ArticleBMC veterinary research2025
Assessing the adoption of biosecurity measures among extensive livestock producers: a case study in the free-range pig sector of Corsica.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biosecurity governance and on-farm implementation in the European livestock sector: regulatory heterogeneity, assessment tools and evidence gaps - A scoping review.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026Review
- Prevalence of subclinical mastitis and associated biosecurity practices in peri-urban dairy farms.Open veterinary journal · 2026Article
- Swine Enteric Coronaviruses: An Updated Overview of Epidemiology, Diagnosis, Prevention, and Control.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
- Wildlife risk mitigation protocols reduce risk species visits and pathogen marker detection in open-air farms.Veterinary research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncreasingly 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 biosecurity measures implementation are poorly documented. Our study aimed at comparing alternative methods of elicitation of preferences to assess the attitude of extensive livestock farmers towards biosecurity measures. We used, as a case study, the Regional Porcine Sanitary Plan (RPSP) elaborated for the free-range pig sector of Corsica Island to meet the newly established national disease prevention requirements of France in the face of risk of African Swine Fever introduction.
methodsThe RPSP 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. We evaluated four attributes of the sanitary plan, including (1) proportion of the implementation cost covered by state 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.
resultsFarmers' 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 were reluctant to entrust veterinarians with neutering gilts while the other half deemed veterinarians' intervention compulsory. Contradictory preferences were obtained on rendering carcass management mandatory depending on the elicitation method.
conclusionOur study demonstrates 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 taken into consideration in similar surveys.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.