A pilot study to assess the adoption of biosecurity measures among extensive pig producers in Corsica

Abstract Background Increasingly exposed to emerging sanitary risks, extensive livestock farming systems are confronted with the imperative of incorporating biosecurity measures in their production models in order to limit the risk of introduction and diffusion of animal pathogens. Yet, ex-ante assessment methods of the likelihood of effective implementation of biosecurity actions are poorly documented. Our study aimed at comparing alternative methods of elicitation of preferences to assess the attitude of extensive livestock farmers towards on-farm biosecurity measures. Our case study was the Regional Porcine Sanitary Plan elaborated to enable the free-range pig sector of Corsica Island to meet the newly established disease prevention requirements in the face of risk of African Swine Fever introduction. The plan imposed (1) a fencing of the breeding pigs’ area, (2) the neutering of the pigs not used for breeding, and (3) a management process of dead pigs’ carcasses found on pastures. Results We evaluated four attributes of the sanitary plan, including (1) proportion of the implementation cost covered by subsidies, (2) mandatory carcass management, (3) people allowed to neuter gilts, (4) the age limit for neutering. We performed interviews of a sample of free-range pig farmers using three methods in parallel, namely (1) direct qualitative elicitation, (2) attributed-based stated choices and (3) semi-quantitative ranking of attributes. Farmers’ preference for a high subsidization of the sanitary plan and for enforcing the neutering of pigs at an early age was consistent across all used methods. Participants expressed heterogeneous preferences for the two other attributes. Half of the respondents did not entrust veterinarians with neutering gilts while the other half deemed veterinarians’ intervention compulsory. Contradictory preferences on the mandatory carcass management were obtained depending on the elicitation method. Conclusion Our study shows the added value of using choice-based methods, where respondents weigh the individual costs and benefits associated with different options, in combination with qualitative or semi-quantitative ranking methods in which farmers express their opinions and give more consideration to their community interest. It also reveals potential issues of heterogeneities among farmers’ preferences that need to be incorporated in similar surveys.