IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v35y2018i1d10.1007_s10460-017-9817-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Routine inertia and reactionary response in animal health best practice

Author

Listed:
  • Emma Jane Dillon

    (Rural Economy and Development Programme, Teagasc)

  • Thia Hennessy

    (University College Cork)

  • Peter Howley

    (University of York)

  • John Cullinan

    (National University of Ireland)

  • Kevin Heanue

    (Business Planning and Performance Evaluation Department, Teagasc)

  • Anthony Cawley

    (Rural Economy and Development Programme, Teagasc)

Abstract

Animal health is a key factor affecting the economic efficiency of the dairy industry. Improvements in animal health are also of relevance to society more broadly, given important implications for animal welfare, food safety and quality. Although the economic gains of best practice with regard to animal health have been well documented, many farmers are not adopting optimal herd management techniques. This paper utilises nationally representative farm-level data from Ireland for 2013 to identify drivers and barriers to the adoption of best practice with regard to on-farm mastitis management. Exploratory factor analysis is used to derive measures of farmers’ attitudes towards animal health and mastitis and econometric techniques are employed to empirically assess the influence of these on the uptake of beneficial herd health management practices. A number of focus groups were also undertaken to complement the analysis. This paper concludes that farmers’ attitudes towards animal health are not a key driver in the uptake of best practice, although perceived disease risk is of relevance. A number of interesting issues arise in identifying barriers to the uptake of best practice, these include the possibility of routine inertia, i.e., farmers do not deviate from the routine developed around mastitis prevention until there is an indication of infection, as well as constraints around the availability of labour and time. Farmer behaviour with respect to mastitis management can thus be considered as reactionary as opposed to precautionary. This research highlights the valuable role of the extension agent but concludes that engagement around knowledge transfer and technology adoption is particularly complex.

Suggested Citation

  • Emma Jane Dillon & Thia Hennessy & Peter Howley & John Cullinan & Kevin Heanue & Anthony Cawley, 2018. "Routine inertia and reactionary response in animal health best practice," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(1), pages 207-221, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:35:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s10460-017-9817-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-017-9817-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-017-9817-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10460-017-9817-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Kahneman & Robert Sugden, 2005. "Experienced Utility as a Standard of Policy Evaluation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 161-181, September.
    2. Marra, Michele & Pannell, David J. & Abadi Ghadim, Amir, 2003. "The economics of risk, uncertainty and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies: where are we on the learning curve?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 75(2-3), pages 215-234.
    3. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    4. Ben D. MacArthur & Richard O. C. Oreffo, 2005. "Bridging the gap," Nature, Nature, vol. 433(7021), pages 19-19, January.
    5. Khanal, Aditya R. & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & MacDonald, James M., 2010. "Adoption of Technology, Management Practices, and Production Systems in U.S. Milk Production," 2010 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2010, Orlando, Florida 56496, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    6. Benjamin M. Gramig & Christopher A. Wolf & Frank Lupi, 2010. "Understanding Adoption of Livestock Health Management Practices: The Case of Bovine Leukosis Virus," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 58(3), pages 343-360, September.
    7. Kirsten Huijps & Henk Hogeveen & Gerrit Antonides & Natalia I. Valeeva & Theo J.G.M. Lam & Alfons G.J.M. Oude Lansink, 2010. "Sub-optimal economic behaviour with respect to mastitis management," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 37(4), pages 553-568, December.
    8. Howley, Peter & Buckley, Cathal & O Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary, 2015. "Explaining the economic ‘irrationality’ of farmers' land use behaviour: The role of productivist attitudes and non-pecuniary benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 186-193.
    9. Pat Auger & Timothy Devinney, 2007. "Do What Consumers Say Matter? The Misalignment of Preferences with Unconstrained Ethical Intentions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 76(4), pages 361-383, December.
    10. Yesuf, M. & Bluffstone, R., 2007. "Risk aversion in low-income countries: Experimental evidence from Ethiopia," IFPRI discussion papers 715, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    11. Rehman, T. & McKemey, K. & Yates, C.M. & Cooke, R.J. & Garforth, C.J. & Tranter, R.B. & Park, J.R. & Dorward, P.T., 2007. "Identifying and understanding factors influencing the uptake of new technologies on dairy farms in SW England using the theory of reasoned action," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 281-293, May.
    12. John Fairweather & Hugh Campbell, 2003. "Environmental beliefs and farm practices of New Zealand farmers Contrasting pathways to sustainability," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 20(3), pages 287-300, September.
    13. Joyce Willock & Ian J. Deary & Gareth Edwards‐Jones & Gavin J. Gibson & Murray J. McGregor & Alistair Sutherland & J. Barry Dent & Oliver Morgan & Robert Grieve, 1999. "The Role of Attitudes and Objectives in Farmer Decision Making: Business and Environmentally‐Oriented Behaviour in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 286-303, May.
    14. Peter Howley & Emma Dillon & Thia Hennessy, 2014. "It’s not all about the money: understanding farmers’ labor allocation choices," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 31(2), pages 261-271, June.
    15. Howley, Peter, 2015. "The Happy Farmer: The Effect Of Non-Pecuniary Benefits On Farmers’ Behavior," 89th Annual Conference, April 13-15, 2015, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 204289, Agricultural Economics Society.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Iordanis Parikoglou & Grigorios Emvalomatis & Fiona Thorne, 2022. "Precision livestock agriculture and productive efficiency: The case of milk recording in Ireland," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(S1), pages 109-120, November.
    2. Balaine, Lorraine & Dillon, Emma J. & Läpple, Doris & Lynch, John, 2020. "Can technology help achieve sustainable intensification? Evidence from milk recording on Irish dairy farms," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    3. Anthony Cawley & Kevin Heanue & Rachel Hilliard & Cathal O’Donoghue & Maura Sheehan, 2023. "How Knowledge Transfer Impact Happens at the Farm Level: Insights from Advisers and Farmers in the Irish Agricultural Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-24, February.
    4. Balaine, Lorraine & Buckley, Cathal & Breen, James & Krol, Dominika, 2023. "Heterogeneity in the effect of GHG mitigation strategies on Irish dairy farms," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334540, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Peter Howley & Emma Dillon & Kevin Heanue & David Meredith, 2017. "Worth the Risk? The Behavioural Path to Well-Being," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(2), pages 534-552, June.
    2. Areal, Francisco J. & Riesgo, Laura & Gómez-Barbero, Manuel & Rodríguez-Cerezo, Emilio, 2012. "Consequences of a coexistence policy on the adoption of GMHT crops in the European Union," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 401-411.
    3. François J Dessart & Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & René van Bavel, 2019. "Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 417-471.
    4. Shah, Sayed Kifayat & Zhongjun, Tang, 2021. "Elaborating on the consumer’s intention–behavior gap regarding 5G technology: The moderating role of the product market-creation ability," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    5. Geoghegan, Cathal & Kinsella, Anne & O’Donoghue, Cathal, 2015. "Policy Drivers of Land Mobility in Irish Agriculture," 150th Seminar, October 22-23, 2015, Edinburgh, Scotland 212658, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Hyland, John J. & Heanue, Kevin & McKillop, Jessica & Micha, Evgenia, 2018. "Factors influencing dairy farmers’ adoption of best management grazing practices," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 562-571.
    7. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    8. Gómez-Limón, José A. & Gutiérrez-Martín, Carlos & Riesgo, Laura, 2016. "Modeling at farm level: Positive Multi-Attribute Utility Programming," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 17-27.
    9. Joachim P. Hasebrook & Leonie Michalak & Anna Wessels & Sabine Koenig & Stefan Spierling & Stefan Kirmsse, 2022. "Green Behavior: Factors Influencing Behavioral Intention and Actual Environmental Behavior of Employees in the Financial Service Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-35, August.
    10. Deribe Assefa Aga & N. Noorderhaven & B. Vallejo, 2018. "Project beneficiary participation and behavioural intentions promoting project sustainability: The mediating role of psychological ownership," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 36(5), pages 527-546, September.
    11. Spash, Clive L. & Vatn, Arild, 2006. "Transferring environmental value estimates: Issues and alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 379-388, December.
    12. Oscar Montes de Oca Munguia & Rick Llewellyn, 2020. "The Adopters versus the Technology: Which Matters More when Predicting or Explaining Adoption?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 80-91, March.
    13. Alex Hiller & Tony Woodall, 2019. "Everything Flows: A Pragmatist Perspective of Trade-Offs and Value in Ethical Consumption," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 157(4), pages 893-912, July.
    14. Mohamed Ghali & Maha Ben Jaballah & Nejla Ben Arfa & Annie Sigwalt, 2022. "Analysis of factors that influence adoption of agroecological practices in viticulture," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 103(3), pages 179-209, September.
    15. Jeffrey E. Stambaugh & John Martinez & G. T. Lumpkin & Niyati Kataria, 0. "How well do EO measures and entrepreneurial behavior match?," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-21.
    16. Joana dos Santos Gonçalves & Ricardo Mateus & José Dinis Silvestre & Ana R. Pereira Roders, 2021. "Beyond Good Intentions: The Role of the Building Passport for the Sustainable Conservation of Built Heritage to Behavioural Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-19, July.
    17. Robert Huber & Hang Xiong & Kevin Keller & Robert Finger, 2022. "Bridging behavioural factors and standard bio‐economic modelling in an agent‐based modelling framework," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 35-63, February.
    18. Daxini, Amar & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary & Buckley, Cathal & Barnes, Andrew P., 2018. "Factors influencing farmers' intentions to adopt nutrient management planning: accounting for heterogeneity," 166th Seminar, August 30-31, 2018, Galway, West of Ireland 276183, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Yang, Xin & Zhou, Xiaohe & Deng, Xiangzheng, 2022. "Modeling farmers’ adoption of low-carbon agricultural technology in Jianghan Plain, China: An examination of the theory of planned behavior," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    20. Takashi Yamano & Srinivasulu Rajendran & Maria Malabayabas, 2015. "Farmers’ self-perception toward agricultural technology adoption: evidence on adoption of submergence-tolerant rice in Eastern India," Journal of Social and Economic Development, Springer;Institute for Social and Economic Change, vol. 17(2), pages 260-274, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:35:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s10460-017-9817-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.