Since 2006, farmers in England have received new recommendations on best practice to manage lameness in sheep through a range of knowledge exchange activities. The adoption of each recommendation varied, but in 2013 approximately 50% of farmers reported treating all lame sheep within 3 days of onset of lameness (prompt treatment), 41% did not practice routine foot trimming, 50% culled sheep that had been lame and 14% vaccinated against footrot; all recommended best practices. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of lameness in ewes in England from 2013 to 2015 and to identify changes in practice to manage lameness between 2013 and 2015 and the population attributable fraction for these managements. A longitudinal study with a cohort of 154 English sheep farmers was run for three years, farmers completed questionnaires on lameness in their flock for the previous 12 months in 2013, 2014 and 2015. The geometric mean prevalence of lameness in ewes was 4.1% in 2015, significantly higher than 3.3% and 3.2% for the same 128 farmers who provided data in both 2013 and 2014. Between 2013 and 2015 there was a significant reduction in farmers practising prompt treatment (50.6%-28.6%) but an increase in not practising routine foot trimming (40.9%-79.2%), culling sheep that had been lame (49.4%-81.8%), and vaccinating against footrot (14.3%-29.2%). Not practising prompt treatment, ≥5% of sheep feet bleeding during routine foot trimming, vaccinating ewes for 5 years, not treating lame sheep promptly, ≥5% of sheep feet bleeding during routine foot trimming, and mixing of flocks were 34.5%, 25.3%, 2.9% and 2.4%. In 2013, when 50% of farmers used prompt treatment, the PAF for not using prompt treatment was only 13.3%. We conclude that the change in practice by these farmers towards flock-level managements and a reduction in individual prompt treatment of lame sheep negatively impacted the prevalence of lameness in sheep. This change occurred despite the evidence that prompt treatment of lame sheep is highly effective at reducing the prevalence of lameness in sheep flocks and is an example of cognitive dissonance.

The spread of infection amongst livestock depends not only on the traits of the pathogen and the livestock themselves, but also on the veterinary health behaviours of farmers and how this impacts their implementation of disease control measures. Controls that are costly may make it beneficial for individuals to rely on the protection offered by others, though that may be sub-optimal for the population. Failing to account for socio-behavioural properties may produce a substantial layer of bias in infectious disease models. We investigated the role of heterogeneity in vaccine response across a population of farmers on epidemic outbreaks amongst livestock, caused by pathogens with differential speed of spread over spatial landscapes of farms for two counties in England (Cumbria and Devon). Under different compositions of three vaccine behaviour groups (precautionary, reactionary, non-vaccination), we evaluated from population- and individual-level perspectives the optimum threshold distance to premises with notified infection that would trigger responsive vaccination by the reactionary vaccination group. We demonstrate a divergence between population and individual perspectives in the optimal scale of reactive voluntary vaccination response. In general, minimising the population-level perspective cost requires a broader reactive uptake of the intervention, whilst optimising the outcome for the average individual increased the likelihood of larger scale disease outbreaks. When the relative cost of vaccination was low and the majority of premises had undergone precautionary vaccination, then adopting a perspective that optimised the outcome for an individual gave a broader spatial extent of reactive response compared to a perspective wanting to optimise outcomes for everyone in the population. Under our assumed epidemiological context, the findings identify livestock disease intervention receptiveness and cost combinations where one would expect strong disagreement between the intervention stringency that is best from the perspective of a stakeholder responsible for supporting the livestock industry compared to a sole livestock owner. Were such discord anticipated and achieving a consensus view across perspectives desired, the findings may also inform those managing veterinary health policy the requisite reduction in intervention cost and/or the required extent of nurturing beneficial community attitudes towards interventions.

The Bornean banteng (Bos javanicus lowi) is an endangered subspecies that often inhabits logged forest; however very little is known about the effects of logging on their ecology, despite the differing effects this has on other ungulate species. A body condition scoring system was created for the Bornean banteng using camera trap photographs from five forests in Sabah, Malaysia, with various past and present management combinations to establish if banteng nutrition suffered as a result of forest disturbance. One hundred and eleven individuals were photographed over 38,009 camera trap nights from April 2011 to June 2014 in five forests. Banteng within forests that had a recent history of reduced-impact logging had higher body condition scores than banteng within conventionally logged forest. Conversely, when past logging was conducted using a conventional technique and the period of forest regeneration was relatively long; the banteng had higher body condition scores. The body condition scoring system is appropriate for monitoring the long-term nutrition of the Bornean banteng and for evaluating the extent of the impact caused by present-day reduced-impact logging methods. Reduced-impact logging techniques give rise to individuals with the higher body condition scores in the shorter term, which then decline over time. In contrast the trend is opposite for conventional logging, which demonstrates the complex effects of logging on banteng body condition scores. This is likely to be due to differences in regeneration between forests that have been previously logged using differing methods.

Bovine viral diarrhea (BVD) is endemic in the United Kingdom and causes major economic losses. Control is largely voluntary for individual farmers and is likely to be influenced by psychosocial factors, such as altruism, trust, and psychological proximity (feeling close) to relevant “others,” such as farmers, veterinarians, the government, and their cows. These psychosocial factors (factors with both psychological and social aspects) are important determinants of how people make decisions related to their own health, many of which have not been studied in the context of infectious disease control by farmers. Farmer psychosocial profiles were investigated using multiple validated measures in an observational survey of 475 UK cattle farmers using the capability, opportunity, motivation-behavior (COM-B) framework. Farmers were clustered by their BVD control practices using latent class analysis. Farmers were split into 5 BVD control behavior classes, which were tested for associations with the psychosocial and COM-B factors using multinomial logistic regression, with doing nothing as the baseline class. Farmers who were controlling disease both for themselves and others were more likely to do something to control BVD (e.g., test, vaccinate). Farmers who did not trust other farmers, had high psychological capability (knowledge and understanding of how to control disease), and had high physical opportunity (time and money to control disease) were more likely to have a closed, separate herd and test. Farmers who did not trust other farmers were also more likely to undertake many prevention strategies with an open herd. Farmers with high automatic motivation (habits and emotions) and reflective motivation (decisions and goals) were more likely to vaccinate and test, alone or in combination with other controls. Farmers with high psychological proximity (feeling of closeness) to their veterinarian were more likely to undertake many prevention strategies in an open herd. Farmers with high psychological proximity to dairy farmers and low psychological proximity to beef farmers were more likely to keep their herd closed and separate and test or vaccinate and test. Farmers who had a lot of trust in other farmers and invested in them, rather than keeping everything for themselves, were more likely to be careful introducing new stock and test. In conclusion, farmer psychosocial factors were associated with strategies for BVD control in UK cattle farmers. Psychological proximity to veterinarians was a novel factor associated with proactive BVD control and was more important than the more extensively investigated trust. These findings highlight the importance of a close veterinarian-farmer relationship and are important for promoting effective BVD control by farmers, which has implications for successful nationwide BVD control and eradication schemes.

Since 2004, the prevalence of lameness in sheep flocks in England has reduced as farmers have adopted evidence-based management practices to control lameness. In 2011, the Farm Animal Welfare Council proposed a target prevalence of <2% lameness in sheep by 2021. This study investigated whether that target had been achieved and determined which practices were associated with prevalence of lameness. A postal questionnaire was sent to 1000 randomly selected farmers to investigate the prevalence of lameness and management practices in 2022. The geometric mean prevalence of lameness was <2% in ewes and lambs, but the median was 3%; approximately 26% flocks had <2% lameness. Data were analysed using robust variable selection with multivariable linear models. Farmers that quarantined ewes for ≥3 weeks and did not use foot bathing or foot trimming to prevent lameness had 40–50% lower prevalence of lameness than those not using these practices. Fewer farmers (19.0%) were always using parenteral antimicrobials to treat footrot, an effective practice, than in previous research (49.7%). We conclude that the target of <2% lameness in England has been achieved by 26% of farmers, and further work is required for more farmers to follow the evidence-based management practices to minimise lameness.