Adaptive conjoint analysis to determine perceived risk factors of farmers, veterinarians and AI technicians for introduction of BHV1 to dairy farms

A study was carried out to determine the possibility of a more-closed farming system for (Dutch) dairy farms. The objective of the study was to provide effective and economically profitable management advice for improving the animal-health status of farms. Management measures will only be successfully applied if supported by farmers and their advisors (such as veterinarians). Therefore, the perception of farmers and advisors of the importance of various risk factors for the introduction of diseases to a farm was determined by using bovine herpes virus type 1 (BHV1) as an example.As part of the study, an evening-long workshop was organized and run thrice. In total, 49 farmers, veterinarians and AI technicians participated in these workshops. The computerized questionnaire technique was based on adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA). ACA has the advantage that participants can work with a large number of risk factors in a relatively short period of time. Another advantage of ACA (compared with standard questionnaires) is that the answers from each participant can be checked with regard to consistency with respect to the importance assigned to them. Data from participants with inconsistent responses can be excluded from further analyses. The results of the ACA interview were compared with the risk factors reported in the literature as being associated with BHV1 status (e.g. purchase of cattle, participation in cattle shows) and with farmers' actual management to prevent the introduction of diseases.The workshop participants were all operating in the dairy sector and they seemed well aware of the risk of direct animal contacts for the introduction of BHV1. Farmers thought visitors to be more risky than did AI technicians and (especially) veterinarians. Farmers who purchased cattle or participated in cattle shows were of the opinion that the risks of direct animal contacts were more important than did farmers who were not involved in those practices. Farmers whose farms were BHV1-positive (and participated in cattle shows more often) thought the risk of participation smaller than did farmers with BHV1-negative farms