be adopted (Edward-Jones, 2006). According to the theory of reasoned action, suggested behaviour that is evaluated as positive, leads to a higher intention and thus is more likely to be adapted (Rehman et al., 2007). Therefore, in order to improve the adoption rate of management measures and the level of compliance of advice given it is important to know farmers’ preferences among competing cost factors.

Until now, little knowledge is available on the significance of differences in preferences for management measures. Traditionally, cost-benefit analyses have been used to improve the adoption rate of control measures. In these analyses, different cost factors such as long term investments, short term investments, labour, and changing of routines are transferred to a comparable monetary value. Farmers, however may value the different costs factors differently which might influence their decision on the adoption of certain management measures. Disregarding this in an approach to stimulate the improvement of mastitis management will probably lead to an unsatisfactory adoption rate of certain management measures. To be able to include the preference for cost factors in advice given, it would be useful to distinguish groups of farmers in this respect. Group characteristics could be implemented in decision support models to personalise advice given.

The objectives of this study were: (1) to explore and quantify the differences between farmers’ preferences for implementing different cost factors and (2) to distinguish different groups of farmers regarding the preference for cost factors.

Section snippets

Data collection

A total of 650 dairy farmers were approached to complete a questionnaire by three major Dutch dairy companies (Campina, DOC, and Friesland Foods). All farms delivering milk to these dairy companies were arrayed in herdsize sequence with every xth farm selected, where x represented the proportion of farms that needed to be selected to reach our goal of 650 farmers, thus including the entire range of herdsize in The Netherlands. The farm visits were based on a strict protocol and were carried out

Descriptive data

Of the 650 contacted farmers, 136 farmers participated in the study. On average, they milked 85 cows, with a quota of 719,000 kg on 50 ha of land and with 1.5 full time equivalents of labour. The average BTSCC was 198,000 cells/ml and the most common milking system was the herringbone parlour. Thirteen automatic milking systems were included. The average age of the farmers was 45 with on average 30 years experience. Of the farmers, 26.5% indicated to have a successor, 12.5% did not and 61% did

Discussion

From 650 contacted farmers, only 136 participated in the study. Because of privacy reasons the farmers were contacted by their dairy coop. This meant that no address information of these farmers was available to be able to check whether there were differences between included farmers and non-responders. We only had information about their quota, which did not differ from the farmers who were included in the study. For the non-responders, most likely reasons not to join a study such as ours are

Conclusion

This study shows that farmers differed in their preferences for different cost factors. Generalizing the individual preferences, long term investments in other farm areas than milking were considered most preferable and changing routines in other farm areas than milking were considered least preferable by dairy farmers. In order to improve the adoption rate of advised changes in management, it may be important to take individual farmer preferences into account.

Acknowledgements

This study is part of the five-year mastitis programme of the Dutch Udder Health Centre and was financially supported by the Dutch Dairy Board. The authors would like to thank Geert Hartlief, Geert Hegen, and Jos Uiterwaal for selecting and contacting the farmers, and the farmers for participating in the study. We would also like to thank Jeroen Jacobi who assisted with the farm visits.

References (18)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (31)

  • Pilot implementation of a newly developed bovine leukemia virus control program on 11 Alberta dairy farms

    2021, Journal of Dairy Science
    Citation Excerpt :

    Currently, it is up to the farmer to decide to control BLV and which strategy to pursue once infected cattle are identified. Nonetheless, culling or segregation strategies are often either not feasible or logistically challenging (Huijps et al., 2009), as the mean within-herd prevalence is relatively high at approximately 40% in Alberta, Canada (Kuczewski et al., 2019). Therefore, Canadian farmers often prefer to implement management practices that reduce BLV transmission, and thereby within-herd prevalence [Cindy Adams (Department of Veterinary Clinical and Diagnostic Sciences Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Calgary, Canada, and Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Canada), Frank van der Meer, and Alessa Kuczewski (both Department of Ecosystem and Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Calgary, Canada), unpublished data].

  • Economic evaluation of 4 bovine leukemia virus control strategies for Alberta dairy farms

    2019, Journal of Dairy Science
    Citation Excerpt :

    Although this strategy requires structural and organizational changes for dairy operations that might be difficult to implement, it offers an effective way of preventing new infections when uninfected replacement animals are difficult to realize. Even though these changes could be implemented in a reversible manner, segregation strategies for other diseases (e.g., mastitis) were found it to be rather unpopular due to the necessity of additional labor and altered routines (Huijps et al., 2009). In contrast to economically beneficial on-farm BLV control, negative net benefits were possible for some input variations in the sensitivity analysis.

  • Effects of a participatory approach, with systematic impact matrix analysis in herd health planning in organic dairy cattle herds

    2019, Animal
    Citation Excerpt :

    However, diseases such as mastitis and lameness are still common and have negative effects on animal health and welfare as well as on production economy (Whay et al., 1998; Ettema and Østergaard, 2006; Cha et al., 2010; Alvåsen et al., 2014). Providing evidence of the costs of poor animal health, and the economic benefits of improving herd health by different actions has, however, not always resulted in the expected changes in herd health management (Rehman et al., 2007; Huijps et al., 2009). One challenge is that farmers rely on advice from many different actors who have different professional perspectives, such as feeding, breeding, housing, milk quality, animal health and farm economics, that may be difficult to balance.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text