Review of pig health and welfare surveillance data sources in England and Wales.

The capability to set baselines and monitor trends of health and welfare conditions is an important requirement for livestock industries in order to maintain economic competitiveness and sustainability. Monitoring schemes evaluate the relative importance of conditions so that: appropriate actions can be determined, prioritised and implemented; new and (re)emerging conditions can be promptly detected and the effectiveness of any actions can be measured. In 2011, the national pig levy board published a strategy document highlighting health and welfare conditions of importance to the pig industry that were to be targeted for control. In this study, existing schemes that could be used to monitor or set baselines for these conditions in pigs were reviewed, in order to evaluate their suitability for this purpose, using a standardised surveillance evaluation framework (SERVAL). The schemes included: government-funded surveillance of endemic and exotic disease and pig welfare; industry surveillance of endemic diseases; regional schemes for improving pig health; national accreditation schemes and information collected by retailers, private veterinary practices and private laboratories. The evaluation of each scheme highlights its capability to monitor any of the targeted conditions. This study identifies the biases, strengths and gaps in each scheme and provides discussion of opportunities for future development.

Changes in perceptions and motivators that influence the implementation of on-farm Salmonella control measures by pig farmers in England.

This study presents British farmers' perception of, and barriers to, implementing Salmonella control on pig farms. Four farms that had implemented interventions and their 33 close contacts (known to the intervention farmers) took part in interviews before (phase 1) and after (phase 2) intervention trials to assess the difference in perception over time. Their results were compared against those from nine randomly selected control farms. The hypothesis was that farms implementing interventions whether or not successful, would influence their close contacts' opinion over time. Based on a 'pathway to disease control' model, three intrinsic factors known to influence motivation - attitudes, social norms and self-efficacy - were evaluated. Farmers mentioned that successful interventions on a farm would attract their attention. The use of an appropriate communication strategy is therefore recommended to stimulate farmers' intent to implement control measures. Both before and after the intervention trials, all farmers had a positive attitude towards Salmonella control and felt that their peers and authorities were supportive of controlling Salmonella on farms. In phase 2, however, farmers were more likely to want to share the burden of control with other stakeholders along the food chain and their belief in self-efficacy had weakened. Whilst social norms were not associated with an intention to take action on control, a positive attitude towards Salmonella control and a belief in self-efficacy were more likely to result in an intent to control. In phase 2, farmers with an intent to implement an intervention appeared to have a greater, but not significant positive belief in self-efficacy (p=0.108). This study confirmed that farmers recognised their responsibility for controlling Salmonella in pork - even though their confidence in their ability to control Salmonella decreased over time - and believed that responsibility should be shared with the rest of the production chain. It showed that farmers trusted their veterinarian as a source of advice to guide them during the process of implementing change, though an increase in farms' Salmonella seroprevalence score (Zoonosis National Control Programme (ZNCP) score) especially for those with a low ZNCP score was also likely to influence their behaviour. Getting concrete feedback from customers or a tangible benefit from their action was a strong incentive especially for farms with a ZNCP score higher than 50%. The study also revealed a need to validate which measures are effective as farmers did not perceive that the current advised interventions were worth the additional effort.