Dairy farmers’ decision‐making to implement biosecurity measures: A study of psychosocial factors

Abstract Biosecurity measures are a set of management procedures that prevent the risk of introducing and spreading infectious diseases to a farm, although these measures are rarely implemented in dairy farms. There are some studies that have identified that the decision to implement biosecurity measures can be influenced by several psychosocial factors (attitudes and behaviours). Thus, the objective of this study was to examine the psychosocial factors (and their interactions) influencing the implementation of biosecurity measures in dairy farms in Spain, through the views of dairy farmers and veterinarians from Catalonia (northeast Spain) and Galicia (northwest Spain). Face‐to‐face in‐depth interviews were performed with 16 dairy farmers (nine from Catalonia and seven from Galicia) and 16 veterinarians (eight from Catalonia and eight from Galicia). Grounded theory analysis was performed on the transcripts, following the subtopics of: information sources, individual factors of the farmer, social dynamics, official veterinary services and other factors. The study identified the importance of veterinarians as a source of information, including their communication skills, the individual experiences of farmers, traditions of the farms and availability of time and space in the dairy farmer's decisions making. Further, it suggests the need to deepen the knowledge of the farm workers and the obligatory biosecurity measures. This research represents a starting point to develop future strategies to improve the implementation of biosecurity measures in dairy farms.


| INTRODUC TI ON
Biosecurity can be defined as the methods that are used to stop a disease or infection from spreading from one person, animal, or place, to others (Cambridge Dictionary, 2019). On farms, this concept is defined as a set of management procedures that prevent the risk of introducing disease agents into a farm (external biosecurity) and that minimize the spread of disease agents within the herd (internal biosecurity) (FAO, 2010).
The implementation of biosecurity measures at the farm level requires the adoption of a set of attitudes and behaviours by individuals. These attitudes and behaviours are within the so-called psychosocial factors. Psychosocial factors refer to the combination of psychological (level of individual processes and meanings) and social (level of human society, social structure and social processes) factors. In this way, the psychological factors can mediate with the social factors, and the social factors can affect the individual factors (Stansfeld & Rasul, 2007).
Different studies have identified several psychosocial factors in dairy farmers and veterinarians that might influence their decision on whether or not to implement biosecurity measures.
In Spain, there are several profiles of dairy farmers and veterinarians. On one hand, there are conventional and organic farms, which differ mainly in that the latter have a holistic and integral approach (self-sufficiency) (Stonehouse, Clark, & Ogini, 2001) and must adhere to strict standards with regard to the HDA are constituted by farmers associations that aim to improve the health status of their herds, but the responsibilities of the contracted HDA can vary among regions. For example, in northwest Spain (i.e. Galicia) they are only involved in voluntary control programmes of non-regulated diseases (such as Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis (IBR), Bovine Virus Diarrhoea (BVD), paratuberculosis or neosporosis). Contrary, in northeast Spain (i.e. Catalonia) these veterinarians are just involved in control programmes of regulated diseases (such as tuberculosis or brucellosis). Nevertheless, in both cases, regardless their involvement with regulated or non-regulated diseases, the HDA are recognized by the public administration and regulated according with national legislation (Royal Decree 842/2011). These are hired by the farmer association itself through the payment of a quota.
And, although these associations can receive public funds for the development of these programs, these are not linked to public administration. And (b) veterinarians who carried out mandatory eradication programmes (i.e. regulated diseases) contracted by the OVS (i.e. public administration). They carry out the fieldwork of these programmes and provide all the data to the public administration. As a matter of fact, in Galicia, the control of tuberculosis and brucellosis is exclusively carried out by these veterinarians. In the case of Catalonia, on the contrary, just one HDA is responsible for the mandatory eradication programmes. Thus, in this area there are no specific entities charge of the control of non-regulated diseases. Finally, OVS monitor farms in various fields, such as animal health. The objective of this monitoring is for farmers to carry out certain management that are under direct or indirect official legal frameworks.
To improve biosecurity, it is necessary to identify the psychosocial factors (and their interactions) that can influence the decision for the implementation of biosecurity measures. Thus, an understanding of each of them and their interactions might allow establishing the individual and collective processes that would be necessary to improve the implementation of biosecurity measures on dairy farms. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the psychosocial factors of dairy farmers and veterinarians that determine the implementation of biosecurity measures in dairy farms in Spain. The study results could lead to providing recommendations to improve biosecurity in dairy farms.

| Area of study
The present study was carried out in two Autonomous Communities of Spain, Catalonia (northeast) and Galicia (northwest), which contain 11% and 38% of dairy cattle population, respectively (MAPAMA, 2019a), with a high level of dairy productivity, 66,270 and 231,331 tons per year, respectively (FEGA, 2019). However, the type of farms in both areas are very different, while in Catalonia the dairy farms have a medium-large size (240-890 lactating cows per farm), in Galicia they are smaller (33-73 lactating cows per farm) (MAPAMA, 2019b) and they have been developed around homes, being small family farms in most cases (De Llano, 1989).

| Study design
A qualitative research design was used in this study using individual in-depth interviews. These interviews were conducted with dairy farmers and veterinarians from both Autonomous Communities.
Participants were selected by intentional sampling to identify different discourses through maximum variation (Flick, 2014).

| In-depth interviews
For the in-depth interviews, a thematic guide was produced based mainly on scientific articles related to psychosocial factors in dairy farms. Subsequently, modifications were made based on the different views of the research group, and final corrections were made based on a pilot interview with a dairy farmer. In this way, a thematic guide was obtained composed of five topics: (a) knowledge; (b) direct actions; (c) sources of information; (d) experiences; and (e) expectations (Annex). The questions asked to the veterinarians were in relation to the dairy farmers' attitudes and behaviours.
The semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted faceto-face and tape-recorded. The interviews were conducted between 16 February and 19 July 2018 in Catalonia, and between 3 July and 12 July 2018 in Galicia.
A total of 32 participants were interviewed. Different profiles of dairy farmers and veterinarians were considered in order to have different views (Table 1). Only the profiles of PV and AHV were considered, but not OVS. However, for results and analysis, these profiles were unified only in farmers and veterinarians.
Each interview lasted between 45-90 min. In the first minutes of the interview, general questions were asked to generate a relaxed atmosphere between the interviewee and the interviewer. These questions were related to personal and professional topics, showing interest in knowing their answers. In the following minutes, in-depth questions were asked. These questions were directly related to the topics of the thematic guide. In the following minutes, corroborative questions were asked to answer the generated doubts. These questions were related to their answers to the previous questions.
The audios of the in-depth interviews were reviewed and subsequently transcribed to analyse their data. In the transcripts, the participants were labelled with an initial letter 'F' for dairy farmers or 'V' for veterinarians, followed by a 'C' for the people in Catalonia or a 'G' for Galicia, with a final numbering from 1 to 9 for their differentiation (e.g. FC1 refers to a farmer in Catalonia).

| Analysis of data
The data collected (answers of the participants) were analysed using ATLAS.ti 8.2.34, a software based on grounded theory. Grounded theory is a method of interpretative analysis that allows developing a theory that includes social processes and specific concepts (Tesch, 1990;Trinidad, Carrero, & Soriano, 2006). This method is based on constant comparative processes, theoretical criteria and conceptual saturations to provide explanations and important applications (Glaser & Strauss, 1967;Trinidad et al., 2006).
Throughout the discourses of participants, the software allowed us to recognize a set of segments of information that were of interest for the research objectives (i.e. codes, also called concepts or categories).
Moreover, it allowed to generate a set of stand-alone ideas based on these discourses for the researchers themselves (i.e. memos) (ATLAS.ti, 2019). In this way, the software introduced the discourses of participants as citations, which were associated to codes (codes groups), and memos.
The previous results were then sent via e-mail to the participants so that they could provide some feedback. Thus, this feedback was taken into account when interpreting the results of the present study.

| Information sources
The interviewees indicated that farmers can use different sources of information to learn about biosecurity, but they pointed out veterinarians and other farmers as the most relevant sources.
The farmers emphasized that veterinarians know the farms in more detail and, therefore, have a greater capacity to influence the decision to apply biosecurity measures by insisting and persisting on the possible risks to which the farms are exposed. Veterinarians suggest options to the farmers that may be viable depending on the priorities that the farms have. These suggestions, in the opinion of veterinarians, are given spontaneously or as a result of a direct consultation, since they do not want their farmers to believe that they have a conflict of interest.
The interviewed also commented that the veterinarian profile can influence advice on biosecurity, for example, the HDA veterinarians. This veterinarian profile advises on biosecurity and raises awareness directly or indirectly about these measures in their daily practice. In addition, the voluntary membership to an HDA by dairy farms was linked to an improvement in the sanitary status of the farm due to a greater biosecurity awareness: decisions. However, other relationships were also described that were 'more distant' due to the limited periods of time they share, such as with the AHV from public animal health companies of only a few hours per year, different from those of clinical, reproduction, or nutrition. In the same way, in the interviews, 'close' relationships were also described to be characterized by a friendly treatment (i.e. due to the dynamics of nearby social circles). In these dynamics, there may be interactions that involve personal areas with reciprocal understandings and decisions mutually agreed directly or indirectly. These relationships were linked to the size of the farms (more on small ones), and the results that farmers can observe regarding the advice given by the veterinarian. It was also mentioned that a friendly treatment could lead to the farmers ignoring a mistake by the veterinarians, unlike an unfriendly treatment.
However, there were opposing opinions among veterinarians. Some of them were in favour of a 'close' relationship with the farmer, involving personal and professional aspects, while others preferred a purely professional relationship in order to avoid conflicts of interest. As far as gender is concerned, female veterinarians indicated that farmers that have previously worked with them usually respect their professionalism, just as they respect that of a man. However, those farms that have not worked with women previously tend to value their work over time. In the same way, although there may be situations in which sexist dynamics persist, such as those involving physical effort, female veterinarians pointed out that farmers have more confidence in women to share issues of deeper personal aspects. Despite this, it did not stand out clearly in these interviews that the fact of being a woman or man made any difference in influencing the decision of the farmers in relation to the application of biosecurity measures.
As regards the ability of the farmer to influence the decision to apply biosecurity measures by other farmers, bars, pubs, or restaurants were stressed as a space where there is greater interaction among farmers, due to them being locations prone to engage in relaxed conversations and acquire knowledge (which may be reliable or not). Indeed, from the point of view of the farmers themselves, it was emphasized that they could provide information that may be incomplete if it is related to their own farms. In these places there are farmers who are capable of being vocal or leaders and influence others, although those who are considered as reference models are those farmers who are innovators or pioneers in certain areas, and who own large farms.
The relationship between farmers was not only limited to a collective space such as bars, pubs, or restaurants; in fact, the visits to other farms were emphasized by the veterinarians. These visits tend to have positive effects on the farmers through observations and a later reflection, which may lead to the application of biosecurity measures. In these visits the farmers can find out realities different from theirs, being totally disposed to its realization.
The events that occur in the neighbouring farms (proximity experiences) were highlighted as another relevant factor in the decision to apply biosecurity measures, for example, outbreaks of infectious diseases in other farms. In these cases, neighbouring farmers that have not been affected begin to deploy a series of actions to prevent the possible entry and spread of that infectious disease in their farm. This kind of learning was featured as one of the most important, since the unaffected farmers are placed in a scenario where that could happen, imagining their possible consequences. In the same way, this type of event might be used as an example by certain veterinarians to encourage their farmers to implement biosecurity measures and thus avoid experiencing similar situations. However, it should not be forgotten that each farmer has its own economic, social, cultural and political contexts. This means that they have their own factors that can affect their decision-making process to implement biosecurity measures. The ability of farmers to adapt to changes was associated with a greater capacity to progress. Despite this, the interviewees stressed that these changes are not always easy to carry out since farmers are usually people with habits, and therefore, they are not always prepared to face and tolerate these changes, a situation that generates their bewilderment and fear, especially when these changes are drastic.

| Internal world of the farmer
The pre-disposition of farmers to implement biosecurity measures was mentioned to be linked to their effectiveness and benefits. Resistance, carelessness or lack of interest could be generated if they do not see a return to their actions and feel difficulties in their performance. Some farmers believed that biosecurity measures could avoid disease risk and health problems, improving therefore their productivity due to an enhance in the health status of the herd.
In this way, some farmers indicated that biosecurity was essential and that without it their farms would not work. The interviewees also perceived that biosecurity was important to not fear infectious diseases enabling themselves to focus in the improvement of other areas. On the other hand, there were participants who had not convinced that biosecurity measures could generate benefits. For example, some commented that there are other productive systems (e.g. swine) that have also faced health problems, although implementing several biosecurity measures. In the same way, they revealed that biosecurity was not their priority and preferred to invest in other areas and that those measures could be complicated to carry out without observable effects in the short term.
The pre-disposition to implement biosecurity measures was not clearly linked to their financial situation. For example, there were farmers who were highly willing to invest in prevention but whose limitation was their economy, and other farmers who were not willing to invest in prevention since they prefer to in-

| Social dynamics (internal and external)
Dairy farms (farmers and veterinarians) are inserted in different social media that can generate different social dynamics, which can be internal or external.
The internal dynamics refer to intrinsic issues of the dairy farms.
In this way, the participants mentioned that dairy farms have different characteristics from other productive systems such as swine, which can be a limitation to implement biosecurity measures. These characteristics, in the opinion of the people interviewed, might be linked to the tradition of certain farms, such as, the visits of people without a previous appointment. However, this tradition is currently undergoing major changes, for example, certain farms are evolving, in words of a veterinarian, 'from being an extension of the kitchen to being a business'. On the other hand, the effect of pressure or social influence was also highlighted, which may be greater in rural contexts than in urban contexts, especially when there are events that generate alarm in the population, such as public health issues, which increases interest in biosecurity.
The external dynamics refer to issues specific to the social fac- It is important to mention that although it is the farmer that does the training or resorts to certain sources of information, it is the farm workers who finally perform the actions. These workers have different types of profiles which can vary mainly by gender (men and women), age (20-55), nationality (national or foreign) and previous experience in farms (present or absent  decision-making. The present study, to the best of our knowledge, is the first one that has attempted to do so in dairy farms in Spain. One important factor that arose from the interviews was the influence of the private veterinarian. As previously described in other studies (e.g. Cardwell et al., 2016), veterinarians are considered to be . In this sense, some researchers have pointed to the fact that veterinarians usually give more importance to their own knowledge than to the opinion of their clients (e.g. farmers), and therefore, they are paternalistic (Bard et al., 2017), which highlights the importance of establishing a dialogue with consensus between farmers and veterinarians (Kuster et al., 2015). In our study, the interviewed veterinarians emphasized that they see farmers as an equal and that they usually have a horizontal relationship, a situation that can facilitate an effective communication. However, some of them mentioned feeling uncomfortable to recommend biosecurity measures due to the possible reactions that the farmers may have (e.g. their fear that farmers believe that there may be a conflict of interest).
Interestingly, this was not mentioned by any farmer. Therefore, the relationship between farmers and veterinarians could incorporate personal and professional aspects with transparent dialogues to be close and reliable without misunderstandings, helping to ensure that biosecurity measures can be internalised in a better way.
As for the veterinarian's profiles, the HDA veterinarians were identified as those that are mainly responsible for biosecurity, being consistent with their role played; however, there are still farms that scarcely implement biosecurity measures. This could be due to the existence of obstacles in their relationship, as was described in Sweden (Svensson, Alvåsena, Eldh, Frössling, & Lomander, 2018).
According to these researchers, although the health management   (Sok, Hogeveen, Elbers, & Oude, 2016), and it might not let the farmers fully trust in the public administration. This kind of experience is difficult to approach, since it has a repeated retrieval and feedback among the farmers (Roediger, Zaromb, & Butler, 2009), and it should be kept in mind when trying to reach the farmers. Therefore, the strategies to face these experiences must combine unified official discourses with transparency and awareness, which together could gradually have an impact on the farmers' This study was focused on farmers and veterinarians, but the farm workers also appeared in their answers, as they are the ones that implement the biosecurity measures in the field. Interviewees mentioned that farm workers are scarce nowadays, and often with a low level of training, which has forced some farms to replace them with milking robots. The reasons can be varied, for example, it may be due to the existence of high levels of stress due to working conditions (health and safety) or workloads (Chen & Holden, 2016;Lunner et al., 2013). Considering the importance of farm workers in the implementation of the biosecurity measures in the field, performing studies focused on this group are also highly recommended.
Although, as previously mentioned, the European 'Animal Health Law' attributes the farmer with the responsibility of implementing biosecurity measures. In Spain, there have been some attempts by regional and national governments to develop specific legislation to force farmers to implement some recommendations, which has generated many discussions. Biosecurity measures imposed by legislation usually generate a lot of debate, as described elsewhere (e.g. Oliveira, Anneberg, Voss, Sørensen, & Thomsen, 2018). The role that OVS should play in the implementation of biosecurity measures is subject to debate and might also deserve further studies. According to the responses of some interviewees, legislation is needed to safeguard dairy farms, although they should be accompanied by an understanding of all the people involved, as proposed by Brennan and Christley (2013). However, the legislation and their obligatory nature is a complex issue to approach, a situation that becomes even more complex when they intersect issues, such as awareness. Thus, it would be interesting to look into the effect of the obligatory in future theorized discussions from a sociological perspective.
As for the methodology used in this study, we decided to use a qualitative methodology (i.e. semi-structured in-depth interviews) which can be appropriate to investigate and look deeply into the different realities of people (Mason, 2006). Qualitative methods are based on interpretivism and constructivism paradigms (multiple realities), while quantitative research is mainly based on a positivist paradigm (only an objective reality) (Sale, Lohfeld, & Brazil, 2002).
Therefore, the repeatability of qualitative studies can be lower than for quantitative studies, since it considers that all interviewees have unique and unrepeatable realities (Leppink, 2017). However, this technique is adequate to determine the different interpretations of reality from the opinion of each of the participants (Della, 2014), which can be influenced by various factors that may be difficult to perceive by us.
As regards the intrinsic flexibility of the semi-structured in-depth interviews, it has to be borne in mind that the questions were carried out differently with each of the participants, that is, their order and content were varied in relation to their development with each of the participants. For example, gender questions were asked only to the women interviewed at different times. The objective of the above was to be executed a fluent and spontaneous interview, where the participants could feel comfortable and free (Ryan, Coughlan, & Cronin, 2009). Nevertheless, there is a possibility that this may have affected their response to some degree, although this procedure is characteristic of this technique. In relation to the number of participants involved in the present study, although a saturation of the discourse (heterogeneous group) was reached, there is the possibility that other small variables could have arisen if we had carried out more interviews. This is mainly due to the magnitude of the various psychosocial factors that affect each of the contexts, which are not generalizable.
Results from our study highlight the need of promoting awareness as the key to the implementation of biosecurity measures, since they must be understood for true implementation. However, motivation strategies might also include other aspects, such as direct participation of farmers and monitoring of efforts by the cohesion of all the people involved over time. Nevertheless, the development of such strategies would benefit from a deeper understanding of some of the topics identified through this study by using other techniques, such as an ethnography (Naidoo, 2012) or focus groups. Therefore, it has highlighted the impact that qualitative studies such as these can have, which can guarantee a greater representativeness of the data if carried out together with quantitative studies. This study was not intended to look deeply into each of the various factors separately, but to describe a global panorama of those that may exist among different dairy farms, identifying the main psychosocial factors that influence farmers' decision-making.

| CON CLUS ION
The decision to comply with the existing regulations and suggestions on the implementation of biosecurity measures in dairy farms are influenced by various psychosocial factors. In this study, we have identified the main psychosocial factors (and their interactions) that influence dairy farmers' decision-making in Spain. These factors are related to the relationship between farmers and veterinarians, the feasibility of implementing these measures, and the influence of social dynamics and OVS, together with the available time and space.
All these psychosocial factors were identified as factors that influence the attitude and behaviour of farmers to implement biosecurity measures. In this way, the farmers function as complex systems that have certain psychosocial factors, which in turn can interact in different ways according to their economic, social, cultural and political contexts (i.e. they are heterogeneous).
In addition, these farmers can interact with other systems (e.g. veterinarians). The veterinarians appeared to play an important role in the dairy farmers' decision-making to implement biosecurity.
Therefore, all the aspects that can influence the communication between dairy farmers and veterinarians such as trust, level of training or fears to provide recommendations, might play an important role and may deserve a deeper study in order to provide future recommendations to improve biosecurity. However, all these system interactions (farmers and veterinarians) can be further complicated if we consider other systems (e.g. farm workers and OVS). Thus, other aspects such as the internal social dynamics of farm workers and the role that OVS and the compulsory should play in the improvement of biosecurity were also identified as issues which need further analysis. In this way, this research represents a starting point to develop future recommendations to improve the implementation of biosecurity measures.

ACK N OWLED G M ENTS
The authors thank all the dairy farmers and veterinarians who collaborated in the in-depth interviews.

E TH I C S S TATEM ENT
The present study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the UAB (CEEAH 4055), who also helped design the informed consent for the participants.
The informed consent was used to mainly to explain the objectives of the study and the conditions and guarantees of the participants. It was pointed out that the data would be confidential and analysed anonymously, that there would be no economic benefits to participate, and that the interview would be recorded by audio or text. The decision to participate in the study was totally voluntary, and if they wished they could stop and leave the interview at any time. In this way, the informed consent was signed by the interviewee and interviewer, with a copy for each one of them.