The Consequences of Stigma for Knowledge Production: Sheep Producers' Attitudes to Footrot Diagnostics and Control in Australia.

footrot sheep producers' attitudes sociology of knowledge stigma survey research trust

Journal

Frontiers in veterinary science
ISSN: 2297-1769
Titre abrégé: Front Vet Sci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101666658

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2020
Historique:
received: 04 10 2019
accepted: 21 05 2020
entrez: 17 7 2020
pubmed: 17 7 2020
medline: 17 7 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

In Australia, there is documented confusion from producers around the clinical disease of footrot, and anecdotally, knowledge of what tools are available for the diagnosis and management of footrot. When discussing footrot with producers, the authors noted a hesitation to discuss, with denial often expressed. The disease can be debilitating, both on the sheep's welfare and the producer's well-being, as it is a very difficult disease to manage and eradicate. Gaining an understanding of producer perceptions of the disease may help ensure any future actions for management and control are in-line with those identified by producers. A combination of a web-based, and manually distributed surveys of 45 sheep producers was conducted. This included closed- and open-ended questions, multi check box, and Likert scales. Responses were quantified by descriptive statistics and a thematic analysis conducted of short answers. The results of this survey indicate satisfaction with footrot diagnostics is low, while satisfaction with control methods is high. There was also a poor general understanding of footrot as a disease, and a general distrust in peers when it comes to correct management of footrot. This research addresses a gap in the literature about how sociological conditions affect diagnosis and control of footrot disease. It provides three main recommendations-simplifying the diagnostic message, encouraging a culture of trust among sheep producers and increasing governmental support-as a way to tackle this problem.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32671110
doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00354
pmc: PMC7329981
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

354

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 Best, Menéndez, Rawlin, Suter, Rodoni and Beddoe.

Références

Community Genet. 2006;9(3):211-20
pubmed: 16741352
Vet Microbiol. 2006 Aug 25;116(1-3):166-74
pubmed: 16716540
PLoS Pathog. 2010 Nov 24;6(11):e1001210
pubmed: 21124876
J Clin Microbiol. 2017 May;55(5):1313-1326
pubmed: 28202796
Vet Microbiol. 2014 Jan 10;168(1):177-84
pubmed: 24332828
Prev Vet Med. 2008 Nov 17;87(3-4):358-72
pubmed: 18692923
Aust Vet J. 1999 May;77(5):318-21
pubmed: 10376104
Gene. 1995 Dec 29;167(1-2):279-83
pubmed: 8566792
BMC Vet Res. 2018 Aug 29;14(1):252
pubmed: 30157841
J Bacteriol. 2007 Jul;189(14):5022-33
pubmed: 17513472
Aust Vet J. 1968 May;44(5):235-40
pubmed: 5690158

Auteurs

Nickala Best (N)

Department of Animal, Plant and Soil Science and Centre for AgriBioscience (AgriBio), La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Ramón Menéndez (R)

Department of Management, Sport and Tourism, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Grant Rawlin (G)

Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources Centre for AgriBioscience (AgriBio), Victorian Government, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Robert Suter (R)

Agriculture Services and Biosecurity Operations, Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, Attwood, VIC, Australia.

Brendan Rodoni (B)

Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources Centre for AgriBioscience (AgriBio), Victorian Government, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Travis Beddoe (T)

Department of Animal, Plant and Soil Science and Centre for AgriBioscience (AgriBio), La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Classifications MeSH