Farmer Adoption Programme

#Komal Meena #JV-U/19/3728 #B.Sc {hons} agriculture + 3rd year , 5th sem #jayoti vidyapeeth women;s university ,jaipur Essay on Farmer Adoption Programme (Agriculture Mentorship Programme (AMP) /Veterinary Health & Fodder Care) Determinants of farmers adoption of management-based strategies for infectious disease prevention and control ;- ABSTRACT The prevention and control of endemic pathogens within and between farms often depends on the adoption of best management practices. However, farmers regularly do not adopt recommended measures or do not enroll in voluntary disease control programs. This indicates that a more comprehensive understanding of the influences and extension tools that affect farmers management decisions is necessary. Based on a review of relevant published literature, we developed recommendations to support policy-makers, industry representatives, researchers, veterinarians, and other stakeholders when motivating farmers to adopt best management practices, and to facilitate the development and implementation of voluntary prevention and control programs for livestock diseases. Farmers will make management decisions based on their unique circumstances, agricultural contexts, beliefs, and goals. Providing them with rational but universal arguments might not always be sufficient to motivate on-farm change. Implementation of recommended management practices is more likely if farmers acknowledge the existence of a problem and their responsibility to take action. The perceived feasibility and effectiveness of the recommended management strategy and sufficient technical knowledge further increase the likelihood of adequate adoption. Farmers will also weigh the expected advantages of a proposed change against the expected disadvantages, and these considerations often include internal drivers such as pride or the desire to conform with perceived standards. Extension tools and farmers social referents (e.g., veterinarians, peers) not only provide technical information but also influence these standards. Whereas mass media have the potential to deliver information to a broad audience, more personal approaches such as participatory group learning or individual communication with farm advisors can enable the tailoring of recommendations to farmers situations. Approaches that appeal to farmers internal motivators or that unconsciously elicit the desired behavior will increase the success of the intervention. Collaboration among stakeholders, assisted by social scientists and communication specialists, is necessary to provide a context that facilitates on-farm change and transfers consistent messages across extension tools in the most effective way. INTRODUCTION Livestock farmers worldwide face endemic disease challenges that threaten animal health and welfare. These diseases can have a substantial economic impact on individual enterprises and on the farming industry as a whole (Wierup, 2012). Therefore, although the relevance of specific diseases might vary by country, the prevention and eradication of infectious animal diseases [i.e., diseases that can be spread directly or indirectly between animals (and potentially to humans)] has become an increasing focus for many nations. Despite huge advances in the development of livestock vaccines and treatment options, the implementation of best management practices is still the most effective way to prevent and control many infectious diseases on farms. Farmers are encouraged to implement specific strategies to mitigate the risk of disease transmission, not only for the sake of their animals health and welfare, but also to protect humans from zoonotic pathogens (OIE Animal Production Food Safety Working Group, 2006). However, poor on-farm adoption of recommendations to enhance general biosecurity practices, or of strategies to decrease transmission of specific diseases, is common (Bell et al., 2009; Brennan and Christley, 2013; Sayers et al., 2013). Furthermore, participation rates in voluntary disease prevention and control programs are often below 30% (Hoe and Ruegg, 2006; Hop et al., 2011; Nielsen, 2011). These experiences suggest that the methods used to motivate participation in control programs and adoption of recommended practices have been suboptimal. Agricultural extension refers to activities and communication channels that facilitate changes in farmer knowledge, attitudes, and behavior by synthesizing, exchanging, and applying information (Black, 2000; Anderson and Feder, 2004). Although agricultural extension differs depending on the context, traditional “top-down” tools such as newsletters or magazines are often the primary routes of knowledge transfer, and they assume that farmers make decisions based purely on scientific rationale (Roche, 2014). However, it is widely accepted that farmers decision-making varies, influenced by factors that are not solely based on policy, economic considerations, or rational judgment (Edwards-Jones, 2006; Noordhuizen et al., 2008b). Some variability can be explained by individual farmer traits (e.g., personality, attitudes, beliefs, intentions, values, skills, and knowledge). Remarkably, these socio-psychological variables often explain more variation in farm performance than farmers measurable management practices (Bigras-Poulin et al., 1985; van den Borne et al., 2014). To account for these factors, different theoretical frameworks have been applied in the agricultural context. Two of the frameworks most commonly used to investigate the effects of socio-psychological variables on farmers decision-making and better understand farmer behavior, are the Health Belief Model (Janz and Becker, 1984) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991). In addition to socio-psychological factors, external influences such as input from social referents (e.g., herd veterinarians, colleagues, or family) and agricultural extension conduits (e.g., printed media or discussion groups) can also affect farmers management decisions (Ritter et al., 2015; Roche et al., 2015). The objective of this narrative review was to describe the available information on (1) the factors that contribute to farmers adoption of recommended management strategies; and (2) the influence of social referents and extension tools on farmers management decisions. Our focus was farmer behavior related to improving animal health, but where applicable, we have included a selection of findings on animal welfare to add relevant information from other contexts. Furthermore, the scope of this review was voluntary management-based prevention and control of endemic infectious livestock diseases (i.e., farmers decision-making in the absence of compulsive regulations) on commercial farms in economically developed countries. To meet the second objective, we discussed the main communication channels used to provide information and support farmers in adopting recommended management practices. Based on the evidence as it pertains to the delineated scope, we provide recommendations to policy-makers, industry representatives, researchers, veterinarians, and other stakeholders to facilitate the adoption of on-farm management practices and assist in the development and implementation of voluntary control programs for endemic infectious livestock diseases. SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL INFLUENCES Every farmer has their own unique combination of demographic factors (e.g., age, sex, education), personality, previous experiences, routines, and goals, as well as economic, cultural, and family influences (Wilson et al., 2015; Frössling and Nöremark, 2016). These individual characteristics contribute to farmers views about animal health, prevention and control strategies, and influence their decision-making (Figure 1). Not every management decision a farmer makes might appear logical from an outside perspective (Kristensen and Jakobsen, 2011a). An understanding of a farmers mindset and the specific factors that combine to influence that mindset is crucial for motivating them to change. The socio-psychological influences on farmers adoption of recommended management practices described in the first part of the review were considered the most relevant and were often derived from constructs described in the Health Belief Model or the Theory of Planned Behavior (Figure 1). It is particularly important to consider these factors when formulating voluntary prevention and control programs, and we have provided related recommendations (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4). However, interventions to change farmer behavior must acknowledge that farmers are not a homogeneous group and cannot be convinced by relying only on educational arguments (Jansen et al., 2010b,c). Furthermore, farmers context (e.g., laws and regulations, market prices, or quality programs) can affect decision-making by inhibiting or facilitating the recommended management changes. Because of the influence of farmers internal logic and context on their decision-making, it is impossible to provide a “one-size-fits-all” solution (Kristensen and Jakobsen, 2011a). Problem Awareness and Perception of Responsibility Problem Awareness People are less willing to change their behavior if they deny the negative (future) effects of their current habits or of their current situation (e.g., the negative effects of smoking or obesity on health; Orji et al., 2012; Mantler, 2013). In this way, informing farmers about the presence of a pathogen or disease on their farm is an important step, but it does not guarantee that they will regard it as an important issue (Leach et al., 2010a; Ritter et al., 2016; Table 1). For example, Texas beef and Canadian dairy producers with Johnes disease in their herd often did not consider it a problem (Benjamin et al., 2010; Sorge et al., 2010a), and 90% of dairy farmers in England and Wales did not see lameness as a problem, despite an average prevalence of 36% (Leach et al., 2010a). To change their management practices, farmers need to believe that their current situation poses a problem or increases their risk of future problems, a notion that is described as “perceived threat” in the Health Belief Model (Janz and Becker, 1984; Casal et al., 2007; Benjamin et al., 2010). For example, concern about production losses due to Johnes disease was a main reason why dairy farmers participated in a voluntary Johnes disease control program (Nielsen, 2011).

#ritu gupta #jv-u/19/3123#Bsc hons Agri 3rd yr,, #jvwu #VeterinaryHealthAndFodderCare Essay on Farmer Adoption Programme (Agriculture Mentorship Programme (AMP) /Veterinary Health & Fodder Care) Determinants of farmers adoption of management-based strategies for infectious disease prevention and control ;-Fodder and fodder additives intended for consumption by livestock and produced by businesses which are in possession of an export licence for those products issued by the central state veterinary service of the exporting country and which are subject to continuous supervision by them, shall be admitted into the Russian Federation. Fodder and fodder additives must be obtained from fresh raw material of animal and bird origin, and must originate from holdings and administrative territories which are free of infectious animal and bird diseases, including: - bovine spongiform encephalopathy and ovine scrapie; - on the national territory, in accordance with the requirements of the International Veterinary Code of the OIE; - African swine fever, African horse fever, camel disease and rinderpest: during the last three years in the country; - classical swine fever, foot-and-mouth disease, sheep and goat pox, and contagious bovine pleuropneumonia: during the last 12 months in an administrative territory; - Siberian plague (anthrax), brucellosis, leptospirosis, Aujeszkys disease, anaerobic infections: during the last three months on the holding. Beef, mutton, viscera, by-products, meat and bone meal or other raw materials obtained from countries which do not meet the requirements of the International Veterinary Code of the OIE regarding bovine spongiform encaphalopathy or ovine scrapie shall not be used in the production of fodder. Raw materials used in the production of fodder must be obtained from livestock not obtained from genetically modified sources. Raw materials used in the production of fodder must only be of post-slaughter origin and subject to a post-mortem veterinary health report prepared by the state veterinary service of the exporting country. Fodder and fodder additives must not contain salmonella, botulinus toxin or enteropathogenic or anaerobic microflora. Total bacterial contamination must not exceed 500 000 colony-forming units per gram, which must be corroborated by laboratory tests forming the basis for the corresponding entry in the veterinary certificate.Means of transport must be processed and conditioned in accordance with the rules in force in the exporting country. Fulfilment of the conditions set out in these requirements must be fully corroborated by: 1. a veterinary certificate signed by a State Veterinary Officer in the exporting country confirming that the administrative territory (country, state, province, etc.) meets the requirements regarding the above-mentioned infectious diseases; 2. a certificate of quality issued by the authorised control body of the exporting country pesticides and total beta activity do not exceed the values stated above (inspectorate, laboratory, etc.), confirming that the content of heavy metals, mycotoxins Beef, mutton, viscera, by-products, meat and bone meal or other raw materials obtained from countries which do not meet the requirements of the International Veterinary Code of the OIE regarding bovine spongiform encaphalopathy or ovine scrapie shall not be used in the production of fodder.

#ritu gupta #jv-u/19/3123#Bsc hons Agri 3rd yr,, #jvwu #VeterinaryHealthAndFodderCare Essay on Farmer Adoption Programme (Agriculture Mentorship Programme (AMP) /Veterinary Health & Fodder Care) Determinants of farmers adoption of management-based strategies for infectious disease prevention and control ;-Fodder and fodder additives intended for consumption by livestock and produced by businesses which are in possession of an export licence for those products issued by the central state veterinary service of the exporting country and which are subject to continuous supervision by them, shall be admitted into the Russian Federation. Fodder and fodder additives must be obtained from fresh raw material of animal and bird origin, and must originate from holdings and administrative territories which are free of infectious animal and bird diseases, including: - bovine spongiform encephalopathy and ovine scrapie; - on the national territory, in accordance with the requirements of the International Veterinary Code of the OIE; - African swine fever, African horse fever, camel disease and rinderpest: during the last three years in the country; - classical swine fever, foot-and-mouth disease, sheep and goat pox, and contagious bovine pleuropneumonia: during the last 12 months in an administrative territory; - Siberian plague (anthrax), brucellosis, leptospirosis, Aujeszkys disease, anaerobic infections: during the last three months on the holding. Beef, mutton, viscera, by-products, meat and bone meal or other raw materials obtained from countries which do not meet the requirements of the International Veterinary Code of the OIE regarding bovine spongiform encaphalopathy or ovine scrapie shall not be used in the production of fodder. Raw materials used in the production of fodder must be obtained from livestock not obtained from genetically modified sources. Raw materials used in the production of fodder must only be of post-slaughter origin and subject to a post-mortem veterinary health report prepared by the state veterinary service of the exporting country. Fodder and fodder additives must not contain salmonella, botulinus toxin or enteropathogenic or anaerobic microflora. Total bacterial contamination must not exceed 500 000 colony-forming units per gram, which must be corroborated by laboratory tests forming the basis for the corresponding entry in the veterinary certificate.Means of transport must be processed and conditioned in accordance with the rules in force in the exporting country. Fulfilment of the conditions set out in these requirements must be fully corroborated by: 1. a veterinary certificate signed by a State Veterinary Officer in the exporting country confirming that the administrative territory (country, state, province, etc.) meets the requirements regarding the above-mentioned infectious diseases; 2. a certificate of quality issued by the authorised control body of the exporting country pesticides and total beta activity do not exceed the values stated above (inspectorate, laboratory, etc.), confirming that the content of heavy metals, mycotoxins Beef, mutton, viscera, by-products, meat and bone meal or other raw materials obtained from countries which do not meet the requirements of the International Veterinary Code of the OIE regarding bovine spongiform encaphalopathy or ovine scrapie shall not be used in the production of fodder.

#ShresthaRajBhargav #jv-u/19/3092 #Bsc.ag(hons)5th sem #Jayotividyapeethwomensuniversity #VeterinaryHealthAndFodderCare Essay on Farmer Adoption Programme (Agriculture Mentorship Programme (AMP) /Veterinary Health & Fodder Care) Determinants of farmers adoption of management-based strategies for infectious disease prevention and control ;-Fodder and fodder additives intended for consumption by livestock and produced by businesses which are in possession of an export licence for those products issued by the central state veterinary service of the exporting country and which are subject to continuous supervision by them, shall be admitted into the Russian Federation. Fodder and fodder additives must be obtained from fresh raw material of animal and bird origin, and must originate from holdings and administrative territories which are free of infectious animal and bird diseases, including: - bovine spongiform encephalopathy and ovine scrapie; - on the national territory, in accordance with the requirements of the International Veterinary Code of the OIE; - African swine fever, African horse fever, camel disease and rinderpest: during the last three years in the country; - classical swine fever, foot-and-mouth disease, sheep and goat pox, and contagious bovine pleuropneumonia: during the last 12 months in an administrative territory; - Siberian plague (anthrax), brucellosis, leptospirosis, Aujeszkys disease, anaerobic infections: during the last three months on the holding. Beef, mutton, viscera, by-products, meat and bone meal or other raw materials obtained from countries which do not meet the requirements of the International Veterinary Code of the OIE regarding bovine spongiform encaphalopathy or ovine scrapie shall not be used in the production of fodder. Raw materials used in the production of fodder must be obtained from livestock not obtained from genetically modified sources. Raw materials used in the production of fodder must only be of post-slaughter origin and subject to a post-mortem veterinary health report prepared by the state veterinary service of the exporting country. Fodder and fodder additives must not contain salmonella, botulinus toxin or enteropathogenic or anaerobic microflora. Total bacterial contamination must not exceed 500 000 colony-forming units per gram, which must be corroborated by laboratory tests forming the basis for the corresponding entry in the veterinary certificate.Means of transport must be processed and conditioned in accordance with the rules in force in the exporting country. Fulfilment of the conditions set out in these requirements must be fully corroborated by: 1. a veterinary certificate signed by a State Veterinary Officer in the exporting country confirming that the administrative territory (country, state, province, etc.) meets the requirements regarding the above-mentioned infectious diseases; 2. a certificate of quality issued by the authorised control body of the exporting country pesticides and total beta activity do not exceed the values stated above (inspectorate, laboratory, etc.), confirming that the content of heavy metals, mycotoxins Beef, mutton, viscera, by-products, meat and bone meal or other raw materials obtained from countries which do not meet the requirements of the International Veterinary Code of the OIE regarding bovine spongiform encaphalopathy or ovine scrapie shall not be used in the production of fodder.

#saniya bano #jv-u5021 #jayoti vidhyapeeth women;s university, jaipur topic- importance of exercise in daily life

#DURGESH #JV-U/19/3117 # priya samota # jv-u/19/3702#B.Sc {hons} agriculture 3rd year , 5th sem #jayoti vidyapeeth women;s university ,jaipur Essay on Farmer Adoption Programme (Agriculture Mentorship Programme (AMP) /Veterinary Health & Fodder Care) Determinants of farmers adoption of management-based strategies for infectious disease prevention and control ;- ABSTRACT The prevention and control of endemic pathogens within and between farms often depends on the adoption of best management practices. However, farmers regularly do not adopt recommended measures or do not enroll in voluntary disease control programs. This indicates that a more comprehensive understanding of the influences and extension tools that affect farmers management decisions is necessary. Based on a review of relevant published literature, we developed recommendations to support policy-makers, industry representatives, researchers, veterinarians, and other stakeholders when motivating farmers to adopt best management practices, and to facilitate the development and implementation of voluntary prevention and control programs for livestock diseases. Farmers will make management decisions based on their unique circumstances, agricultural contexts, beliefs, and goals. Providing them with rational but universal arguments might not always be sufficient to motivate on-farm change. Implementation of recommended management practices is more likely if farmers acknowledge the existence of a problem and their responsibility to take action. The perceived feasibility and effectiveness of the recommended management strategy and sufficient technical knowledge further increase the likelihood of adequate adoption. Farmers will also weigh the expected advantages of a proposed change against the expected disadvantages, and these considerations often include internal drivers such as pride or the desire to conform with perceived standards. Extension tools and farmers social referents (e.g., veterinarians, peers) not only provide technical information but also influence these standards. Whereas mass media have the potential to deliver information to a broad audience, more personal approaches such as participatory group learning or individual communication with farm advisors can enable the tailoring of recommendations to farmers situations. Approaches that appeal to farmers internal motivators or that unconsciously elicit the desired behavior will increase the success of the intervention. Collaboration among stakeholders, assisted by social scientists and communication specialists, is necessary to provide a context that facilitates on-farm change and transfers consistent messages across extension tools in the most effective way. INTRODUCTION Livestock farmers worldwide face endemic disease challenges that threaten animal health and welfare. These diseases can have a substantial economic impact on individual enterprises and on the farming industry as a whole (Wierup, 2012). Therefore, although the relevance of specific diseases might vary by country, the prevention and eradication of infectious animal diseases [i.e., diseases that can be spread directly or indirectly between animals (and potentially to humans)] has become an increasing focus for many nations. Despite huge advances in the development of livestock vaccines and treatment options, the implementation of best management practices is still the most effective way to prevent and control many infectious diseases on farms. Farmers are encouraged to implement specific strategies to mitigate the risk of disease transmission, not only for the sake of their animals health and welfare, but also to protect humans from zoonotic pathogens (OIE Animal Production Food Safety Working Group, 2006). However, poor on-farm adoption of recommendations to enhance general biosecurity practices, or of strategies to decrease transmission of specific diseases, is common (Bell et al., 2009; Brennan and Christley, 2013; Sayers et al., 2013). Furthermore, participation rates in voluntary disease prevention and control programs are often below 30% (Hoe and Ruegg, 2006; Hop et al., 2011; Nielsen, 2011). These experiences suggest that the methods used to motivate participation in control programs and adoption of recommended practices have been suboptimal. Agricultural extension refers to activities and communication channels that facilitate changes in farmer knowledge, attitudes, and behavior by synthesizing, exchanging, and applying information (Black, 2000; Anderson and Feder, 2004). Although agricultural extension differs depending on the context, traditional “top-down” tools such as newsletters or magazines are often the primary routes of knowledge transfer, and they assume that farmers make decisions based purely on scientific rationale (Roche, 2014). However, it is widely accepted that farmers decision-making varies, influenced by factors that are not solely based on policy, economic considerations, or rational judgment (Edwards-Jones, 2006; Noordhuizen et al., 2008b). Some variability can be explained by individual farmer traits (e.g., personality, attitudes, beliefs, intentions, values, skills, and knowledge). Remarkably, these socio-psychological variables often explain more variation in farm performance than farmers measurable management practices (Bigras-Poulin et al., 1985; van den Borne et al., 2014). To account for these factors, different theoretical frameworks have been applied in the agricultural context. Two of the frameworks most commonly used to investigate the effects of socio-psychological variables on farmers decision-making and better understand farmer behavior, are the Health Belief Model (Janz and Becker, 1984) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991). In addition to socio-psychological factors, external influences such as input from social referents (e.g., herd veterinarians, colleagues, or family) and agricultural extension conduits (e.g., printed media or discussion groups) can also affect farmers management decisions (Ritter et al., 2015; Roche et al., 2015). The objective of this narrative review was to describe the available information on (1) the factors that contribute to farmers adoption of recommended management strategies; and (2) the influence of social referents and extension tools on farmers management decisions. Our focus was farmer behavior related to improving animal health, but where applicable, we have included a selection of findings on animal welfare to add relevant information from other contexts. Furthermore, the scope of this review was voluntary management-based prevention and control of endemic infectious livestock diseases (i.e., farmers decision-making in the absence of compulsive regulations) on commercial farms in economically developed countries. To meet the second objective, we discussed the main communication channels used to provide information and support farmers in adopting recommended management practices. Based on the evidence as it pertains to the delineated scope, we provide recommendations to policy-makers, industry representatives, researchers, veterinarians, and other stakeholders to facilitate the adoption of on-farm management practices and assist in the development and implementation of voluntary control programs for endemic infectious livestock diseases. SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL INFLUENCES Every farmer has their own unique combination of demographic factors (e.g., age, sex, education), personality, previous experiences, routines, and goals, as well as economic, cultural, and family influences (Wilson et al., 2015; Frössling and Nöremark, 2016). These individual characteristics contribute to farmers views about animal health, prevention and control strategies, and influence their decision-making (Figure 1). Not every management decision a farmer makes might appear logical from an outside perspective (Kristensen and Jakobsen, 2011a). An understanding of a farmers mindset and the specific factors that combine to influence that mindset is crucial for motivating them to change. The socio-psychological influences on farmers adoption of recommended management practices described in the first part of the review were considered the most relevant and were often derived from constructs described in the Health Belief Model or the Theory of Planned Behavior (Figure 1). It is particularly important to consider these factors when formulating voluntary prevention and control programs, and we have provided related recommendations (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4). However, interventions to change farmer behavior must acknowledge that farmers are not a homogeneous group and cannot be convinced by relying only on educational arguments (Jansen et al., 2010b,c). Furthermore, farmers context (e.g., laws and regulations, market prices, or quality programs) can affect decision-making by inhibiting or facilitating the recommended management changes. Because of the influence of farmers internal logic and context on their decision-making, it is impossible to provide a “one-size-fits-all” solution (Kristensen and Jakobsen, 2011a). Problem Awareness and Perception of Responsibility

#gunjan meena #jv-u/18/2242 #jayoti vidyapeeth women;s university ,jaipur Essay on Farmer Adoption Programme (Agriculture Mentorship Programme (AMP) /Veterinary Health & Fodder Care) Determinants of farmers adoption of management-based strategies for infectious disease prevention and control ;- ABSTRACT The prevention and control of endemic pathogens within and between farms often depends on the adoption of best management practices. However, farmers regularly do not adopt recommended measures or do not enroll in voluntary disease control programs. This indicates that a more comprehensive understanding of the influences and extension tools that affect farmers management decisions is necessary. Based on a review of relevant published literature, we developed recommendations to support policy-makers, industry representatives, researchers, veterinarians, and other stakeholders when motivating farmers to adopt best management practices, and to facilitate the development and implementation of voluntary prevention and control programs for livestock diseases. Farmers will make management decisions based on their unique circumstances, agricultural contexts, beliefs, and goals. Providing them with rational but universal arguments might not always be sufficient to motivate on-farm change. Implementation of recommended management practices is more likely if farmers acknowledge the existence of a problem and their responsibility to take action. The perceived feasibility and effectiveness of the recommended management strategy and sufficient technical knowledge further increase the likelihood of adequate adoption. Farmers will also weigh the expected advantages of a proposed change against the expected disadvantages, and these considerations often include internal drivers such as pride or the desire to conform with perceived standards. Extension tools and farmers social referents (e.g., veterinarians, peers) not only provide technical information but also influence these standards. Whereas mass media have the potential to deliver information to a broad audience, more personal approaches such as participatory group learning or individual communication with farm advisors can enable the tailoring of recommendations to farmers situations. Approaches that appeal to farmers internal motivators or that unconsciously elicit the desired behavior will increase the success of the intervention. Collaboration among stakeholders, assisted by social scientists and communication specialists, is necessary to provide a context that facilitates on-farm change and transfers consistent messages across extension tools in the most effective way. INTRODUCTION Livestock farmers worldwide face endemic disease challenges that threaten animal health and welfare. These diseases can have a substantial economic impact on individual enterprises and on the farming industry as a whole (Wierup, 2012). Therefore, although the relevance of specific diseases might vary by country, the prevention and eradication of infectious animal diseases [i.e., diseases that can be spread directly or indirectly between animals (and potentially to humans)] has become an increasing focus for many nations. Despite huge advances in the development of livestock vaccines and treatment options, the implementation of best management practices is still the most effective way to prevent and control many infectious diseases on farms. Farmers are encouraged to implement specific strategies to mitigate the risk of disease transmission, not only for the sake of their animals health and welfare, but also to protect humans from zoonotic pathogens (OIE Animal Production Food Safety Working Group, 2006). However, poor on-farm adoption of recommendations to enhance general biosecurity practices, or of strategies to decrease transmission of specific diseases, is common (Bell et al., 2009; Brennan and Christley, 2013; Sayers et al., 2013). Furthermore, participation rates in voluntary disease prevention and control programs are often below 30% (Hoe and Ruegg, 2006; Hop et al., 2011; Nielsen, 2011). These experiences suggest that the methods used to motivate participation in control programs and adoption of recommended practices have been suboptimal. Agricultural extension refers to activities and communication channels that facilitate changes in farmer knowledge, attitudes, and behavior by synthesizing, exchanging, and applying information (Black, 2000; Anderson and Feder, 2004). Although agricultural extension differs depending on the context, traditional “top-down” tools such as newsletters or magazines are often the primary routes of knowledge transfer, and they assume that farmers make decisions based purely on scientific rationale (Roche, 2014). However, it is widely accepted that farmers decision-making varies, influenced by factors that are not solely based on policy, economic considerations, or rational judgment (Edwards-Jones, 2006; Noordhuizen et al., 2008b). Some variability can be explained by individual farmer traits (e.g., p

#DURGESH #JV-U/19/3117 #B.Sc {hons} agriculture 3rd year , 5th sem #jayoti vidyapeeth women;s university ,jaipur Essay on Farmer Adoption Programme (Agriculture Mentorship Programme (AMP) /Veterinary Health & Fodder Care) Determinants of farmers adoption of management-based strategies for infectious disease prevention and control ;- ABSTRACT The prevention and control of endemic pathogens within and between farms often depends on the adoption of best management practices. However, farmers regularly do not adopt recommended measures or do not enroll in voluntary disease control programs. This indicates that a more comprehensive understanding of the influences and extension tools that affect farmers management decisions is necessary. Based on a review of relevant published literature, we developed recommendations to support policy-makers, industry representatives, researchers, veterinarians, and other stakeholders when motivating farmers to adopt best management practices, and to facilitate the development and implementation of voluntary prevention and control programs for livestock diseases. Farmers will make management decisions based on their unique circumstances, agricultural contexts, beliefs, and goals. Providing them with rational but universal arguments might not always be sufficient to motivate on-farm change. Implementation of recommended management practices is more likely if farmers acknowledge the existence of a problem and their responsibility to take action. The perceived feasibility and effectiveness of the recommended management strategy and sufficient technical knowledge further increase the likelihood of adequate adoption. Farmers will also weigh the expected advantages of a proposed change against the expected disadvantages, and these considerations often include internal drivers such as pride or the desire to conform with perceived standards. Extension tools and farmers social referents (e.g., veterinarians, peers) not only provide technical information but also influence these standards. Whereas mass media have the potential to deliver information to a broad audience, more personal approaches such as participatory group learning or individual communication with farm advisors can enable the tailoring of recommendations to farmers situations. Approaches that appeal to farmers internal motivators or that unconsciously elicit the desired behavior will increase the success of the intervention. Collaboration among stakeholders, assisted by social scientists and communication specialists, is necessary to provide a context that facilitates on-farm change and transfers consistent messages across extension tools in the most effective way. INTRODUCTION Livestock farmers worldwide face endemic disease challenges that threaten animal health and welfare. These diseases can have a substantial economic impact on individual enterprises and on the farming industry as a whole (Wierup, 2012). Therefore, although the relevance of specific diseases might vary by country, the prevention and eradication of infectious animal diseases [i.e., diseases that can be spread directly or indirectly between animals (and potentially to humans)] has become an increasing focus for many nations. Despite huge advances in the development of livestock vaccines and treatment options, the implementation of best management practices is still the most effective way to prevent and control many infectious diseases on farms. Farmers are encouraged to implement specific strategies to mitigate the risk of disease transmission, not only for the sake of their animals health and welfare, but also to protect humans from zoonotic pathogens (OIE Animal Production Food Safety Working Group, 2006). However, poor on-farm adoption of recommendations to enhance general biosecurity practices, or of strategies to decrease transmission of specific diseases, is common (Bell et al., 2009; Brennan and Christley, 2013; Sayers et al., 2013). Furthermore, participation rates in voluntary disease prevention and control programs are often below 30% (Hoe and Ruegg, 2006; Hop et al., 2011; Nielsen, 2011). These experiences suggest that the methods used to motivate participation in control programs and adoption of recommended practices have been suboptimal. Agricultural extension refers to activities and communication channels that facilitate changes in farmer knowledge, attitudes, and behavior by synthesizing, exchanging, and applying information (Black, 2000; Anderson and Feder, 2004). Although agricultural extension differs depending on the context, traditional “top-down” tools such as newsletters or magazines are often the primary routes of knowledge transfer, and they assume that farmers make decisions based purely on scientific rationale (Roche, 2014). However, it is widely accepted that farmers decision-making varies, influenced by factors that are not solely based on policy, economic considerations, or rational judgment (Edwards-Jones, 2006; Noordhuizen et al., 2008b). Some variability can be explained by individual farmer traits (e.g., personality, attitudes, beliefs, intentions, values, skills, and knowledge). Remarkably, these socio-psychological variables often explain more variation in farm performance than farmers measurable management practices (Bigras-Poulin et al., 1985; van den Borne et al., 2014). To account for these factors, different theoretical frameworks have been applied in the agricultural context. Two of the frameworks most commonly used to investigate the effects of socio-psychological variables on farmers decision-making and better understand farmer behavior, are the Health Belief Model (Janz and Becker, 1984) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991). In addition to socio-psychological factors, external influences such as input from social referents (e.g., herd veterinarians, colleagues, or family) and agricultural extension conduits (e.g., printed media or discussion groups) can also affect farmers management decisions (Ritter et al., 2015; Roche et al., 2015). The objective of this narrative review was to describe the available information on (1) the factors that contribute to farmers adoption of recommended management strategies; and (2) the influence of social referents and extension tools on farmers management decisions. Our focus was farmer behavior related to improving animal health, but where applicable, we have included a selection of findings on animal welfare to add relevant information from other contexts. Furthermore, the scope of this review was voluntary management-based prevention and control of endemic infectious livestock diseases (i.e., farmers decision-making in the absence of compulsive regulations) on commercial farms in economically developed countries. To meet the second objective, we discussed the main communication channels used to provide information and support farmers in adopting recommended management practices. Based on the evidence as it pertains to the delineated scope, we provide recommendations to policy-makers, industry representatives, researchers, veterinarians, and other stakeholders to facilitate the adoption of on-farm management practices and assist in the development and implementation of voluntary control programs for endemic infectious livestock diseases. SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL INFLUENCES Every farmer has their own unique combination of demographic factors (e.g., age, sex, education), personality, previous experiences, routines, and goals, as well as economic, cultural, and family influences (Wilson et al., 2015; Frössling and Nöremark, 2016). These individual characteristics contribute to farmers views about animal health, prevention and control strategies, and influence their decision-making (Figure 1). Not every management decision a farmer makes might appear logical from an outside perspective (Kristensen and Jakobsen, 2011a). An understanding of a farmers mindset and the specific factors that combine to influence that mindset is crucial for motivating them to change. The socio-psychological influences on farmers adoption of recommended management practices described in the first part of the review were considered the most relevant and were often derived from constructs described in the Health Belief Model or the Theory of Planned Behavior (Figure 1). It is particularly important to consider these factors when formulating voluntary prevention and control programs, and we have provided related recommendations (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4). However, interventions to change farmer behavior must acknowledge that farmers are not a homogeneous group and cannot be convinced by relying only on educational arguments (Jansen et al., 2010b,c). Furthermore, farmers context (e.g., laws and regulations, market prices, or quality programs) can affect decision-making by inhibiting or facilitating the recommended management changes. Because of the influence of farmers internal logic and context on their decision-making, it is impossible to provide a “one-size-fits-all” solution (Kristensen and Jakobsen, 2011a). Problem Awareness and Perception of Responsibility

#NEETU CHOUDHARY #JV-U/19/3114 #B.Sc {hons} agriculture 3rd year , 5th sem #jayoti vidyapeeth women;s university ,jaipur Essay on Farmer Adoption Programme (Agriculture Mentorship Programme (AMP) /Veterinary Health & Fodder Care) Determinants of farmers adoption of management-based strategies for infectious disease prevention and control ;- ABSTRACT The prevention and control of endemic pathogens within and between farms often depends on the adoption of best management practices. However, farmers regularly do not adopt recommended measures or do not enroll in voluntary disease control programs. This indicates that a more comprehensive understanding of the influences and extension tools that affect farmers management decisions is necessary. Based on a review of relevant published literature, we developed recommendations to support policy-makers, industry representatives, researchers, veterinarians, and other stakeholders when motivating farmers to adopt best management practices, and to facilitate the development and implementation of voluntary prevention and control programs for livestock diseases. Farmers will make management decisions based on their unique circumstances, agricultural contexts, beliefs, and goals. Providing them with rational but universal arguments might not always be sufficient to motivate on-farm change. Implementation of recommended management practices is more likely if farmers acknowledge the existence of a problem and their responsibility to take action. The perceived feasibility and effectiveness of the recommended management strategy and sufficient technical knowledge further increase the likelihood of adequate adoption. Farmers will also weigh the expected advantages of a proposed change against the expected disadvantages, and these considerations often include internal drivers such as pride or the desire to conform with perceived standards. Extension tools and farmers social referents (e.g., veterinarians, peers) not only provide technical information but also influence these standards. Whereas mass media have the potential to deliver information to a broad audience, more personal approaches such as participatory group learning or individual communication with farm advisors can enable the tailoring of recommendations to farmers situations. Approaches that appeal to farmers internal motivators or that unconsciously elicit the desired behavior will increase the success of the intervention. Collaboration among stakeholders, assisted by social scientists and communication specialists, is necessary to provide a context that facilitates on-farm change and transfers consistent messages across extension tools in the most effective way. INTRODUCTION Livestock farmers worldwide face endemic disease challenges that threaten animal health and welfare. These diseases can have a substantial economic impact on individual enterprises and on the farming industry as a whole (Wierup, 2012). Therefore, although the relevance of specific diseases might vary by country, the prevention and eradication of infectious animal diseases [i.e., diseases that can be spread directly or indirectly between animals (and potentially to humans)] has become an increasing focus for many nations. Despite huge advances in the development of livestock vaccines and treatment options, the implementation of best management practices is still the most effective way to prevent and control many infectious diseases on farms. Farmers are encouraged to implement specific strategies to mitigate the risk of disease transmission, not only for the sake of their animals health and welfare, but also to protect humans from zoonotic pathogens (OIE Animal Production Food Safety Working Group, 2006). However, poor on-farm adoption of recommendations to enhance general biosecurity practices, or of strategies to decrease transmission of specific diseases, is common (Bell et al., 2009; Brennan and Christley, 2013; Sayers et al., 2013). Furthermore, participation rates in voluntary disease prevention and control programs are often below 30% (Hoe and Ruegg, 2006; Hop et al., 2011; Nielsen, 2011). These experiences suggest that the methods used to motivate participation in control programs and adoption of recommended practices have been suboptimal. Agricultural extension refers to activities and communication channels that facilitate changes in farmer knowledge, attitudes, and behavior by synthesizing, exchanging, and applying information (Black, 2000; Anderson and Feder, 2004). Although agricultural extension differs depending on the context, traditional “top-down” tools such as newsletters or magazines are often the primary routes of knowledge transfer, and they assume that farmers make decisions based purely on scientific rationale (Roche, 2014). However, it is widely accepted that farmers decision-making varies, influenced by factors that are not solely based on policy, economic considerations, or rational judgment (Edwards-Jones, 2006; Noordhuizen et al., 2008b). Some variability can be explained by individual farmer traits (e.g., personality, attitudes, beliefs, intentions, values, skills, and knowledge). Remarkably, these socio-psychological variables often explain more variation in farm performance than farmers measurable management practices (Bigras-Poulin et al., 1985; van den Borne et al., 2014). To account for these factors, different theoretical frameworks have been applied in the agricultural context. Two of the frameworks most commonly used to investigate the effects of socio-psychological variables on farmers decision-making and better understand farmer behavior, are the Health Belief Model (Janz and Becker, 1984) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991). In addition to socio-psychological factors, external influences such as input from social referents (e.g., herd veterinarians, colleagues, or family) and agricultural extension conduits (e.g., printed media or discussion groups) can also affect farmers management decisions (Ritter et al., 2015; Roche et al., 2015). The objective of this narrative review was to describe the available information on (1) the factors that contribute to farmers adoption of recommended management strategies; and (2) the influence of social referents and extension tools on farmers management decisions. Our focus was farmer behavior related to improving animal health, but where applicable, we have included a selection of findings on animal welfare to add relevant information from other contexts. Furthermore, the scope of this review was voluntary management-based prevention and control of endemic infectious livestock diseases (i.e., farmers decision-making in the absence of compulsive regulations) on commercial farms in economically developed countries. To meet the second objective, we discussed the main communication channels used to provide information and support farmers in adopting recommended management practices. Based on the evidence as it pertains to the delineated scope, we provide recommendations to policy-makers, industry representatives, researchers, veterinarians, and other stakeholders to facilitate the adoption of on-farm management practices and assist in the development and implementation of voluntary control programs for endemic infectious livestock diseases. SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL INFLUENCES Every farmer has their own unique combination of demographic factors (e.g., age, sex, education), personality, previous experiences, routines, and goals, as well as economic, cultural, and family influences (Wilson et al., 2015; Frössling and Nöremark, 2016). These individual characteristics contribute to farmers views about animal health, prevention and control strategies, and influence their decision-making (Figure 1). Not every management decision a farmer makes might appear logical from an outside perspective (Kristensen and Jakobsen, 2011a). An understanding of a farmers mindset and the specific factors that combine to influence that mindset is crucial for motivating them to change. The socio-psychological influences on farmers adoption of recommended management practices described in the first part of the review were considered the most relevant and were often derived from constructs described in the Health Belief Model or the Theory of Planned Behavior (Figure 1). It is particularly important to consider these factors when formulating voluntary prevention and control programs, and we have provided related recommendations (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4). However, interventions to change farmer behavior must acknowledge that farmers are not a homogeneous group and cannot be convinced by relying only on educational arguments (Jansen et al., 2010b,c). Furthermore, farmers context (e.g., laws and regulations, market prices, or quality programs) can affect decision-making by inhibiting or facilitating the recommended management changes. Because of the influence of farmers internal logic and context on their decision-making, it is impossible to provide a “one-size-fits-all” solution (Kristensen and Jakobsen, 2011a).

pooja bhatheshwar #jayoti vidyapeeth women;s university ,jaipur Essay on Farmer Adoption Programme (Agriculture Mentorship Programme (AMP) /Veterinary Health & Fodder Care) Determinants of farmers adoption of management-based strategies for infectious disease prevention and control ;- ABSTRACT The prevention and control of endemic pathogens within and between farms often depends on the adoption of best management practices. However, farmers regularly do not adopt recommended measures or do not enroll in voluntary disease control programs. This indicates that a more comprehensive understanding of the influences and extension tools that affect farmers management decisions is necessary. Based on a review of relevant published literature, we developed recommendations to support policy-makers, industry representatives, researchers, veterinarians, and other stakeholders when motivating farmers to adopt best management practices, and to facilitate the development and implementation of voluntary prevention and control programs for livestock diseases. Farmers will make management decisions based on their unique circumstances, agricultural contexts, beliefs, and goals. Providing them with rational but universal arguments might not always be sufficient to motivate on-farm change. Implementation of recommended management practices is more likely if farmers acknowledge the existence of a problem and their responsibility to take action. The perceived feasibility and effectiveness of the recommended management strategy and sufficient technical knowledge further increase the likelihood of adequate adoption. Farmers will also weigh the expected advantages of a proposed change against the expected disadvantages, and these considerations often include internal drivers such as pride or the desire to conform with perceived standards. Extension tools and farmers social referents (e.g., veterinarians, peers) not only provide technical information but also influence these standards. Whereas mass media have the potential to deliver information to a broad audience, more personal approaches such as participatory group learning or individual communication with farm advisors can enable the tailoring of recommendations to farmers situations. Approaches that appeal to farmers internal motivators or that unconsciously elicit the desired behavior will increase the success of the intervention. Collaboration among stakeholders, assisted by social scientists and communication specialists, is necessary to provide a context that facilitates on-farm change and transfers consistent messages across extension tools in the most effective way. INTRODUCTION Livestock farmers worldwide face endemic disease challenges that threaten animal health and welfare. These diseases can have a substantial economic impact on individual enterprises and on the farming industry as a whole (Wierup, 2012). Therefore, although the relevance of specific diseases might vary by country, the prevention and eradication of infectious animal diseases [i.e., diseases that can be spread directly or indirectly between animals (and potentially to humans)] has become an increasing focus for many nations. Despite huge advances in the development of livestock vaccines and treatment options, the implementation of best management practices is still the most effective way to prevent and control many infectious diseases on farms. Farmers are encouraged to implement specific strategies to mitigate the risk of disease transmission, not only for the sake of their animals health and welfare, but also to protect humans from zoonotic pathogens (OIE Animal Production Food Safety Working Group, 2006). However, poor on-farm adoption of recommendations to enhance general biosecurity practices, or of strategies to decrease transmission of specific diseases, is common (Bell et al., 2009; Brennan and Christley, 2013; Sayers et al., 2013). Furthermore, participation rates in voluntary disease prevention and control programs are often below 30% (Hoe and Ruegg, 2006; Hop et al., 2011; Nielsen, 2011). These experiences suggest that the methods used to motivate participation in control programs and adoption of recommended practices have been suboptimal. Agricultural extension refers to activities and communication channels that facilitate changes in farmer knowledge, attitudes, and behavior by synthesizing, exchanging, and applying information (Black, 2000; Anderson and Feder, 2004). Although agricultural extension differs depending on the context, traditional “top-down” tools such as newsletters or magazines are often the primary routes of knowledge transfer, and they assume that farmers make decisions based purely on scientific rationale (Roche, 2014). However, it is widely accepted that farmers decision-making varies, influenced by factors that are not solely based on policy, economic considerations, or rational judgment (Edwards-Jones, 2006; Noordhuizen et al., 2008b). Some variability can be explained by individual farmer traits (e.g., personality, attitudes, beliefs, intentions, values, skills, and knowledge). Remarkably, these socio-psychological variables often explain more variation in farm performance than farmers measurable management practices (Bigras-Poulin et al., 1985; van den Borne et al., 2014). To account for these factors, different theoretical frameworks have been applied in the agricultural context. Two of the frameworks most commonly used to investigate the effects of socio-psychological variables on farmers decision-making and better understand farmer behavior, are the Health Belief Model (Janz and Becker, 1984) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991). In addition to socio-psychological factors, external influences such as input from social referents (e.g., herd veterinarians, colleagues, or family) and agricultural extension conduits (e.g., printed media or discussion groups) can also affect farmers management decisions (Ritter et al., 2015; Roche et al., 2015). The objective of this narrative review was to describe the available information on (1) the factors that contribute to farmers adoption of recommended management strategies; and (2) the influence of social referents and extension tools on farmers management decisions. Our focus was farmer behavior related to improving animal health, but where applicable, we have included a selection of findings on animal welfare to add relevant information from other contexts. Furthermore, the scope of this review was voluntary management-based prevention and control of endemic infectious livestock diseases (i.e., farmers decision-making in the absence of compulsive regulations) on commercial farms in economically developed countries. To meet the second objective, we discussed the main communication channels used to provide information and support farmers in adopting recommended management practices. Based on the evidence as it pertains to the delineated scope, we provide recommendations to policy-makers, industry representatives, researchers, veterinarians, and other stakeholders to facilitate the adoption of on-farm management practices and assist in the development and implementation of voluntary control programs for endemic infectious livestock diseases. SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL INFLUENCES Every farmer has their own unique combination of demographic factors (e.g., age, sex, education), personality, previous experiences, routines, and goals, as well as economic, cultural, and family influences (Wilson et al., 2015; Frössling and Nöremark, 2016). These individual characteristics contribute to farmers views about animal health, prevention and control strategies, and influence their decision-making (Figure 1). Not every management decision a farmer makes might appear logical from an outside perspective (Kristensen and Jakobsen, 2011a). An understanding of a farmers mindset and the specific factors that combine to influence that mindset is crucial for motivating them to change. The socio-psychological influences on farmers adoption of recommended management practices described in the first part of the review were considered the most relevant and were often derived from constructs described in the Health Belief Model or the Theory of Planned Behavior (Figure 1). It is particularly important to consider these factors when formulating voluntary prevention and control programs, and we have provided related recommendations (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4). However, interventions to change farmer behavior must acknowledge that farmers are not a homogeneous group and cannot be convinced by relying only on educational arguments (Jansen et al., 2010b,c). Furthermore, farmers context (e.g., laws and regulations, market prices, or quality programs) can affect decision-making by inhibiting or facilitating the recommended management changes. Because of the influence of farmers internal logic and context on their decision-making, it is impossible to provide a “one-size-fits-all” solution (Kristensen and Jakobsen, 2011a). Problem Awareness and Perception of Responsibility Problem Awareness People are less willing to change their behavior if they deny the negative (future) effects of their current habits or of their current situation (e.g., the negative effects of smoking or obesity on health; Orji et al., 2012; Mantler, 2013). In this way, informing farmers about the presence of a pathogen or disease on their farm is an important step, but it does not guarantee that they will regard it as an important issue (Leach et al., 2010a; Ritter et al., 2016; Table 1). For example, Texas beef and Canadian dairy producers with Johnes disease in their herd often did not consider it a problem (Benjamin et al., 2010; Sorge et al., 2010a), and 90% of dairy farmers in England and Wales did not see lameness as a problem, despite an average prevalence of 36% (Leach et al., 2010a). To change their management practices, farmers need to believe that their current situation poses a problem or increases their risk of future problems, a notion that is described as “perceived threat” in the Health Belief Model (Janz and Becker, 1984; Casal et al., 2007; Benjamin et al., 2010). For example, concern about production losses due to Johnes disease was a main reason why dairy farmers participated in a voluntary Johnes disease control program (Nielsen, 2011).

#SONU VERMA #JV-U/19/3439 #B.Sc {hons} agriculture 3rd year , 5th sem #jayoti vidyapeeth women;s university ,jaipur Essay on Farmer Adoption Programme (Agriculture Mentorship Programme (AMP) /Veterinary Health & Fodder Care) Determinants of farmers adoption of management-based strategies for infectious disease prevention and control ;- ABSTRACT The prevention and control of endemic pathogens within and between farms often depends on the adoption of best management practices. However, farmers regularly do not adopt recommended measures or do not enroll in voluntary disease control programs. This indicates that a more comprehensive understanding of the influences and extension tools that affect farmers management decisions is necessary. Based on a review of relevant published literature, we developed recommendations to support policy-makers, industry representatives, researchers, veterinarians, and other stakeholders when motivating farmers to adopt best management practices, and to facilitate the development and implementation of voluntary prevention and control programs for livestock diseases. Farmers will make management decisions based on their unique circumstances, agricultural contexts, beliefs, and goals. Providing them with rational but universal arguments might not always be sufficient to motivate on-farm change. Implementation of recommended management practices is more likely if farmers acknowledge the existence of a problem and their responsibility to take action. The perceived feasibility and effectiveness of the recommended management strategy and sufficient technical knowledge further increase the likelihood of adequate adoption. Farmers will also weigh the expected advantages of a proposed change against the expected disadvantages, and these considerations often include internal drivers such as pride or the desire to conform with perceived standards. Extension tools and farmers social referents (e.g., veterinarians, peers) not only provide technical information but also influence these standards. Whereas mass media have the potential to deliver information to a broad audience, more personal approaches such as participatory group learning or individual communication with farm advisors can enable the tailoring of recommendations to farmers situations. Approaches that appeal to farmers internal motivators or that unconsciously elicit the desired behavior will increase the success of the intervention. Collaboration among stakeholders, assisted by social scientists and communication specialists, is necessary to provide a context that facilitates on-farm change and transfers consistent messages across extension tools in the most effective way. INTRODUCTION Livestock farmers worldwide face endemic disease challenges that threaten animal health and welfare. These diseases can have a substantial economic impact on individual enterprises and on the farming industry as a whole (Wierup, 2012). Therefore, although the relevance of specific diseases might vary by country, the prevention and eradication of infectious animal diseases [i.e., diseases that can be spread directly or indirectly between animals (and potentially to humans)] has become an increasing focus for many nations. Despite huge advances in the development of livestock vaccines and treatment options, the implementation of best management practices is still the most effective way to prevent and control many infectious diseases on farms. Farmers are encouraged to implement specific strategies to mitigate the risk of disease transmission, not only for the sake of their animals health and welfare, but also to protect humans from zoonotic pathogens (OIE Animal Production Food Safety Working Group, 2006). However, poor on-farm adoption of recommendations to enhance general biosecurity practices, or of strategies to decrease transmission of specific diseases, is common (Bell et al., 2009; Brennan and Christley, 2013; Sayers et al., 2013). Furthermore, participation rates in voluntary disease prevention and control programs are often below 30% (Hoe and Ruegg, 2006; Hop et al., 2011; Nielsen, 2011). These experiences suggest that the methods used to motivate participation in control programs and adoption of recommended practices have been suboptimal. Agricultural extension refers to activities and communication channels that facilitate changes in farmer knowledge, attitudes, and behavior by synthesizing, exchanging, and applying information (Black, 2000; Anderson and Feder, 2004). Although agricultural extension differs depending on the context, traditional “top-down” tools such as newsletters or magazines are often the primary routes of knowledge transfer, and they assume that farmers make decisions based purely on scientific rationale (Roche, 2014). However, it is widely accepted that farmers decision-making varies, influenced by factors that are not solely based on policy, economic considerations, or rational judgment (Edwards-Jones, 2006; Noordhuizen et al., 2008b). Some variability can be explained by individual farmer traits (e.g., personality, attitudes, beliefs, intentions, values, skills, and knowledge). Remarkably, these socio-psychological variables often explain more variation in farm performance than farmers measurable management practices (Bigras-Poulin et al., 1985; van den Borne et al., 2014). To account for these factors, different theoretical frameworks have been applied in the agricultural context. Two of the frameworks most commonly used to investigate the effects of socio-psychological variables on farmers decision-making and better understand farmer behavior, are the Health Belief Model (Janz and Becker, 1984) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991). In addition to socio-psychological factors, external influences such as input from social referents (e.g., herd veterinarians, colleagues, or family) and agricultural extension conduits (e.g., printed media or discussion groups) can also affect farmers management decisions (Ritter et al., 2015; Roche et al., 2015). The objective of this narrative review was to describe the available information on (1) the factors that contribute to farmers adoption of recommended management strategies; and (2) the influence of social referents and extension tools on farmers management decisions. Our focus was farmer behavior related to improving animal health, but where applicable, we have included a selection of findings on animal welfare to add relevant information from other contexts. Furthermore, the scope of this review was voluntary management-based prevention and control of endemic infectious livestock diseases (i.e., farmers decision-making in the absence of compulsive regulations) on commercial farms in economically developed countries. To meet the second objective, we discussed the main communication channels used to provide information and support farmers in adopting recommended management practices. Based on the evidence as it pertains to the delineated scope, we provide recommendations to policy-makers, industry representatives, researchers, veterinarians, and other stakeholders to facilitate the adoption of on-farm management practices and assist in the development and implementation of voluntary control programs for endemic infectious livestock diseases. SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL INFLUENCES Every farmer has their own unique combination of demographic factors (e.g., age, sex, education), personality, previous experiences, routines, and goals, as well as economic, cultural, and family influences (Wilson et al., 2015; Frössling and Nöremark, 2016). These individual characteristics contribute to farmers views about animal health, prevention and control strategies, and influence their decision-making (Figure 1). Not every management decision a farmer makes might appear logical from an outside perspective (Kristensen and Jakobsen, 2011a). An understanding of a farmers mindset and the specific factors that combine to influence that mindset is crucial for motivating them to change. The socio-psychological influences on farmers adoption of recommended management practices described in the first part of the review were considered the most relevant and were often derived from constructs described in the Health Belief Model or the Theory of Planned Behavior (Figure 1). It is particularly important to consider these factors when formulating voluntary prevention and control programs, and we have provided related recommendations (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4). However, interventions to change farmer behavior must acknowledge that farmers are not a homogeneous group and cannot be convinced by relying only on educational arguments (Jansen et al., 2010b,c). Furthermore, farmers context (e.g., laws and regulations, market prices, or quality programs) can affect decision-making by inhibiting or facilitating the recommended management changes. Because of the influence of farmers internal logic and context on their decision-making, it is impossible to provide a “one-size-fits-all” solution (Kristensen and Jakobsen, 2011a). Problem Awareness and Perception of Responsibility Problem Awareness

#JVNPREETI #Class- BSC.AGRI 5TH SEM #Enrollment no - JV-U/19/3098#JayotiVidyapeethWomensUniversity Veterinary Health AND Fodder Fodder and fodder additives intended for consumption by livestock and produced by businesses which are in possession of an export licence for those products issued by the central state veterinary service of the exporting country and which are subject to continuous supervision by them, shall be admitted into the Russian Federation. Fodder and fodder additives must be obtained from fresh raw material of animal and bird origin, and must originate from holdings and administrative territories which are free of infectious animal and bird diseases, including: - bovine spongiform encephalopathy and ovine scrapie; - on the national territory, in accordance with the requirements of the International Veterinary Code of the OIE; - African swine fever, African horse fever, camel disease and rinderpest: during the last three years in the country; - classical swine fever, foot-and-mouth disease, sheep and goat pox, and contagious bovine pleuropneumonia: during the last 12 months in an administrative territory; - Siberian plague (anthrax), brucellosis, leptospirosis, Aujeszkys disease, anaerobic infections: during the last three months on the holding. Beef, mutton, viscera, by-products, meat and bone meal or other raw materials obtained from countries which do not meet the requirements of the International Veterinary Code of the OIE regarding bovine spongiform encaphalopathy or ovine scrapie shall not be used in the production of fodder. Raw materials used in the production of fodder must be obtained from livestock not obtained from genetically modified sources. Raw materials used in the production of fodder must only be of post-slaughter origin and subject to a post-mortem veterinary health report prepared by the state veterinary service of the exporting country. Fodder and fodder additives must not contain salmonella, botulinus toxin or enteropathogenic or anaerobic microflora. Total bacterial contamination must not exceed 500 000 colony-forming units per gram, which must be corroborated by laboratory tests forming the basis for the corresponding entry in the veterinary certificate.Means of transport must be processed and conditioned in accordance with the rules in force in the exporting country. Fulfilment of the conditions set out in these requirements must be fully corroborated by: 1. a veterinary certificate signed by a State Veterinary Officer in the exporting country confirming that the administrative territory (country, state, province, etc.) meets the requirements regarding the above-mentioned infectious diseases; 2. a certificate of quality issued by the authorised control body of the exporting country pesticides and total beta activity do not exceed the values stated above (inspectorate, laboratory, etc.), confirming that the content of heavy metals, mycotoxins and

# priya samota # # jv-u/19/3702 # # bsc Farmer Adoption Programme (Agriculture Mentorship Programme (AMP) /Veterinary Health & Fodder Care) Invited review: Determinants of farmers adoption of management-based strategies for infectious disease prevention and control ABSTRACT The prevention and control of endemic pathogens within and between farms often depends on the adoption of best management practices. However, farmers regularly do not adopt recommended measures or do not enroll in voluntary disease control programs. This indicates that a more comprehensive understanding of the influences and extension tools that affect farmers management decisions is necessary. Based on a review of relevant published literature, we developed recommendations to support policy-makers, industry representatives, researchers, veterinarians, and other stakeholders when motivating farmers to adopt best management practices, and to facilitate the development and implementation of voluntary prevention and control programs for livestock diseases. Farmers will make management decisions based on their unique circumstances, agricultural contexts, beliefs, and goals. Providing them with rational but universal arguments might not always be sufficient to motivate on-farm change. Farmers will also weigh the expected advantages of a proposed change against the expected disadvantages, and these considerations often include internal drivers such as pride or the desire to conform with perceived standards. Extension tools and farmers social referents (e.g., veterinarians, peers) not only provide technical information but also influence these standards. Whereas mass media have the potential to deliver information to a broad audience, more personal approaches such as participatory group learning or individual communication with farm advisors can enable the tailoring of recommendations to farmers situations. Approaches that appeal to farmers internal motivators or that unconsciously elicit the desired behavior will increase the success of the intervention. Collaboration among stakeholders, assisted by social scientists and communication specialists, is necessary to provide a context that facilitates on-farm change and transfers consistent messages across extension tools in the most effective way. INTRODUCTION Livestock farmers worldwide face endemic disease challenges that threaten animal health and welfare. These diseases can have a substantial economic impact on individual enterprises and on the farming industry as a whole (Wierup, 2012). Therefore, although the relevance of specific diseases might vary by country, the prevention and eradication of infectious animal diseases [i.e., diseases that can be spread directly or indirectly between animals (and potentially to humans)] has become an increasing focus for many nations. Despite huge advances in the development of livestock vaccines and treatment options, the implementation of best management practices is still the most effective way to prevent and control many infectious diseases on farms. Farmers are encouraged to implement specific strategies to mitigate the risk of disease transmission, not only for the sake of their animals health and welfare, but also to protect humans from zoonotic pathogens (OIE Animal Production Food Safety Working Group, 2006). However, poor on-farm adoption of recommendations to enhance general biosecurity practices, or of strategies to decrease transmission of specific diseases, is common (Bell et al., 2009; Brennan and Christley, 2013; Sayers et al., 2013). Agricultural extension refers to activities and communication channels that facilitate changes in farmer knowledge, attitudes, and behavior by synthesizing, exchanging, and applying information (Black, 2000; Anderson and Feder, 2004). Although agricultural extension differs depending on the context, traditional “top-down” tools such as newsletters or magazines are often the primary routes of knowledge transfer, and they assume that farmers make decisions based purely on scientific rationale (Roche, 2014). However, it is widely accepted that farmers decision-making varies, influenced by factors that are not solely based on policy, economic considerations, or rational judgment (Edwards-Jones, 2006; Noordhuizen et al., 2008b). Some variability can be explained by individual farmer traits (e.g., personality, attitudes, beliefs, intentions, values, skills, and knowledge). Remarkably, these socio-psychological variables often explain more variation in farm performance than farmers measurable management practices (Bigras-Poulin et al., 1985;

#nirmala gurjar #jv-u/18/2212 #B.Sc agriculture [hons] #jayoti vidyapeeth womens university jaipur Farm Sector Development Department (FSDD) FSDD has been carved out of the erstwhile Development Policy Department - Farm Sector. The Departments core function is implementation of various farm sector initiatives aimed at conservation and management of natural resources, creating credit absorption capacity of farmers for accelerating ground level credit flow by the rural financial institutions, enhancing agricultural production and productivity by way of promoting modern farming technologies, good agricultural practices and skill building of farmers, generating rural employment and raising the standard of living of rural poor and enhancing farmers’ income through nurturing and supporting farmers’ collectives. Effective implementation of the above programmes, which have evolved over a period through various policy initiatives and initiating other measures, required for addressing climate-related issues, risk mitigation, promoting climate smart/ hi-tech agriculture, crop diversification and enhancing of farmers’ income, promoting and nurturing farmers’ collectives, etc., are some of the important responsibilities assigned to the Department. Further, addressing the operational issues emerging during implementing, monitoring the programmes, documenting successful models/ practices for scaling up and providing feedback for policy framing/ improvement, are a part of the task assigned to the Department. The important portfolios handled by FSDD, are grouped under four verticals, as furnished below: A. Farm Sector Promotional Fund Farm Sector Promotion Fund (FSPF) was created in NABARD by the merger of two erstwhile funds, viz. Farm Innovation and Promotion Fund (FIPF) and Farmers Technology Transfer Fund (FTTF) on 26 July 2014. The Fund focusses on promoting innovative and feasible concepts/projects and transfer of technology for enhancing production and productivity in agriculture and allied sectors and increasing farmers’ income. Additional Information Objectives Activities supported under FSPF Projects under DPR mode Support for Capacity Building for Adoption of Technology (CAT) Farmers’ Club Programme Proposal seeking Financial assistance for Promoting Innovations in Agriculture and Allied Sectors B. Watershed Development Programme The Union Finance Minister, in his budget speech for 1999-2000, had announced the creation of a Watershed Development Fund (WDF) in National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) with broad objectives of unification of multiplicity of watershed development programmes into a single national initiative through involvement of village level institutions and Project Facilitating Agencies (PFAs). In pursuance thereof, WDF has been created in NABARD with a contribution of Rs. 100 crore each by Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India (GoI) and NABARD. Additional Information Genesis Core Objectives of the Watershed Development Programme Impact Evaluation of watershed programmes C. Tribal Development Fund NABARD has been closely associated with tribal development and sustainable livelihoods through orchard based farming systems. As an integral component of NABARD’s Natural Resource Management (NRM) policy of providing sustainable livelihoods, NABARD laid special emphasis on providing support for holistic development of tribal communities with orchard establishment as the core element. Based on the successful experience of Adivasi Development Programmes, NABARD embarked upon an ambitious program of replicating the wadi model across the country. In this direction, NABARD created a Tribal Development Fund (TDF) with a corpus of Rs. 50 crore, out of its profits for 2003-04. The corpus was augmented from time to time. All projects under TDF are implemented by partnering with State Governments, Government of India, NGOs and Corporates. Additional Information Genesis Objective Tribal Development Fund (TDF) will be used to support Broad achievement under TDF at national level On-going projects and schemes D. Producers Organisation Development Fund (PODF) NABARD has taken an initiative for supporting producer organizations (POs), adopting a flexible approach to meet the needs of producers. In order to give a special focus, “Producers Organization Development Fund” (PODF) has been set up w.e.f. 01 April 2011, with an initial corpus of Rs. 50 crore. Any registered PO viz. Producers Company (as defined under Sec. 581 A in part IXA of Company’s Act, 1956), Producers Cooperatives, registered Farmer Federations, MACS (Mutually Aided Cooperative Society), industrial cooperative societies, other registered federations, PACS, etc. set up by producers are eligible from the Fund. Support under PODF is provided as under: Loan-linked grant support is available to the FPOs for promotion, capacity building & market interventions. Grant assistance to eligible agencies for organizing / conducting workshops, meetings, round table meetings, special studies, IT-based interventions, etc. is also available without linking to availing institutional loan. Additional Information Institutions Eligible for Grant Assistance under PODF Eligible Lending Institutions Producer Organization Promoting Institutions Eligible Activities linked to loan Quantum of Grant Support Financial support not linked to sanction of loan to POPIs Support to Farmers Producers Organisations Business Development Assistance Applicability of Grant to existing POs What We Do Financial Developmental Supervisory NABARD Sponsored Schemes

#VIJAYLAXMI SHARMA #JV-U/19/3113 #B.Sc {hons} agriculture 3rd year , 5th sem #jayoti vidyapeeth women;s university ,jaipur Essay on Farmer Adoption Programme (Agriculture Mentorship Programme (AMP) /Veterinary Health & Fodder Care) Determinants of farmers adoption of management-based strategies for infectious disease prevention and control ;- ABSTRACT The prevention and control of endemic pathogens within and between farms often depends on the adoption of best management practices. However, farmers regularly do not adopt recommended measures or do not enroll in voluntary disease control programs. This indicates that a more comprehensive understanding of the influences and extension tools that affect farmers management decisions is necessary. Based on a review of relevant published literature, we developed recommendations to support policy-makers, industry representatives, researchers, veterinarians, and other stakeholders when motivating farmers to adopt best management practices, and to facilitate the development and implementation of voluntary prevention and control programs for livestock diseases. Farmers will make management decisions based on their unique circumstances, agricultural contexts, beliefs, and goals. Providing them with rational but universal arguments might not always be sufficient to motivate on-farm change. Implementation of recommended management practices is more likely if farmers acknowledge the existence of a problem and their responsibility to take action. The perceived feasibility and effectiveness of the recommended management strategy and sufficient technical knowledge further increase the likelihood of adequate adoption. Farmers will also weigh the expected advantages of a proposed change against the expected disadvantages, and these considerations often include internal drivers such as pride or the desire to conform with perceived standards. Extension tools and farmers social referents (e.g., veterinarians, peers) not only provide technical information but also influence these standards. Whereas mass media have the potential to deliver information to a broad audience, more personal approaches such as participatory group learning or individual communication with farm advisors can enable the tailoring of recommendations to farmers situations. Approaches that appeal to farmers internal motivators or that unconsciously elicit the desired behavior will increase the success of the intervention. Collaboration among stakeholders, assisted by social scientists and communication specialists, is necessary to provide a context that facilitates on-farm change and transfers consistent messages across extension tools in the most effective way. INTRODUCTION Livestock farmers worldwide face endemic disease challenges that threaten animal health and welfare. These diseases can have a substantial economic impact on individual enterprises and on the farming industry as a whole (Wierup, 2012). Therefore, although the relevance of specific diseases might vary by country, the prevention and eradication of infectious animal diseases [i.e., diseases that can be spread directly or indirectly between animals (and potentially to humans)] has become an increasing focus for many nations. Despite huge advances in the development of livestock vaccines and treatment options, the implementation of best management practices is still the most effective way to prevent and control many infectious diseases on farms. Farmers are encouraged to implement specific strategies to mitigate the risk of disease transmission, not only for the sake of their animals health and welfare, but also to protect humans from zoonotic pathogens (OIE Animal Production Food Safety Working Group, 2006). However, poor on-farm adoption of recommendations to enhance general biosecurity practices, or of strategies to decrease transmission of specific diseases, is common (Bell et al., 2009; Brennan and Christley, 2013; Sayers et al., 2013). Furthermore, participation rates in voluntary disease prevention and control programs are often below 30% (Hoe and Ruegg, 2006; Hop et al., 2011; Nielsen, 2011). These experiences suggest that the methods used to motivate participation in control programs and adoption of recommended practices have been suboptimal. Agricultural extension refers to activities and communication channels that facilitate changes in farmer knowledge, attitudes, and behavior by synthesizing, exchanging, and applying information (Black, 2000; Anderson and Feder, 2004). Although agricultural extension differs depending on the context, traditional “top-down” tools such as newsletters or magazines are often the primary routes of knowledge transfer, and they assume that farmers make decisions based purely on scientific rationale (Roche, 2014). However, it is widely accepted that farmers decision-making varies, influenced by factors that are not solely based on policy, economic considerations, or rational judgment (Edwards-Jones, 2006; Noordhuizen et al., 2008b). Some variability can be explained by individual farmer traits (e.g., personality, attitudes, beliefs, intentions, values, skills, and knowledge). Remarkably, these socio-psychological variables often explain more variation in farm performance than farmers measurable management practices (Bigras-Poulin et al., 1985; van den Borne et al., 2014). To account for these factors, different theoretical frameworks have been applied in the agricultural context. Two of the frameworks most commonly used to investigate the effects of socio-psychological variables on farmers decision-making and better understand farmer behavior, are the Health Belief Model (Janz and Becker, 1984) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991). In addition to socio-psychological factors, external influences such as input from social referents (e.g., herd veterinarians, colleagues, or family) and agricultural extension conduits (e.g., printed media or discussion groups) can also affect farmers management decisions (Ritter et al., 2015; Roche et al., 2015). The objective of this narrative review was to describe the available information on (1) the factors that contribute to farmers adoption of recommended management strategies; and (2) the influence of social referents and extension tools on farmers management decisions. Our focus was farmer behavior related to improving animal health, but where applicable, we have included a selection of findings on animal welfare to add relevant information from other contexts. Furthermore, the scope of this review was voluntary management-based prevention and control of endemic infectious livestock diseases (i.e., farmers decision-making in the absence of compulsive regulations) on commercial farms in economically developed countries. To meet the second objective, we discussed the main communication channels used to provide information and support farmers in adopting recommended management practices. Based on the evidence as it pertains to the delineated scope, we provide recommendations to policy-makers, industry representatives, researchers, veterinarians, and other stakeholders to facilitate the adoption of on-farm management practices and assist in the development and implementation of voluntary control programs for endemic infectious livestock diseases. SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL INFLUENCES Every farmer has their own unique combination of demographic factors (e.g., age, sex, education), personality, previous experiences, routines, and goals, as well as economic, cultural, and family influences (Wilson et al., 2015; Frössling and Nöremark, 2016). These individual characteristics contribute to farmers views about animal health, prevention and control strategies, and influence their decision-making (Figure 1). Not every management decision a farmer makes might appear logical from an outside perspective (Kristensen and Jakobsen, 2011a). An understanding of a farmers mindset and the specific factors that combine to influence that mindset is crucial for motivating them to change. The socio-psychological influences on farmers adoption of recommended management practices described in the first part of the review were considered the most relevant and were often derived from constructs described in the Health Belief Model or the Theory of Planned Behavior (Figure 1). It is particularly important to consider these factors when formulating voluntary prevention and control programs, and we have provided related recommendations (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4). However, interventions to change farmer behavior must acknowledge that farmers are not a homogeneous group and cannot be convinced by relying only on educational arguments (Jansen et al., 2010b,c). Furthermore, farmers context (e.g., laws and regulations, market prices, or quality programs) can affect decision-making by inhibiting or facilitating the recommended management changes. Because of the influence of farmers internal logic and context on their decision-making, it is impossible to provide a “one-size-fits-all” solution (Kristensen and Jakobsen, 2011a). Problem Awareness and Perception of Responsibility Problem Awareness People are less willing to change their behavior if they deny the negative (future) effects of their current habits or of their current situation (e.g., the negative effects of smoking or obesity on health; Orji et al., 2012; Mantler, 2013). In this way, informing farmers about the presence of a pathogen or disease on their farm is an important step, but it does not guarantee that they will regard it as an important issue (Leach et al., 2010a; Ritter et al., 2016; Table 1). For example, Texas beef and Canadian dairy producers with Johnes disease in their herd often did not consider it a problem (Benjamin et al., 2010; Sorge et al., 2010a), and 90% of dairy farmers in England and Wales did not see lameness as a problem, despite an average prevalence of 36% (Leach et al., 2010a). To change their management practices, farmers need to believe that their current situation poses a problem or increases their risk of future problems, a notion that is described as “perceived threat” in the Health Belief Model (Janz and Becker, 1984; Casal et al., 2007; Benjamin et al., 2010). For example, concern about production losses due to Johnes disease was a main reason why dairy farmers participated in a voluntary Johnes disease control program (Nielsen, 2011). Farmers also differ in their perception of the threshold at which an issue becomes a problem for their operation (Jansen et al., 2010d; Jansen and Lam, 2012). This so-called “frame of reference” is often influenced by farmers descriptive norms (e.g., their perception of how other farmers deal with the issue), injunctive norms (i.e., their perception of what is approved by other people), comfort rates, and experiences (Lam et al., 2007; Noordhuizen et al., 2008a; Jansen et al., 2016; Table 1). Examples of the influence of farmers frame of reference include its association with their willingness to decrease mastitis rates, or with variations in mastitis incidence and bulk-milk SCC (Jansen et al., 2009; Jansen and Lam, 2012; Schewe et al., 2015). A lack of diagnostic test sensitivity or of obvious clinical signs might cause a farmer to overlook an existing problem (Leach et al., 2010a; Wolf et al., 2014). Without necessarily knowing the herds test status for Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis (MAP), almost 80% of the farmers who thought they had observed clinical cases in their herd considered Johnes disease to be a serious problem, whereas only 10% of farmers who had not observed clinical cases shared that perception (Norton et al., 2009). Therefore, it is more challenging to motivate control strategies for diseases that spread silently or that lack sensitive diagnostic tests (Wassink et al., 2005; Benjamin et al., 2010; Table 1), particularly because farmers evaluate any problem not only on an “absolute” scale but also in relation to other issues that demand their attention (Leach et al., 2010a). Ultimately, farmers will spend their resources (e.g., time, money, space) on the issues they think are most urgent, will have the most severe negative impact, and are solvable (Rodrigues and Ruegg, 2005; Elliott et al., 2011; Bruijnis et al., 2013, Horseman et al., 2014). For example, dairy farmers who perceived that they had difficulty finding time to complete all tasks on the farm often gave higher priority to milking cows, limiting the care of calves (e.g., providing colostrum as soon as possible after birth; Santman-Berends et al., 2014). Reports of estimated negative economic impact are available for the most important diseases that affect cattle (e.g., mastitis, bovine leukosis, bovine viral diarrhea, Johnes disease; Tiwari et al., 2007; Hogeveen et al., 2011). However, it is uncertain whether farmers are aware of these publications. Furthermore, lack of agreement in published estimates might cause confusion among farmers or doubt about the reports credibility. Nevertheless, even when estimates of production losses based on bulk-milk SCC were presented to farmers, success in motivating management change was limited when no further incentives were offered (van Asseldonk et al., 2010; Lam et al., 2010). Farmers who do not have a particular disease on their farm evaluate its threat to their enterprise based on perceived susceptibility (i.e., how likely are animal health problems to occur; Janz and Becker, 1984). The current local disease status appears to play an important role in farmers perceptions of susceptibility (Table 1), although each farmer likely has a different threshold at which they perceive the geographic proximity of disease occurrences to be a threat to their farm. In that sense, farmers are more inclined to take additional precautions if they perceive the risk of pathogen introduction onto their farm to be high: for example, if transmission risks are elevated because of disease occurrences in the area (Ekboir, 1999; Garforth et al., 2013; Toma et al., 2013; Toma et al., 2015). Perception of Responsibility To take action, farmers need to believe that they are responsible for implementing the management strategies being advocated (Blackstock et al., 2007; Wauters and Rojo Gimeno, 2014; Table 1). For example, cattle farmers perception of responsibility for Escherichia coli 0157 control was positively associated with their willingness to spend time or money on this issue (Toma et al., 2015). For the majority of farmers enrolled in voluntary Johnes disease programs, concerns about consumer health or consumer perceptions of a link to Crohns disease were key factors for participation (Sorge et al., 2010a; Nielsen, 2011). Other studies, however, have revealed that farmers considerations of their own farms performance were often more important to them than responsibility for consumer health or awareness of the industry sector (Kovich et al., 2006; Hop et al., 2011; Ritter et al., 2015). This notion was supported by Jones et al. (2015), who reported that farmers primary reason for reducing antibiotic use was not concern about resistance in cows and humans, but an attempt to decrease medicine costs. Similarly, helping the dairy sector as a whole to meet its goals was not a strong incentive for farmers to improve mastitis management (Valeeva et al., 2007). Farmers often mention that government, food retailers, or auxiliary industries need to assume more responsibility for biosecurity (Gunn et al., 2008; Garforth et al., 2013). For example, 44% of cattle farmers from England and Wales stated that the government should contribute financially to controlling zoonotic diseases (Ellis-Iversen et al., 2010; Table 1), and 33% of cattle farmers in the United Kingdom felt that control of E. coli O157 should be the governments responsibility, at least in part (Toma et al., 2015). In contrast, the reluctance of cattle and sheep farmers to take responsibility for biosecurity in the United Kingom did not revolve around the government, but was instead due to a lack of trust within the farming community (Heffernan et al., 2008). In that regard, farmers investment in preventive measures is most effective if others are doing the same. Farmers may be more inclined to assume responsibility as part of a joint effort rather than herd by herd (Hovi et al., 2005; Lindberg et al., 2006; Gunn et al., 2008; Heffernan et al., 2008; Brennan and Christley, 2013; Table 1). Effectiveness of Recommended Strategies Even farmers who recognize the importance of disease prevention and control and feel responsible for taking action may be reluctant to make on-farm changes if they do not believe that the proposed strategies are effective in preventing pathogen introduction, reducing pathogen prevalence, or mitigating clinical cases (Janz and Becker, 1984; Jansen et al., 2010b; Roche, 2014; Ritter et al., 2016; Table 2). Unfortunately, farmers are often uncertain about the effectiveness of recommended measures, or express doubt about the efficacy of a control program (Garforth et al., 2013; Alarcon et al., 2014). This perception is likely strengthened if farmers are not sufficiently informed about a strategys success or if, due to the complex or chronic nature of some diseases, recommendations are based largely on epidemiological principles and biological plausibility rather than on evidence from clinical trials or field studies (Table 2). In particular, multifactorial chronic conditions that require a substantial amount of effort—and for which immediate and accurate assessment of the effect of adopted management changes is limited or unavailable—might reinforce farmers perceptions that management . Producers motivated to increase their management efforts were often frustrated or discouraged when they perceived available strategies to be ineffective (Ritter et al., 2016). Similarly, Australian cattle farmers believing they could succeed in temporarily eradicating cattle ticks from their farm considered re-infestation from neighboring properties to be a major limiting factor (Jonsson and Matschoss, 1998). Free-range poultry producers regarded biosecurity measures directed at reducing disease transmission between buildings to be futile and a “waste of time” (Garforth, 2011), instead focusing on practices they perceived to be more worthwhile, such as separating new animals on arrival or cleaning buildings between batches.

#Kumari Preeti Yadav #jv-u/19/3109 #B.Sc {hons} agriculture 3rd year , 5th sem #jayoti vidyapeeth women;s university ,jaipur Essay on Farmer Adoption Programme (Agriculture Mentorship Programme (AMP) /Veterinary Health & Fodder Care) Determinants of farmers adoption of management-based strategies for infectious disease prevention and control ;- ABSTRACT The prevention and control of endemic pathogens within and between farms often depends on the adoption of best management practices. However, farmers regularly do not adopt recommended measures or do not enroll in voluntary disease control programs. This indicates that a more comprehensive understanding of the influences and extension tools that affect farmers management decisions is necessary. Based on a review of relevant published literature, we developed recommendations to support policy-makers, industry representatives, researchers, veterinarians, and other stakeholders when motivating farmers to adopt best management practices, and to facilitate the development and implementation of voluntary prevention and control programs for livestock diseases. Farmers will make management decisions based on their unique circumstances, agricultural contexts, beliefs, and goals. Providing them with rational but universal arguments might not always be sufficient to motivate on-farm change. Implementation of recommended management practices is more likely if farmers acknowledge the existence of a problem and their responsibility to take action. The perceived feasibility and effectiveness of the recommended management strategy and sufficient technical knowledge further increase the likelihood of adequate adoption. Farmers will also weigh the expected advantages of a proposed change against the expected disadvantages, and these considerations often include internal drivers such as pride or the desire to conform with perceived standards. Extension tools and farmers social referents (e.g., veterinarians, peers) not only provide technical information but also influence these standards. Whereas mass media have the potential to deliver information to a broad audience, more personal approaches such as participatory group learning or individual communication with farm advisors can enable the tailoring of recommendations to farmers situations. Approaches that appeal to farmers internal motivators or that unconsciously elicit the desired behavior will increase the success of the intervention. Collaboration among stakeholders, assisted by social scientists and communication specialists, is necessary to provide a context that facilitates on-farm change and transfers consistent messages across extension tools in the most effective way. INTRODUCTION Livestock farmers worldwide face endemic disease challenges that threaten animal health and welfare. These diseases can have a substantial economic impact on individual enterprises and on the farming industry as a whole (Wierup, 2012). Therefore, although the relevance of specific diseases might vary by country, the prevention and eradication of infectious animal diseases [i.e., diseases that can be spread directly or indirectly between animals (and potentially to humans)] has become an increasing focus for many nations. Despite huge advances in the development of livestock vaccines and treatment options, the implementation of best management practices is still the most effective way to prevent and control many infectious diseases on farms. Farmers are encouraged to implement specific strategies to mitigate the risk of disease transmission, not only for the sake of their animals health and welfare, but also to protect humans from zoonotic pathogens (OIE Animal Production Food Safety Working Group, 2006). However, poor on-farm adoption of recommendations to enhance general biosecurity practices, or of strategies to decrease transmission of specific diseases, is common (Bell et al., 2009; Brennan and Christley, 2013; Sayers et al., 2013). Furthermore, participation rates in voluntary disease prevention and control programs are often below 30% (Hoe and Ruegg, 2006; Hop et al., 2011; Nielsen, 2011). These experiences suggest that the methods used to motivate participation in control programs and adoption of recommended practices have been suboptimal. Agricultural extension refers to activities and communication channels that facilitate changes in farmer knowledge, attitudes, and behavior by synthesizing, exchanging, and applying information (Black, 2000; Anderson and Feder, 2004). Although agricultural extension differs depending on the context, traditional “top-down” tools such as newsletters or magazines are often the primary routes of knowledge transfer, and they assume that farmers make decisions based purely on scientific rationale (Roche, 2014). However, it is widely accepted that farmers decision-making varies, influenced by factors that are not solely based on policy, economic considerations, or rational judgment (Edwards-Jones, 2006; Noordhuizen et al., 2008b). Some variability can be explained by individual farmer traits (e.g., personality, attitudes, beliefs, intentions, values, skills, and knowledge). Remarkably, these socio-psychological variables often explain more variation in farm performance than farmers measurable management practices (Bigras-Poulin et al., 1985; van den Borne et al., 2014). To account for these factors, different theoretical frameworks have been applied in the agricultural context. Two of the frameworks most commonly used to investigate the effects of socio-psychological variables on farmers decision-making and better understand farmer behavior, are the Health Belief Model (Janz and Becker, 1984) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991). In addition to socio-psychological factors, external influences such as input from social referents (e.g., herd veterinarians, colleagues, or family) and agricultural extension conduits (e.g., printed media or discussion groups) can also affect farmers management decisions (Ritter et al., 2015; Roche et al., 2015). The objective of this narrative review was to describe the available information on (1) the factors that contribute to farmers adoption of recommended management strategies; and (2) the influence of social referents and extension tools on farmers management decisions. Our focus was farmer behavior related to improving animal health, but where applicable, we have included a selection of findings on animal welfare to add relevant information from other contexts. Furthermore, the scope of this review was voluntary management-based prevention and control of endemic infectious livestock diseases (i.e., farmers decision-making in the absence of compulsive regulations) on commercial farms in economically developed countries. To meet the second objective, we discussed the main communication channels used to provide information and support farmers in adopting recommended management practices. Based on the evidence as it pertains to the delineated scope, we provide recommendations to policy-makers, industry representatives, researchers, veterinarians, and other stakeholders to facilitate the adoption of on-farm management practices and assist in the development and implementation of voluntary control programs for endemic infectious livestock diseases. SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL INFLUENCES Every farmer has their own unique combination of demographic factors (e.g., age, sex, education), personality, previous experiences, routines, and goals, as well as economic, cultural, and family influences (Wilson et al., 2015; Frössling and Nöremark, 2016). These individual characteristics contribute to farmers views about animal health, prevention and control strategies, and influence their decision-making (Figure 1). Not every management decision a farmer makes might appear logical from an outside perspective (Kristensen and Jakobsen, 2011a). An understanding of a farmers mindset and the specific factors that combine to influence that mindset is crucial for motivating them to change. The socio-psychological influences on farmers adoption of recommended management practices described in the first part of the review were considered the most relevant and were often derived from constructs described in the Health Belief Model or the Theory of Planned Behavior (Figure 1). It is particularly important to consider these factors when formulating voluntary prevention and control programs, and we have provided related recommendations (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4). However, interventions to change farmer behavior must acknowledge that farmers are not a homogeneous group and cannot be convinced by relying only on educational arguments (Jansen et al., 2010b,c). Furthermore, farmers context (e.g., laws and regulations, market prices, or quality programs) can affect decision-making by inhibiting or facilitating the recommended management changes. Because of the influence of farmers internal logic and context on their decision-making, it is impossible to provide a “one-size-fits-all” solution (Kristensen and Jakobsen, 2011a). Problem Awareness and Perception of Responsibility Problem Awareness People are less willing to change their behavior if they deny the negative (future) effects of their current habits or of their current situation (e.g., the negative effects of smoking or obesity on health; Orji et al., 2012; Mantler, 2013). In this way, informing farmers about the presence of a pathogen or disease on their farm is an important step, but it does not guarantee that they will regard it as an important issue (Leach et al., 2010a; Ritter et al., 2016; Table 1). For example, Texas beef and Canadian dairy producers with Johnes disease in their herd often did not consider it a problem (Benjamin et al., 2010; Sorge et al., 2010a), and 90% of dairy farmers in England and Wales did not see lameness as a problem, despite an average prevalence of 36% (Leach et al., 2010a). To change their management practices, farmers need to believe that their current situation poses a problem or increases their risk of future problems, a notion that is described as “perceived threat” in the Health Belief Model (Janz and Becker, 1984; Casal et al., 2007; Benjamin et al., 2010). For example, concern about production losses due to Johnes disease was a main reason why dairy farmers participated in a voluntary Johnes disease control program (Nielsen, 2011). Farmers also differ in their perception of the threshold at which an issue becomes a problem for their operation (Jansen et al., 2010d; Jansen and Lam, 2012). This so-called “frame of reference” is often influenced by farmers descriptive norms (e.g., their perception of how other farmers deal with the issue), injunctive norms (i.e., their perception of what is approved by other people), comfort rates, and experiences (Lam et al., 2007; Noordhuizen et al., 2008a; Jansen et al., 2016; Table 1). Examples of the influence of farmers frame of reference include its association with their willingness to decrease mastitis rates, or with variations in mastitis incidence and bulk-milk SCC (Jansen et al., 2009; Jansen and Lam, 2012; Schewe et al., 2015). A lack of diagnostic test sensitivity or of obvious clinical signs might cause a farmer to overlook an existing problem (Leach et al., 2010a; Wolf et al., 2014).

#Mohini varshneya # 21235 # B.sc agriculture + MBA 1st sem # Jayoti vidyapeeth womens university Nutrition is the process of providing or obtaining the food necessary for health and growth. Immunity means the ability of an organism to resist a particular infection or toxin by the action of specific antibodies or sensitized white blood cells. Nutrients are the substances in food that maintain the body and make it work. Most of what one eats is made up of carbohydrates, proteins, and fats. Nutrients needed in smaller amounts, but still vital, are vitamins and minerals. Also on the list are fibre and water. Our diet should comprise a mix of foods that supply all necessary nutrients in the right amounts. Such a diet is called a balanced diet. “Immune boosting” is a trending topic correlated with the coronavirus pandemic, appearing alongside numerous speculative cures, treatments, and preventative strategies. During the flu season or times of illness, people often seek special foods or vitamin supplements that are believed to boost immunity. Vitamin C and foods like citrus fruits, chicken soup, and tea with honey are popular examples. Yet the design of our immune system is complex and influenced by an ideal balance of many factors, not just diet, and especially not by any one specific food or nutrient. However, a balanced diet consisting of a range of vitamins and minerals, combined with healthy lifestyle factors like adequate sleep and exercise and low stress, most effectively primes the body to fight infection and disease. Every part of your body, including your immune system, functions better when protected from environmental assaults and bolstered by healthy-living strategies such as these: Dont smoke. Eat a diet high in fruits and vegetables. Exercise regularly. Maintain a healthy weight. If you drink alcohol, drink only in moderation. Get adequate sleep. Take steps to avoid infection, such as washing your hands frequently and cooking meats thoroughly. Try to minimize stress. Keep current with all recommended vaccines. Vaccines prime your immune system to fight off infections before they take hold in your body.

#nirmala gurjar #jv-u/18/2212 #B.Sc agriculture [hons] #jayoti vidyapeeth womens university jaipur

# jvn sonu verma# # bsc.agriculture (hons) 5thsem# #enrolment - jv-u/19/3439# Farm Sector Development Department (FSDD) FSDD has been carved out of the erstwhile Development Policy Department - Farm Sector. The Departments core function is implementation of various farm sector initiatives aimed at conservation and management of natural resources, creating credit absorption capacity of farmers for accelerating ground level credit flow by the rural financial institutions, enhancing agricultural production and productivity by way of promoting modern farming technologies, good agricultural practices and skill building of farmers, generating rural employment and raising the standard of living of rural poor and enhancing farmers’ income through nurturing and supporting farmers’ collectives. Effective implementation of the above programmes, which have evolved over a period through various policy initiatives and initiating other measures, required for addressing climate-related issues, risk mitigation, promoting climate smart/ hi-tech agriculture, crop diversification and enhancing of farmers’ income, promoting and nurturing farmers’ collectives, etc., are some of the important responsibilities assigned to the Department. Further, addressing the operational issues emerging during implementing, monitoring the programmes, documenting successful models/ practices for scaling up and providing feedback for policy framing/ improvement, are a part of the task assigned to the Department. The important portfolios handled by FSDD, are grouped under four verticals, as furnished below: A. Farm Sector Promotional Fund Farm Sector Promotion Fund (FSPF) was created in NABARD by the merger of two erstwhile funds, viz. Farm Innovation and Promotion Fund (FIPF) and Farmers Technology Transfer Fund (FTTF) on 26 July 2014. The Fund focusses on promoting innovative and feasible concepts/projects and transfer of technology for enhancing production and productivity in agriculture and allied sectors and increasing farmers’ income. Additional Information Objectives Activities supported under FSPF Projects under DPR mode Support for Capacity Building for Adoption of Technology (CAT) Farmers’ Club Programme Proposal seeking Financial assistance for Promoting Innovations in Agriculture and Allied Sectors B. Watershed Development Programme The Union Finance Minister, in his budget speech for 1999-2000, had announced the creation of a Watershed Development Fund (WDF) in National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) with broad objectives of unification of multiplicity of watershed development programmes into a single national initiative through involvement of village level institutions and Project Facilitating Agencies (PFAs). In pursuance thereof, WDF has been created in NABARD with a contribution of Rs. 100 crore each by Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India (GoI) and NABARD. Additional Information Genesis Core Objectives of the Watershed Development Programme Impact Evaluation of watershed programmes C. Tribal Development Fund NABARD has been closely associated with tribal development and sustainable livelihoods through orchard based farming systems. As an integral component of NABARD’s Natural Resource Management (NRM) policy of providing sustainable livelihoods, NABARD laid special emphasis on providing support for holistic development of tribal communities with orchard establishment as the core element. Based on the successful experience of Adivasi Development Programmes, NABARD embarked upon an ambitious program of replicating the wadi model across the country. In this direction, NABARD created a Tribal Development Fund (TDF) with a corpus of Rs. 50 crore, out of its profits for 2003-04. The corpus was augmented from time to time. All projects under TDF are implemented by partnering with State Governments, Government of India, NGOs and Corporates. Additional Information Genesis Objective Tribal Development Fund (TDF) will be used to support Broad achievement under TDF at national level On-going projects and schemes D. Producers Organisation Development Fund (PODF) NABARD has taken an initiative for supporting producer organizations (POs), adopting a flexible approach to meet the needs of producers. In order to give a special focus, “Producers Organization Development Fund” (PODF) has been set up w.e.f. 01 April 2011, with an initial corpus of Rs. 50 crore. Any registered PO viz. Producers Company (as defined under Sec. 581 A in part IXA of Company’s Act, 1956), Producers Cooperatives, registered Farmer Federations, MACS (Mutually Aided Cooperative Society), industrial cooperative societies, other registered federations, PACS, etc. set up by producers are eligible from the Fund. Support under PODF is provided as under: Loan-linked grant support is available to the FPOs for promotion, capacity building & market interventions. Grant assistance to eligible agencies for organizing / conducting workshops, meetings, round table meetings, special studies, IT-based interventions, etc. is also available without linking to availing institutional loan. Additional Information Institutions Eligible for Grant Assistance under PODF Eligible Lending Institutions Producer Organization Promoting Institutions Eligible Activities linked to loan Quantum of Grant Support Financial support not linked to sanction of loan to POPIs Support to Farmers Producers Organisations Business Development Assistance Applicability of Grant to existing POs What We Do Financial Developmental Supervisory NABARD Sponsored Schemes

#priya samota # jv-u/19/3702 # BSC AGRICUTURE (HONS)3rd year 5th sem. # jyoti vidyapeeth womens university ,jaipur Farmer Adoption Programme (Agriculture Mentorship Programme (AMP) /Veterinary Health & Fodder Care Invited review: Determinants of farmers adoption of management-based strategies for infectious disease prevention and control ABSTRACT The prevention and control of endemic pathogens within and between farms often depends on the adoption of best management practices. However, farmers regularly do not adopt recommended measures or do not enroll in voluntary disease control programs. This indicates that a more comprehensive understanding of the influences and extension tools that affect farmers management decisions is necessary. Based on a review of relevant published literature, we developed recommendations to support policy-makers, industry representatives, researchers, veterinarians, and other stakeholders when motivating farmers to adopt best management practices, and to facilitate the development and implementation of voluntary prevention and control programs for livestock diseases. Farmers will make management decisions based on their unique circumstances, agricultural contexts, beliefs, and goals. Providing them with rational but universal arguments might not always be sufficient to motivate on-farm change. Farmers will also weigh the expected advantages of a proposed change against the expected disadvantages, and these considerations often include internal drivers such as pride or the desire to conform with perceived standards. Extension tools and farmers social referents (e.g., veterinarians, peers) not only provide technical information but also influence these standards. Whereas mass media have the potential to deliver information to a broad audience, more personal approaches such as participatory group learning or individual communication with farm advisors can enable the tailoring of recommendations to farmers situations. Approaches that appeal to farmers internal motivators or that unconsciously elicit the desired behavior will increase the success of the intervention. Collaboration among stakeholders, assisted by social scientists and communication specialists, is necessary to provide a context that facilitates on-farm change and transfers consistent messages across extension tools in the most effective way. INTRODUCTION Livestock farmers worldwide face endemic disease challenges that threaten animal health and welfare. These diseases can have a substantial economic impact on individual enterprises and on the farming industry as a whole (Wierup, 2012). Therefore, although the relevance of specific diseases might vary by country, the prevention and eradication of infectious animal diseases [i.e., diseases that can be spread directly or indirectly between animals (and potentially to humans)] has become an increasing focus for many nations. Despite huge advances in the development of livestock vaccines and treatment options, the implementation of best management practices is still the most effective way to prevent and control many infectious diseases on farms. Farmers are encouraged to implement specific strategies to mitigate the risk of disease transmission, not only for the sake of their animals health and welfare, but also to protect humans from zoonotic pathogens (OIE Animal Production Food Safety Working Group, 2006). However, poor on-farm adoption of recommendations to enhance general biosecurity practices, or of strategies to decrease transmission of specific diseases, is common (Bell et al., 2009; Brennan and Christley, 2013; Sayers et al., 2013). Agricultural extension refers to activities and communication channels that facilitate changes in farmer knowledge, attitudes, and behavior by synthesizing, exchanging, and applying information (Black, 2000; Anderson and Feder, 2004). Although agricultural extension differs depending on the context, traditional “top-down” tools such as newsletters or magazines are often the primary routes of knowledge transfer, and they assume that farmers make decisions based purely on scientific rationale (Roche, 2014). However, it is widely accepted that farmers decision-making varies, influenced by factors that are not solely based on policy, economic considerations, or rational judgment (Edwards-Jones, 2006; Noordhuizen et al., 2008b). Some variability can be explained by individual farmer traits (e.g., personality, attitudes, beliefs, intentions, values, skills, and knowledge). Remarkably, these socio-psychological variables often explain more variation in farm performance than farmers measurable management practices (Bigras-Poulin et al., 1985;

#JANITA SHARMA #JV-I/19/3464 #B.Sc {hons} agriculture +MBA 3rd year , 5th sem #jayoti vidyapeeth women;s university ,jaipur Essay on Farmer Adoption Programme (Agriculture Mentorship Programme (AMP) /Veterinary Health & Fodder Care) Determinants of farmers adoption of management-based strategies for infectious disease prevention and control ;- ABSTRACT The prevention and control of endemic pathogens within and between farms often depends on the adoption of best management practices. However, farmers regularly do not adopt recommended measures or do not enroll in voluntary disease control programs. This indicates that a more comprehensive understanding of the influences and extension tools that affect farmers management decisions is necessary. Based on a review of relevant published literature, we developed recommendations to support policy-makers, industry representatives, researchers, veterinarians, and other stakeholders when motivating farmers to adopt best management practices, and to facilitate the development and implementation of voluntary prevention and control programs for livestock diseases. Farmers will make management decisions based on their unique circumstances, agricultural contexts, beliefs, and goals. Providing them with rational but universal arguments might not always be sufficient to motivate on-farm change. Implementation of recommended management practices is more likely if farmers acknowledge the existence of a problem and their responsibility to take action. The perceived feasibility and effectiveness of the recommended management strategy and sufficient technical knowledge further increase the likelihood of adequate adoption. Farmers will also weigh the expected advantages of a proposed change against the expected disadvantages, and these considerations often include internal drivers such as pride or the desire to conform with perceived standards. Extension tools and farmers social referents (e.g., veterinarians, peers) not only provide technical information but also influence these standards. Whereas mass media have the potential to deliver information to a broad audience, more personal approaches such as participatory group learning or individual communication with farm advisors can enable the tailoring of recommendations to farmers situations. Approaches that appeal to farmers internal motivators or that unconsciously elicit the desired behavior will increase the success of the intervention. Collaboration among stakeholders, assisted by social scientists and communication specialists, is necessary to provide a context that facilitates on-farm change and transfers consistent messages across extension tools in the most effective way. INTRODUCTION Livestock farmers worldwide face endemic disease challenges that threaten animal health and welfare. These diseases can have a substantial economic impact on individual enterprises and on the farming industry as a whole (Wierup, 2012). Therefore, although the relevance of specific diseases might vary by country, the prevention and eradication of infectious animal diseases [i.e., diseases that can be spread directly or indirectly between animals (and potentially to humans)] has become an increasing focus for many nations. Despite huge advances in the development of livestock vaccines and treatment options, the implementation of best management practices is still the most effective way to prevent and control many infectious diseases on farms. Farmers are encouraged to implement specific strategies to mitigate the risk of disease transmission, not only for the sake of their animals health and welfare, but also to protect humans from zoonotic pathogens (OIE Animal Production Food Safety Working Group, 2006). However, poor on-farm adoption of recommendations to enhance general biosecurity practices, or of strategies to decrease transmission of specific diseases, is common (Bell et al., 2009; Brennan and Christley, 2013; Sayers et al., 2013). Furthermore, participation rates in voluntary disease prevention and control programs are often below 30% (Hoe and Ruegg, 2006; Hop et al., 2011; Nielsen, 2011). These experiences suggest that the methods used to motivate participation in control programs and adoption of recommended practices have been suboptimal. Agricultural extension refers to activities and communication channels that facilitate changes in farmer knowledge, attitudes, and behavior by synthesizing, exchanging, and applying information (Black, 2000; Anderson and Feder, 2004). Although agricultural extension differs depending on the context, traditional “top-down” tools such as newsletters or magazines are often the primary routes of knowledge transfer, and they assume that farmers make decisions based purely on scientific rationale (Roche, 2014). However, it is widely accepted that farmers decision-making varies, influenced by factors that are not solely based on policy, economic considerations, or rational judgment (Edwards-Jones, 2006; Noordhuizen et al., 2008b). Some variability can be explained by individual farmer traits (e.g., personality, attitudes, beliefs, intentions, values, skills, and knowledge). Remarkably, these socio-psychological variables often explain more variation in farm performance than farmers measurable management practices (Bigras-Poulin et al., 1985; van den Borne et al., 2014). To account for these factors, different theoretical frameworks have been applied in the agricultural context. Two of the frameworks most commonly used to investigate the effects of socio-psychological variables on farmers decision-making and better understand farmer behavior, are the Health Belief Model (Janz and Becker, 1984) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991). In addition to socio-psychological factors, external influences such as input from social referents (e.g., herd veterinarians, colleagues, or family) and agricultural extension conduits (e.g., printed media or discussion groups) can also affect farmers management decisions (Ritter et al., 2015; Roche et al., 2015). The objective of this narrative review was to describe the available information on (1) the factors that contribute to farmers adoption of recommended management strategies; and (2) the influence of social referents and extension tools on farmers management decisions. Our focus was farmer behavior related to improving animal health, but where applicable, we have included a selection of findings on animal welfare to add relevant information from other contexts. Furthermore, the scope of this review was voluntary management-based prevention and control of endemic infectious livestock diseases (i.e., farmers decision-making in the absence of compulsive regulations) on commercial farms in economically developed countries. To meet the second objective, we discussed the main communication channels used to provide information and support farmers in adopting recommended management practices. Based on the evidence as it pertains to the delineated scope, we provide recommendations to policy-makers, industry representatives, researchers, veterinarians, and other stakeholders to facilitate the adoption of on-farm management practices and assist in the development and implementation of voluntary control programs for endemic infectious livestock diseases. SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL INFLUENCES Every farmer has their own unique combination of demographic factors (e.g., age, sex, education), personality, previous experiences, routines, and goals, as well as economic, cultural, and family influences (Wilson et al., 2015; Frössling and Nöremark, 2016). These individual characteristics contribute to farmers views about animal health, prevention and control strategies, and influence their decision-making (Figure 1). Not every management decision a farmer makes might appear logical from an outside perspective (Kristensen and Jakobsen, 2011a). An understanding of a farmers mindset and the specific factors that combine to influence that mindset is crucial for motivating them to change. The socio-psychological influences on farmers adoption of recommended management practices described in the first part of the review were considered the most relevant and were often derived from constructs described in the Health Belief Model or the Theory of Planned Behavior (Figure 1). It is particularly important to consider these factors when formulating voluntary prevention and control programs, and we have provided related recommendations (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4). However, interventions to change farmer behavior must acknowledge that farmers are not a homogeneous group and cannot be convinced by relying only on educational arguments (Jansen et al., 2010b,c). Furthermore, farmers context (e.g., laws and regulations, market prices, or quality programs) can affect decision-making by inhibiting or facilitating the recommended management changes. Because of the influence of farmers internal logic and context on their decision-making, it is impossible to provide a “one-size-fits-all” solution (Kristensen and Jakobsen, 2011a). Problem Awareness and Perception of Responsibility Problem Awareness People are less willing to change their behavior if they deny the negative (future) effects of their current habits or of their current situation (e.g., the negative effects of smoking or obesity on health; Orji et al., 2012; Mantler, 2013). In this way, informing farmers about the presence of a pathogen or disease on their farm is an important step, but it does not guarantee that they will regard it as an important issue (Leach et al., 2010a; Ritter et al., 2016; Table 1). For example, Texas beef and Canadian dairy producers with Johnes disease in their herd often did not consider it a problem (Benjamin et al., 2010; Sorge et al., 2010a), and 90% of dairy farmers in England and Wales did not see lameness as a problem, despite an average prevalence of 36% (Leach et al., 2010a). To change their management practices, farmers need to believe that their current situation poses a problem or increases their risk of future problems, a notion that is described as “perceived threat” in the Health Belief Model (Janz and Becker, 1984; Casal et al., 2007; Benjamin et al., 2010). For example, concern about production losses due to Johnes disease was a main reason why dairy farmers participated in a voluntary Johnes disease control program (Nielsen, 2011).

#jvn shobha kanwar # #enrollment no. - jv-u/19/3215 # #course - bsc.agriculture(hons) 5th sem he Framework of Village Adoption Programme:- Under this programme, B. Tech (Food Technology & Management) and M. Tech students are divided into groups of 10 to 12 students at the time of joining NIFTEM. Each group is lead by a Faculty member (Mentor) and adopts a village anywhere in India and nurses it during the entire programme of study. The Groups go and stay in the village twice a year: 10 to 12 days each time in every semester. It is a symbiotic process leading to exchange of Knowledge. while villagers gain scientific and technical knowledge through students who promote future possibilities of food processing among them, students obtain firsthand experience of Indian rural scenario and understand traditional processing technologies adopted by the villagers. Students gain general awareness of the village life and facilitate the process of integrating the underprivileged sections of our population with the main stream. Students learn to contribute towards “Nation Building”. Steps in the Village Adoption Process:- The students shall have to identify a village and establish a work plan at the beginning of the first semester and work during the semester for 10-12 days at the village site The students will work in a group under the guidance of a mentor faculty and will develop realistic village development plan for 4 years including identification of local resources and avenues for promoting entrepreneurship in food processing sector. Sensitize and train the farmers and local youth about Food Processing and its advantages- Encourage farmers & local youth to become Entrepreneurs, establish micro and small Food Processing Enterprises, form Producer’s Company and establish Food Processing Units. Provide access and training programs to farmers Prepare a catalogue of traditional food production practices/ food preservation/ traditional recipes of food, etc. Imparting trainings on basic processing and value addition techniques for enhancement of shelf life, etc. Promote Good Agricultural Practices (GAP). Conduct an extensive survey of the village & record demographics and prepare a data base. Organize resources – By providing vital linkages, micro credits, Govt. Policies. Prepare and present a report at the end of each semester. In addition, Professors and Senior Officers of NIFTEM visit the groups as observers when the groups are in the village to guide them and closely evaluate their progress. Farm Sector Development Department (FSDD) FSDD has been carved out of the erstwhile Development Policy Department - Farm Sector. The Departments core function is implementation of various farm sector initiatives aimed at conservation and management of natural resources, creating credit absorption capacity of farmers for accelerating ground level credit flow by the rural financial institutions, enhancing agricultural production and productivity by way of promoting modern farming technologies, good agricultural practices and skill building of farmers, generating rural employment and raising the standard of living of rural poor and enhancing farmers’ income through nurturing and supporting farmers’ collectives. Effective implementation of the above programmes, which have evolved over a period through various policy initiatives and initiating other measures, required for addressing climate-related issues, risk mitigation, promoting climate smart/ hi-tech agriculture, crop diversification and enhancing of farmers’ income, promoting and nurturing farmers’ collectives, etc., are some of the important responsibilities assigned to the Department. Further, addressing the operational issues emerging during implementing, monitoring the programmes, documenting successful models/ practices for scaling up and providing feedback for policy framing/ improvement, are a part of the task assigned to the Department. The important portfolios handled by FSDD, are grouped under four verticals, as furnished below: A. Farm Sector Promotional Fund Farm Sector Promotion Fund (FSPF) was created in NABARD by the merger of two erstwhile funds, viz. Farm Innovation and Promotion Fund (FIPF) and Farmers Technology Transfer Fund (FTTF) on 26 July 2014. The Fund focusses on promoting innovative and feasible concepts/projects and transfer of technology for enhancing production and productivity in agriculture and allied sectors and increasing farmers’ income. Additional Information Objectives Activities supported under FSPF Projects under DPR mode Support for Capacity Building for Adoption of Technology (CAT) Farmers’ Club Programme Proposal seeking Financial assistance for Promoting Innovations in Agriculture and Allied Sectors B. Watershed Development Programme The Union Finance Minister, in his budget speech for 1999-2000, had announced the creation of a Watershed Development Fund (WDF) in National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) with broad objectives of unification of multiplicity of watershed development programmes into a single national initiative through involvement of village level institutions and Project Facilitating Agencies (PFAs). In pursuance thereof, WDF has been created in NABARD with a contribution of Rs. 100 crore each by Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India (GoI) and NABARD. Additional Information Genesis Core Objectives of the Watershed Development Programme Impact Evaluation of watershed programmes C. Tribal Development Fund NABARD has been closely associated with tribal development and sustainable livelihoods through orchard based farming systems. As an integral component of NABARD’s Natural Resource Management (NRM) policy of providing sustainable livelihoods, NABARD laid special emphasis on providing support for holistic development of tribal communities with orchard establishment as the core element. Based on the successful experience of Adivasi Development Programmes, NABARD embarked upon an ambitious program of replicating the wadi model across the country. In this direction, NABARD created a Tribal Development Fund (TDF) with a corpus of Rs. 50 crore, out of its profits for 2003-04. The corpus was augmented from time to time. All projects under TDF are implemented by partnering with State Governments, Government of India, NGOs and Corporates. Additional Information Genesis Objective Tribal Development Fund (TDF) will be used to support Broad achievement under TDF at national level On-going projects and schemes D. Producers Organisation Development Fund (PODF) NABARD has taken an initiative for supporting producer organizations (POs), adopting a flexible approach to meet the needs of producers. In order to give a special focus, “Producers Organization Development Fund” (PODF) has been set up w.e.f. 01 April 2011, with an initial corpus of Rs. 50 crore. Any registered PO viz. Producers Company (as defined under Sec. 581 A in part IXA of Company’s Act, 1956), Producers Cooperatives, registered Farmer Federations, MACS (Mutually Aided Cooperative Society), industrial cooperative societies, other registered federations, PACS, etc. set up by producers are eligible from the Fund. Support under PODF is provided as under: Loan-linked grant support is available to the FPOs for promotion, capacity building & market interventions. Grant assistance to eligible agencies for organizing / conducting workshops, meetings, round table meetings, special studies, IT-based interventions, etc. is also available without linking to availing institutional loan. Additional Information Institutions Eligible for Grant Assistance under PODF Eligible Lending Institutions Producer Organization Promoting Institutions Eligible Activities linked to loan Quantum of Grant Support Financial support not linked to sanction of loan to POPIs Support to Farmers Producers Organisations Business Development Assistance Applicability of Grant to existing POs What We Do Financial Developmental Supervisory NABARD Sponsored Schemes

#ISHA PARASHAR #JV-U/19/3104 #B.Sc {hons} agriculture 3rd year , 5th sem #jayoti vidyapeeth women;s university ,jaipur Essay on Farmer Adoption Programme (Agriculture Mentorship Programme (AMP) /Veterinary Health & Fodder Care) Determinants of farmers adoption of management-based strategies for infectious disease prevention and control ;- ABSTRACT The prevention and control of endemic pathogens within and between farms often depends on the adoption of best management practices. However, farmers regularly do not adopt recommended measures or do not enroll in voluntary disease control programs. This indicates that a more comprehensive understanding of the influences and extension tools that affect farmers management decisions is necessary. Based on a review of relevant published literature, we developed recommendations to support policy-makers, industry representatives, researchers, veterinarians, and other stakeholders when motivating farmers to adopt best management practices, and to facilitate the development and implementation of voluntary prevention and control programs for livestock diseases. Farmers will make management decisions based on their unique circumstances, agricultural contexts, beliefs, and goals. Providing them with rational but universal arguments might not always be sufficient to motivate on-farm change. Implementation of recommended management practices is more likely if farmers acknowledge the existence of a problem and their responsibility to take action. The perceived feasibility and effectiveness of the recommended management strategy and sufficient technical knowledge further increase the likelihood of adequate adoption. Farmers will also weigh the expected advantages of a proposed change against the expected disadvantages, and these considerations often include internal drivers such as pride or the desire to conform with perceived standards. Extension tools and farmers social referents (e.g., veterinarians, peers) not only provide technical information but also influence these standards. Whereas mass media have the potential to deliver information to a broad audience, more personal approaches such as participatory group learning or individual communication with farm advisors can enable the tailoring of recommendations to farmers situations. Approaches that appeal to farmers internal motivators or that unconsciously elicit the desired behavior will increase the success of the intervention. Collaboration among stakeholders, assisted by social scientists and communication specialists, is necessary to provide a context that facilitates on-farm change and transfers consistent messages across extension tools in the most effective way. INTRODUCTION Livestock farmers worldwide face endemic disease challenges that threaten animal health and welfare. These diseases can have a substantial economic impact on individual enterprises and on the farming industry as a whole (Wierup, 2012). Therefore, although the relevance of specific diseases might vary by country, the prevention and eradication of infectious animal diseases [i.e., diseases that can be spread directly or indirectly between animals (and potentially to humans)] has become an increasing focus for many nations. Despite huge advances in the development of livestock vaccines and treatment options, the implementation of best management practices is still the most effective way to prevent and control many infectious diseases on farms. Farmers are encouraged to implement specific strategies to mitigate the risk of disease transmission, not only for the sake of their animals health and welfare, but also to protect humans from zoonotic pathogens (OIE Animal Production Food Safety Working Group, 2006). However, poor on-farm adoption of recommendations to enhance general biosecurity practices, or of strategies to decrease transmission of specific diseases, is common (Bell et al., 2009; Brennan and Christley, 2013; Sayers et al., 2013). Furthermore, participation rates in voluntary disease prevention and control programs are often below 30% (Hoe and Ruegg, 2006; Hop et al., 2011; Nielsen, 2011). These experiences suggest that the methods used to motivate participation in control programs and adoption of recommended practices have been suboptimal. Agricultural extension refers to activities and communication channels that facilitate changes in farmer knowledge, attitudes, and behavior by synthesizing, exchanging, and applying information (Black, 2000; Anderson and Feder, 2004). Although agricultural extension differs depending on the context, traditional “top-down” tools such as newsletters or magazines are often the primary routes of knowledge transfer, and they assume that farmers make decisions based purely on scientific rationale (Roche, 2014). However, it is widely accepted that farmers decision-making varies, influenced by factors that are not solely based on policy, economic considerations, or rational judgment (Edwards-Jones, 2006; Noordhuizen et al., 2008b). Some variability can be explained by individual farmer traits (e.g., personality, attitudes, beliefs, intentions, values, skills, and knowledge). Remarkably, these socio-psychological variables often explain more variation in farm performance than farmers measurable management practices (Bigras-Poulin et al., 1985; van den Borne et al., 2014). To account for these factors, different theoretical frameworks have been applied in the agricultural context. Two of the frameworks most commonly used to investigate the effects of socio-psychological variables on farmers decision-making and better understand farmer behavior, are the Health Belief Model (Janz and Becker, 1984) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991). In addition to socio-psychological factors, external influences such as input from social referents (e.g., herd veterinarians, colleagues, or family) and agricultural extension conduits (e.g., printed media or discussion groups) can also affect farmers management decisions (Ritter et al., 2015; Roche et al., 2015). The objective of this narrative review was to describe the available information on (1) the factors that contribute to farmers adoption of recommended management strategies; and (2) the influence of social referents and extension tools on farmers management decisions. Our focus was farmer behavior related to improving animal health, but where applicable, we have included a selection of findings on animal welfare to add relevant information from other contexts. Furthermore, the scope of this review was voluntary management-based prevention and control of endemic infectious livestock diseases (i.e., farmers decision-making in the absence of compulsive regulations) on commercial farms in economically developed countries. To meet the second objective, we discussed the main communication channels used to provide information and support farmers in adopting recommended management practices. Based on the evidence as it pertains to the delineated scope, we provide recommendations to policy-makers, industry representatives, researchers, veterinarians, and other stakeholders to facilitate the adoption of on-farm management practices and assist in the development and implementation of voluntary control programs for endemic infectious livestock diseases. SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL INFLUENCES Every farmer has their own unique combination of demographic factors (e.g., age, sex, education), personality, previous experiences, routines, and goals, as well as economic, cultural, and family influences (Wilson et al., 2015; Frössling and Nöremark, 2016). These individual characteristics contribute to farmers views about animal health, prevention and control strategies, and influence their decision-making (Figure 1). Not every management decision a farmer makes might appear logical from an outside perspective (Kristensen and Jakobsen, 2011a). An understanding of a farmers mindset and the specific factors that combine to influence that mindset is crucial for motivating them to change. The socio-psychological influences on farmers adoption of recommended management practices described in the first part of the review were considered the most relevant and were often derived from constructs described in the Health Belief Model or the Theory of Planned Behavior (Figure 1). It is particularly important to consider these factors when formulating voluntary prevention and control programs, and we have provided related recommendations (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4). However, interventions to change farmer behavior must acknowledge that farmers are not a homogeneous group and cannot be convinced by relying only on educational arguments (Jansen et al., 2010b,c). Furthermore, farmers context (e.g., laws and regulations, market prices, or quality programs) can affect decision-making by inhibiting or facilitating the recommended management changes. Because of the influence of farmers internal logic and context on their decision-making, it is impossible to provide a “one-size-fits-all” solution (Kristensen and Jakobsen, 2011a). Problem Awareness and Perception of Responsibility Problem Awareness People are less willing to change their behavior if they deny the negative (future) effects of their current habits or of their current situation (e.g., the negative effects of smoking or obesity on health; Orji et al., 2012; Mantler, 2013). In this way, informing farmers about the presence of a pathogen or disease on their farm is an important step, but it does not guarantee that they will regard it as an important issue (Leach et al., 2010a; Ritter et al., 2016; Table 1). For example, Texas beef and Canadian dairy producers with Johnes disease in their herd often did not consider it a problem (Benjamin et al., 2010; Sorge et al., 2010a), and 90% of dairy farmers in England and Wales did not see lameness as a problem, despite an average prevalence of 36% (Leach et al., 2010a). To change their management practices, farmers need to believe that their current situation poses a problem or increases their risk of future problems, a notion that is described as “perceived threat” in the Health Belief Model (Janz and Becker, 1984; Casal et al., 2007; Benjamin et al., 2010). For example, concern about production losses due to Johnes disease was a main reason why dairy farmers participated in a voluntary Johnes disease control program (Nielsen, 2011). Farmers also differ in their perception of the threshold at which an issue becomes a problem for their operation (Jansen et al., 2010d; Jansen and Lam, 2012). This so-called “frame of reference” is often influenced by farmers descriptive norms (e.g., their perception of how other farmers deal with the issue), injunctive norms (i.e., their perception of what is approved by other people), comfort rates, and experiences (Lam et al., 2007; Noordhuizen et al., 2008a; Jansen et al., 2016; Table 1). Examples of the influence of farmers frame of reference include its association with their willingness to decrease mastitis rates, or with variations in mastitis incidence and bulk-milk SCC (Jansen et al., 2009; Jansen and Lam, 2012; Schewe et al., 2015). A lack of diagnostic test sensitivity or of obvious clinical signs might cause a farmer to overlook an existing problem (Leach et al., 2010a; Wolf et al., 2014). Without necessarily knowing the herds test status for Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis (MAP), almost 80% of the farmers who thought they had observed clinical cases in their herd considered Johnes disease to be a serious problem, whereas only 10% of farmers who had not observed clinical cases shared that perception (Norton et al., 2009). Therefore, it is more challenging to motivate control strategies for diseases that spread silently or that lack sensitive diagnostic tests (Wassink et al., 2005; Benjamin et al., 2010; Table 1), particularly because farmers evaluate any problem not only on an “absolute” scale but also in relation to other issues that demand their attention (Leach et al., 2010a). Ultimately, farmers will spend their resources (e.g., time, money, space) on the issues they think are most urgent, will have the most severe negative impact, and are solvable (Rodrigues and Ruegg, 2005; Elliott et al., 2011; Bruijnis et al., 2013, Horseman et al., 2014). For example, dairy farmers who perceived that they had difficulty finding time to complete all tasks on the farm often gave higher priority to milking cows, limiting the care of calves (e.g., providing colostrum as soon as possible after birth; Santman-Berends et al., 2014). Reports of estimated negative economic impact are available for the most important diseases that affect cattle (e.g., mastitis, bovine leukosis, bovine viral diarrhea, Johnes disease; Tiwari et al., 2007; Hogeveen et al., 2011). However, it is uncertain whether farmers are aware of these publications. Furthermore, lack of agreement in published estimates might cause confusion among farmers or doubt about the reports credibility. Nevertheless, even when estimates of production losses based on bulk-milk SCC were presented to farmers, success in motivating management change was limited when no further incentives were offered (van Asseldonk et al., 2010; Lam et al., 2010). Farmers who do not have a particular disease on their farm evaluate its threat to their enterprise based on perceived susceptibility (i.e., how likely are animal health problems to occur; Janz and Becker, 1984). The current local disease status appears to play an important role in farmers perceptions of susceptibility (Table 1), although each farmer likely has a different threshold at which they perceive the geographic proximity of disease occurrences to be a threat to their farm. In that sense, farmers are more inclined to take additional precautions if they perceive the risk of pathogen introduction onto their farm to be high: for example, if transmission risks are elevated because of disease occurrences in the area (Ekboir, 1999; Garforth et al., 2013; Toma et al., 2013; Toma et al., 2015). Perception of Responsibility To take action, farmers need to believe that they are responsible for implementing the management strategies being advocated (Blackstock et al., 2007; Wauters and Rojo Gimeno, 2014; Table 1). For example, cattle farmers perception of responsibility for Escherichia coli 0157 control was positively associated with their willingness to spend time or money on this issue (Toma et al., 2015). For the majority of farmers enrolled in voluntary Johnes disease programs, concerns about consumer health or consumer perceptions of a link to Crohns disease were key factors for participation (Sorge et al., 2010a; Nielsen, 2011). Other studies, however, have revealed that farmers considerations of their own farms performance were often more important to them than responsibility for consumer health or awareness of the industry sector (Kovich et al., 2006; Hop et al., 2011; Ritter et al., 2015). This notion was supported by Jones et al. (2015), who reported that farmers primary reason for reducing antibiotic use was not concern about resistance in cows and humans, but an attempt to decrease medicine costs. Similarly, helping the dairy sector as a whole to meet its goals was not a strong incentive for farmers to improve mastitis management (Valeeva et al., 2007). Farmers often mention that government, food retailers, or auxiliary industries need to assume more responsibility for biosecurity (Gunn et al., 2008; Garforth et al., 2013). For example, 44% of cattle farmers from England and Wales stated that the government should contribute financially to controlling zoonotic diseases (Ellis-Iversen et al., 2010; Table 1), and 33% of cattle farmers in the United Kingdom felt that control of E. coli O157 should be the governments responsibility, at least in part (Toma et al., 2015). In contrast, the reluctance of cattle and sheep farmers to take responsibility for biosecurity in the United Kingom did not revolve around the government, but was instead due to a lack of trust within the farming community (Heffernan et al., 2008). In that regard, farmers investment in preventive measures is most effective if others are doing the same. Farmers may be more inclined to assume responsibility as part of a joint effort rather than herd by herd (Hovi et al., 2005; Lindberg et al., 2006; Gunn et al., 2008; Heffernan et al., 2008; Brennan and Christley, 2013; Table 1). Effectiveness of Recommended Strategies Even farmers who recognize the importance of disease prevention and control and feel responsible for taking action may be reluctant to make on-farm changes if they do not believe that the proposed strategies are effective in preventing pathogen introduction, reducing pathogen prevalence, or mitigating clinical cases (Janz and Becker, 1984; Jansen et al., 2010b; Roche, 2014; Ritter et al., 2016; Table 2). Unfortunately, farmers are often uncertain about the effectiveness of recommended measures, or express doubt about the efficacy of a control program (Garforth et al., 2013; Alarcon et al., 2014). This perception is likely strengthened if farmers are not sufficiently informed about a strategys success or if, due to the complex or chronic nature of some diseases, recommendations are based largely on epidemiological principles and biological plausibility rather than on evidence from clinical trials or field studies (Table 2). In particular, multifactorial chronic conditions that require a substantial amount of effort—and for which immediate and accurate assessment of the effect of adopted management changes is limited or unavailable—might reinforce farmers perceptions that management . Producers motivated to increase their management efforts were often frustrated or discouraged when they perceived available strategies to be ineffective (Ritter et al., 2016). Similarly, Australian cattle farmers believing they could succeed in temporarily eradicating cattle ticks from their farm considered re-infestation from neighboring properties to be a major limiting factor (Jonsson and Matschoss, 1998). Free-range poultry producers regarded biosecurity measures directed at reducing disease transmission between buildings to be futile and a “waste of time” (Garforth, 2011), instead focusing on practices they perceived to be more worthwhile, such as separating new animals on arrival or cleaning buildings between batches. For swine farmers, effectiveness was the strongest driver in adopting recommended disease prevention and control measures for endemic and epidemic diseases (Valeeva et al., 2011). Positive perceptions of the effectiveness of proposed measures to control mastitis was not only linked to dairy farmers adoption intent, but also strongly associated with mastitis incidence (Jansen et al., 2009). Similarly, the reason most commonly given by farmers for the adoption of a digital dermatitis protocol in cattle was its perceived effectiveness (Relun et al., 2013). However, the diversity of prevention and treatment protocols for foot health likely enhances farmers insecurity about best practices and emphasizes the need for standardized recommendations based on credible research (Solano et al., 2017; Table 2). Farmers (Perceived) Ability to Implement Recommended Management Practices Perceived Behavioral Control Farmers positive belief in their ability to successfully implement a recommendation is a necessary step toward improved disease control (Ellis-Iversen et al., 2010). This belief in the ability to succeed is called “perceived behavioral control” in the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991). A similar concept in the Health Belief Model is “self-efficacy” (Janz and Becker, 1984). Perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy are influenced by a persons belief that they have sufficient knowledge to accomplish the task, that they can overcome habitual behavior, and the perceived feasibility of the recommendation (Garforth, 2015; Frössling and Nöremark, 2016). In human health research, health care workers felt disempowered to correct poor compliance with hygiene measures if they perceived a lack of organizational commitment from the hospital (Smiddy et al., 2015). Similarly, farmers are part of a larger context and can only alter their behavior if their context allows for change. Farmers need organizational and institutional support that facilitates recommended changes.

#farmer adoption programme# #kiran sharma# #bsc.ag(hons) 5 sem , 3year jv-u/19/3094 The Framework of Village Adoption Programme:- Under this programme, B. Tech (Food Technology & Management) and M. Tech students are divided into groups of 10 to 12 students at the time of joining NIFTEM. Each group is lead by a Faculty member (Mentor) and adopts a village anywhere in India and nurses it during the entire programme of study. The Groups go and stay in the village twice a year: 10 to 12 days each time in every semester. It is a symbiotic process leading to exchange of Knowledge. while villagers gain scientific and technical knowledge through students who promote future possibilities of food processing among them, students obtain firsthand experience of Indian rural scenario and understand traditional processing technologies adopted by the villagers. Students gain general awareness of the village life and facilitate the process of integrating the underprivileged sections of our population with the main stream. Students learn to contribute towards “Nation Building”. Steps in the Village Adoption Process:- The students shall have to identify a village and establish a work plan at the beginning of the first semester and work during the semester for 10-12 days at the village site The students will work in a group under the guidance of a mentor faculty and will develop realistic village development plan for 4 years including identification of local resources and avenues for promoting entrepreneurship in food processing sector. Sensitize and train the farmers and local youth about Food Processing and its advantages- Encourage farmers & local youth to become Entrepreneurs, establish micro and small Food Processing Enterprises, form Producer’s Company and establish Food Processing Units. Provide access and training programs to farmers Prepare a catalogue of traditional food production practices/ food preservation/ traditional recipes of food, etc. Imparting trainings on basic processing and value addition techniques for enhancement of shelf life, etc. Promote Good Agricultural Practices (GAP). Conduct an extensive survey of the village & record demographics and prepare a data base. Organize resources – By providing vital linkages, micro credits, Govt. Policies. Prepare and present a report at the end of each semester. In addition, Professors and Senior Officers of NIFTEM visit the groups as observers when the groups are in the village to guide them and closely evaluate their progress. Work done in Village adoption programme Owing to the success of first session of village adoption programme (29.10.2012-03.11.2012), NIFTEM undertook the regular subsequent visits under its innovative programme till date. So far Eight visits has been accomplished viz., second (11-16th March 2013), third (30th June-09th July, 2013), fourth, (19-27th October, 2013), fifth (23-29th December, 2013, sixth (02-11th March, 2014), seventh (17-26 September2015) and eighth (15-24 March 2015) . During the Eighth village adoption programme, 36 teams of NIFTEM visited 39 villages in 18 States of the Country. The details of the locations are presented in Table at Annexure I. The salient achievements have been compiled as follows:- Food Processing promotional Initiatives Entrepreneurship Development Preparation project reports Product Development processes Developing Market Linkages Cataloguing of traditional knowledge Make in India initiatives through VAP Infrastructure Development Social Issues addressed Sawachh Bharat Abhiyan through VAP Initiatives on promotion of Renewable energy utilization Click to Read More Bench mark survey of the selected village was conducted during the month of May-June, 2Ot2 based on following aspects: 1. Location, existing infrastructure like education, health facilities and post office etc; 2. Number of farm and non-farm families, size of land holding, geographical area, net and gross cropped and irrigated area, crop-wise area, productivity and production under local and HW (High Yielding Varieties), cropping sequence etc; 3. Soil fertility status, soil type and extent of problematic soil; and 4. Crop-wise and method of fertiliser use, It was evident from the statistics thus, generated as a result ofthe survey, that around 10 hectare area was cultivated during the entire year with traditionalvarieties of paddy and maize crops while cropping lntensity was 55.5 % only (Table 1). After bench mark survey and constraints analysis was done, a specific action plan was chalked out for the village. A village coordinator who was a resident of Katania village was appointed during the adoption period for better understanding and coordination of the initiatives undertaken during the adopted period. Following objectives were delineated. for the selected village: t. To increase productivity of crops with the availability of water through lift irrigation scheme. 2. To bring about overall development of farm families through integrated rural development programme with special emphasis on agricultural development A micro lift irrigation project was initiated at Katania village on the bank of Mayurakhi river with the collaboration of IFFCO and farmers generating an irrigation potential of 12 hectares and benefitting 55 farmers. The civil work has been done for storage of water in the infiltration sump well. The lnfiltration sump well has a diameter of 10 feet with 20 feet depth. This structure has been made to take care of water level fluctuation in the river. The diesel pump set has been provided for taking water for lift irrigation along with pump house. 1000 feet rising main was installed underground in cultivated area alongwith four outlets. Besides these two number of folded plastic delivery pipe was provided for long distance irrigating the field crops. The micro lift irrigation project was launched at a financial cost of < 468,0721- (Four lakh sixty eight thousand and seventy) only. With the availability of assured irrigation, farmers interest in cultivation of non-seasonal crops / vegetables increased. A list of programmes were undertaken for creating awareness and filling the knowledge gap to attain higher crop productivity as enlisted below: Farmers are imparted knowledge about improved crop production practices and also educated aboutthe role of plant nutrients and other aspects of crop production through charts, slides and films etc. Since inception of village adoption about 8 farmers meeting were organized. Soil Testing Soil testing is one of the important tools to learn about nutrients requirements in a crop/ cropping sequence. This helps economize on fertiliser costs and increase fertiliser use efficiency. About 455 soil samples were analysed. Farmers were advised to apply fertiliser according to soil test report thus conserving from excessive use of fertilisers and promoting balanced fertilizer practices. GreenManuring Green manuring crops like Dhoincho Sesbaniasp. were promoted on farmersfield. This is one of the most effective and environmentally sound method of organic manuring that limits excessive use of chemical fertilisers .

#jyoti kumawat # # JV-U/19/3091 #BSC [HONS]AGRICULTURE 5th sem # jyoti vidhyapeeth womens university,jaipur Farmer Adoption Programme (Agriculture Mentorship Programme (AMP) /Veterinary Health & Fodder Care) Invited review: Determinants of farmers adoption of management-based strategies for infectious disease prevention and control,- ABSTRACT The prevention and control of endemic pathogens within and between farms often depends on the adoption of best management practices. However, farmers regularly do not adopt recommended measures or do not enroll in voluntary disease control programs. This indicates that a more comprehensive understanding of the influences and extension tools that affect farmers management decisions is necessary. Based on a review of relevant published literature, we developed recommendations to support policy-makers, industry representatives, researchers, veterinarians, and other stakeholders when motivating farmers to adopt best management practices, and to facilitate the development and implementation of voluntary prevention and control programs for livestock diseases.. Whereas mass media have the potential to deliver information to a broad audience, more personal approaches such as participatory group learning or individual communication with farm advisors can enable the tailoring of recommendations to farmers situations. Approaches that appeal to farmers internal motivators or that unconsciously elicit the desired behavior will increase the success of the intervention. Collaboration among stakeholders, assisted by social scientists and communication specialists, is necessary to provide a context that facilitates on-farm change and transfers consistent messages across extension tools in the most effective way.. Livestock farmers worldwide face endemic disease challenges that threaten animal health and welfare. These diseases can have a substantial economic impact on individual enterprises and on the farming industry as a whole (Wierup, 2012). Therefore, although the relevance of specific diseases might vary by country, the prevention and eradication of infectious animal diseases [i.e., diseases that can be spread directly or indirectly between animals (and potentially to humans)] has become an increasing focus for many nations. Despite huge advances in the development of livestock vaccines and treatment options, the implementation of best management practices is still the most effective way to prevent and control many infectious diseases on farms. Farmers are encouraged to implement specific strategies to mitigate the risk of disease transmission, not only for the sake of their animals health and welfare, but also to protect humans from zoonotic pathogens (OIE Animal Production Food Safety Working Group, 2006).

#MANJU PUNIYA #JV-U/19/3105 #B.Sc {hons} agriculture 3rd year , 5th sem #jayoti vidyapeeth women;s university ,jaipur Essay on Farmer Adoption Programme (Agriculture Mentorship Programme (AMP) /Veterinary Health & Fodder Care) Determinants of farmers adoption of management-based strategies for infectious disease prevention and control ;- ABSTRACT The prevention and control of endemic pathogens within and between farms often depends on the adoption of best management practices. However, farmers regularly do not adopt recommended measures or do not enroll in voluntary disease control programs. This indicates that a more comprehensive understanding of the influences and extension tools that affect farmers management decisions is necessary. Based on a review of relevant published literature, we developed recommendations to support policy-makers, industry representatives, researchers, veterinarians, and other stakeholders when motivating farmers to adopt best management practices, and to facilitate the development and implementation of voluntary prevention and control programs for livestock diseases. Farmers will make management decisions based on their unique circumstances, agricultural contexts, beliefs, and goals. Providing them with rational but universal arguments might not always be sufficient to motivate on-farm change. Implementation of recommended management practices is more likely if farmers acknowledge the existence of a problem and their responsibility to take action. The perceived feasibility and effectiveness of the recommended management strategy and sufficient technical knowledge further increase the likelihood of adequate adoption. Farmers will also weigh the expected advantages of a proposed change against the expected disadvantages, and these considerations often include internal drivers such as pride or the desire to conform with perceived standards. Extension tools and farmers social referents (e.g., veterinarians, peers) not only provide technical information but also influence these standards. Whereas mass media have the potential to deliver information to a broad audience, more personal approaches such as participatory group learning or individual communication with farm advisors can enable the tailoring of recommendations to farmers situations. Approaches that appeal to farmers internal motivators or that unconsciously elicit the desired behavior will increase the success of the intervention. Collaboration among stakeholders, assisted by social scientists and communication specialists, is necessary to provide a context that facilitates on-farm change and transfers consistent messages across extension tools in the most effective way. INTRODUCTION Livestock farmers worldwide face endemic disease challenges that threaten animal health and welfare. These diseases can have a substantial economic impact on individual enterprises and on the farming industry as a whole (Wierup, 2012). Therefore, although the relevance of specific diseases might vary by country, the prevention and eradication of infectious animal diseases [i.e., diseases that can be spread directly or indirectly between animals (and potentially to humans)] has become an increasing focus for many nations. Despite huge advances in the development of livestock vaccines and treatment options, the implementation of best management practices is still the most effective way to prevent and control many infectious diseases on farms. Farmers are encouraged to implement specific strategies to mitigate the risk of disease transmission, not only for the sake of their animals health and welfare, but also to protect humans from zoonotic pathogens (OIE Animal Production Food Safety Working Group, 2006). However, poor on-farm adoption of recommendations to enhance general biosecurity practices, or of strategies to decrease transmission of specific diseases, is common (Bell et al., 2009; Brennan and Christley, 2013; Sayers et al., 2013). Furthermore, participation rates in voluntary disease prevention and control programs are often below 30% (Hoe and Ruegg, 2006; Hop et al., 2011; Nielsen, 2011). These experiences suggest that the methods used to motivate participation in control programs and adoption of recommended practices have been suboptimal. Agricultural extension refers to activities and communication channels that facilitate changes in farmer knowledge, attitudes, and behavior by synthesizing, exchanging, and applying information (Black, 2000; Anderson and Feder, 2004). Although agricultural extension differs depending on the context, traditional “top-down” tools such as newsletters or magazines are often the primary routes of knowledge transfer, and they assume that farmers make decisions based purely on scientific rationale (Roche, 2014). However, it is widely accepted that farmers decision-making varies, influenced by factors that are not solely based on policy, economic considerations, or rational judgment (Edwards-Jones, 2006; Noordhuizen et al., 2008b). Some variability can be explained by individual farmer traits (e.g., personality, attitudes, beliefs, intentions, values, skills, and knowledge). Remarkably, these socio-psychological variables often explain more variation in farm performance than farmers measurable management practices (Bigras-Poulin et al., 1985; van den Borne et al., 2014). To account for these factors, different theoretical frameworks have been applied in the agricultural context. Two of the frameworks most commonly used to investigate the effects of socio-psychological variables on farmers decision-making and better understand farmer behavior, are the Health Belief Model (Janz and Becker, 1984) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991). In addition to socio-psychological factors, external influences such as input from social referents (e.g., herd veterinarians, colleagues, or family) and agricultural extension conduits (e.g., printed media or discussion groups) can also affect farmers management decisions (Ritter et al., 2015; Roche et al., 2015). The objective of this narrative review was to describe the available information on (1) the factors that contribute to farmers adoption of recommended management strategies; and (2) the influence of social referents and extension tools on farmers management decisions. Our focus was farmer behavior related to improving animal health, but where applicable, we have included a selection of findings on animal welfare to add relevant information from other contexts. Furthermore, the scope of this review was voluntary management-based prevention and control of endemic infectious livestock diseases (i.e., farmers decision-making in the absence of compulsive regulations) on commercial farms in economically developed countries. To meet the second objective, we discussed the main communication channels used to provide information and support farmers in adopting recommended management practices. Based on the evidence as it pertains to the delineated scope, we provide recommendations to policy-makers, industry representatives, researchers, veterinarians, and other stakeholders to facilitate the adoption of on-farm management practices and assist in the development and implementation of voluntary control programs for endemic infectious livestock diseases. SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL INFLUENCES Every farmer has their own unique combination of demographic factors (e.g., age, sex, education), personality, previous experiences, routines, and goals, as well as economic, cultural, and family influences (Wilson et al., 2015; Frössling and Nöremark, 2016). These individual characteristics contribute to farmers views about animal health, prevention and control strategies, and influence their decision-making (Figure 1). Not every management decision a farmer makes might appear logical from an outside perspective (Kristensen and Jakobsen, 2011a). An understanding of a farmers mindset and the specific factors that combine to influence that mindset is crucial for motivating them to change. The socio-psychological influences on farmers adoption of recommended management practices described in the first part of the review were considered the most relevant and were often derived from constructs described in the Health Belief Model or the Theory of Planned Behavior (Figure 1). It is particularly important to consider these factors when formulating voluntary prevention and control programs, and we have provided related recommendations (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4). However, interventions to change farmer behavior must acknowledge that farmers are not a homogeneous group and cannot be convinced by relying only on educational arguments (Jansen et al., 2010b,c). Furthermore, farmers context (e.g., laws and regulations, market prices, or quality programs) can affect decision-making by inhibiting or facilitating the recommended management changes. Because of the influence of farmers internal logic and context on their decision-making, it is impossible to provide a “one-size-fits-all” solution (Kristensen and Jakobsen, 2011a). Problem Awareness and Perception of Responsibility Problem Awareness People are less willing to change their behavior if they deny the negative (future) effects of their current habits or of their current situation (e.g., the negative effects of smoking or obesity on health; Orji et al., 2012; Mantler, 2013). In this way, informing farmers about the presence of a pathogen or disease on their farm is an important step, but it does not guarantee that they will regard it as an important issue (Leach et al., 2010a; Ritter et al., 2016; Table 1). For example, Texas beef and Canadian dairy producers with Johnes disease in their herd often did not consider it a problem (Benjamin et al., 2010; Sorge et al., 2010a), and 90% of dairy farmers in England and Wales did not see lameness as a problem, despite an average prevalence of 36% (Leach et al., 2010a). To change their management practices, farmers need to believe that their current situation poses a problem or increases their risk of future problems, a notion that is described as “perceived threat” in the Health Belief Model (Janz and Becker, 1984; Casal et al., 2007; Benjamin et al., 2010). For example, concern about production losses due to Johnes disease was a main reason why dairy farmers participated in a voluntary Johnes disease control program (Nielsen, 2011). Farmers also differ in their perception of the threshold at which an issue becomes a problem for their operation (Jansen et al., 2010d; Jansen and Lam, 2012). This so-called “frame of reference” is often influenced by farmers descriptive norms (e.g., their perception of how other farmers deal with the issue), injunctive norms (i.e., their perception of what is approved by other people), comfort rates, and experiences (Lam et al., 2007; Noordhuizen et al., 2008a; Jansen et al., 2016; Table 1). Examples of the influence of farmers frame of reference include its association with their willingness to decrease mastitis rates, or with variations in mastitis incidence and bulk-milk SCC (Jansen et al., 2009; Jansen and Lam, 2012; Schewe et al., 2015). A lack of diagnostic test sensitivity or of obvious clinical signs might cause a farmer to overlook an existing problem (Leach et al., 2010a; Wolf et al., 2014). Without necessarily knowing the herds test status for Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis (MAP), almost 80% of the farmers who thought they had observed clinical cases in their herd considered Johnes disease to be a serious problem, whereas only 10% of farmers who had not observed clinical cases shared that perception (Norton et al., 2009). Therefore, it is more challenging to motivate control strategies for diseases that spread silently or that lack sensitive diagnostic tests (Wassink et al., 2005; Benjamin et al., 2010; Table 1), particularly because farmers evaluate any problem not only on an “absolute” scale but also in relation to other issues that demand their attention (Leach et al., 2010a). Ultimately, farmers will spend their resources (e.g., time, money, space) on the issues they think are most urgent, will have the most severe negative impact, and are solvable (Rodrigues and Ruegg, 2005; Elliott et al., 2011; Bruijnis et al., 2013, Horseman et al., 2014). For example, dairy farmers who perceived that they had difficulty finding time to complete all tasks on the farm often gave higher priority to milking cows, limiting the care of calves (e.g., providing colostrum as soon as possible after birth; Santman-Berends et al., 2014). Reports of estimated negative economic impact are available for the most important diseases that affect cattle (e.g., mastitis, bovine leukosis, bovine viral diarrhea, Johnes disease; Tiwari et al., 2007; Hogeveen et al., 2011). However, it is uncertain whether farmers are aware of these publications. Furthermore, lack of agreement in published estimates might cause confusion among farmers or doubt about the reports credibility. Nevertheless, even when estimates of production losses based on bulk-milk SCC were presented to farmers, success in motivating management change was limited when no further incentives were offered (van Asseldonk et al., 2010; Lam et al., 2010). Farmers who do not have a particular disease on their farm evaluate its threat to their enterprise based on perceived susceptibility (i.e., how likely are animal health problems to occur; Janz and Becker, 1984). The current local disease status appears to play an important role in farmers perceptions of susceptibility (Table 1), although each farmer likely has a different threshold at which they perceive the geographic proximity of disease occurrences to be a threat to their farm. In that sense, farmers are more inclined to take additional precautions if they perceive the risk of pathogen introduction onto their farm to be high: for example, if transmission risks are elevated because of disease occurrences in the area (Ekboir, 1999; Garforth et al., 2013; Toma et al., 2013; Toma et al., 2015). Perception of Responsibility To take action, farmers need to believe that they are responsible for implementing the management strategies being advocated (Blackstock et al., 2007; Wauters and Rojo Gimeno, 2014; Table 1). For example, cattle farmers perception of responsibility for Escherichia coli 0157 control was positively associated with their willingness to spend time or money on this issue (Toma et al., 2015). For the majority of farmers enrolled in voluntary Johnes disease programs, concerns about consumer health or consumer perceptions of a link to Crohns disease were key factors for participation (Sorge et al., 2010a; Nielsen, 2011). Other studies, however, have revealed that farmers considerations of their own farms performance were often more important to them than responsibility for consumer health or awareness of the industry sector (Kovich et al., 2006; Hop et al., 2011; Ritter et al., 2015). This notion was supported by Jones et al. (2015), who reported that farmers primary reason for reducing antibiotic use was not concern about resistance in cows and humans, but an attempt to decrease medicine costs. Similarly, helping the dairy sector as a whole to meet its goals was not a strong incentive for farmers to improve mastitis management (Valeeva et al., 2007). Farmers often mention that government, food retailers, or auxiliary industries need to assume more responsibility for biosecurity (Gunn et al., 2008; Garforth et al., 2013). For example, 44% of cattle farmers from England and Wales stated that the government should contribute financially to controlling zoonotic diseases (Ellis-Iversen et al., 2010; Table 1), and 33% of cattle farmers in the United Kingdom felt that control of E. coli O157 should be the governments responsibility, at least in part (Toma et al., 2015). In contrast, the reluctance of cattle and sheep farmers to take responsibility for biosecurity in the United Kingom did not revolve around the government, but was instead due to a lack of trust within the farming community (Heffernan et al., 2008). In that regard, farmers investment in preventive measures is most effective if others are doing the same. Farmers may be more inclined to assume responsibility as part of a joint effort rather than herd by herd (Hovi et al., 2005; Lindberg et al., 2006; Gunn et al., 2008; Heffernan et al., 2008; Brennan and Christley, 2013; Table 1). Effectiveness of Recommended Strategies Even farmers who recognize the importance of disease prevention and control and feel responsible for taking action may be reluctant to make on-farm changes if they do not believe that the proposed strategies are effective in preventing pathogen introduction, reducing pathogen prevalence, or mitigating clinical cases (Janz and Becker, 1984; Jansen et al., 2010b; Roche, 2014; Ritter et al., 2016; Table 2). Unfortunately, farmers are often uncertain about the effectiveness of recommended measures, or express doubt about the efficacy of a control program (Garforth et al., 2013; Alarcon et al., 2014). This perception is likely strengthened if farmers are not sufficiently informed about a strategys success or if, due to the complex or chronic nature of some diseases, recommendations are based largely on epidemiological principles and biological plausibility rather than on evidence from clinical trials or field studies (Table 2). In particular, multifactorial chronic conditions that require a substantial amount of effort—and for which immediate and accurate assessment of the effect of adopted management changes is limited or unavailable—might reinforce farmers perceptions that management . Producers motivated to increase their management efforts were often frustrated or discouraged when they perceived available strategies to be ineffective (Ritter et al., 2016). Similarly, Australian cattle farmers believing they could succeed in temporarily eradicating cattle ticks from their farm considered re-infestation from neighboring properties to be a major limiting factor (Jonsson and Matschoss, 1998). Free-range poultry producers regarded biosecurity measures directed at reducing disease transmission between buildings to be futile and a “waste of time” (Garforth, 2011), instead focusing on practices they perceived to be more worthwhile, such as separating new animals on arrival or cleaning buildings between batches. For swine farmers, effectiveness was the strongest driver in adopting recommended disease prevention and control measures for endemic and epidemic diseases (Valeeva et al., 2011). Positive perceptions of the effectiveness of proposed measures to control mastitis was not only linked to dairy farmers adoption intent, but also strongly associated with mastitis incidence (Jansen et al., 2009). Similarly, the reason most commonly given by farmers for the adoption of a digital dermatitis protocol in cattle was its perceived effectiveness (Relun et al., 2013). However, the diversity of prevention and treatment protocols for foot health likely enhances farmers insecurity about best practices and emphasizes the need for standardized recommendations based on credible research (Solano et al., 2017; Table 2). Farmers (Perceived) Ability to Implement Recommended Management Practices Perceived Behavioral Control Farmers positive belief in their ability to successfully implement a recommendation is a necessary step toward improved disease control (Ellis-Iversen et al., 2010). This belief in the ability to succeed is called “perceived behavioral control” in the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991). A similar concept in the Health Belief Model is “self-efficacy” (Janz and Becker, 1984). Perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy are influenced by a persons belief that they have sufficient knowledge to accomplish the task, that they can overcome habitual behavior, and the perceived feasibility of the recommendation (Garforth, 2015; Frössling and Nöremark, 2016). In human health research, health care workers felt disempowered to correct poor compliance with hygiene measures if they perceived a lack of organizational commitment from the hospital (Smiddy et al., 2015). Similarly, farmers are part of a larger context and can only alter their behavior if their context allows for change. Farmers need organizational and institutional support that facilitates recommended changes. The limited work in the veterinary environment suggests that positive perceived behavioral control does promote farmers adoption of management strategies. For example, perceived behavioral control was positively associated with farmers intention to improve dairy cow foot health (Bruijnis et al., 2013) or to improve sustainable practices in gastrointestinal nematode control with diagnostic methods (Vande Velde et al., 2015). Farmers perceived self-efficacy appeared to be a key influence affecting mastitis control strategies on Dutch dairy farms (Jansen and Lam, 2012), and successfully solving previous mastitis outbreaks probably enhanced farmers feeling of control. Similarly, calf managers experience solving calf mortality problems appeared to strongly affect their belief in their ability to minimize mortality rates, and likely influenced whether they were able to prevent a crisis from becoming permanent (Vaarst and Sørensen, 2009). Demonstrations of successfully implemented management strategies on producers farms can positively influence farmers attitudes and their belief in their ability to make a change (Roche et al., 2015; Table 3). Studies in the human sector are abundant and suggest that perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy play important roles in patient adherence to medical treatment, physical activity or healthy nutrition (e.g., Fransen et al., 2009; Kreausukon et al., 2012; Parschau et al., 2013) for example, but these factors are not well studied in veterinary medicine, and more research is needed to form conclusions about their effect on farmers management decisions. Feasibility and Practicality Disease prevention and control measures will be implemented only if farmers perceive them to be feasible and practical (Garforth et al., 2013; Toma et al., 2015; Table 3). For example, dairy cow hoof mats soaked in trademarked chemical solutions were often abandoned because of difficulty manipulating and cleaning them, or because cows were reluctant to walk over them (Relun et al., 2013). According to farmers, one of the main barriers to implementing new or different management practices was a lack of time to perform them (Garforth, 2011). For example, uptake of recommended Johnes disease control strategies and lameness control activities in sheep and cattle was influenced by time availability (Wassink et al., 2005; Leach et al., 2010a; Sorge et al., 2010a; Roche, 2014; Ritter at al., 2015). However, whereas the expected time requirement was an important barrier to participating in regular herd health management, it was not a key factor in decisions to quit participating (Derks et al., 2012). Furthermore, participants in a Johnes disease control program believed that several management changes actually saved time (Sorge et al., 2010a; Table 3). The requirement for extra labor can also be an impediment to making on-farm changes, and the cost and availability of skilled labor might impede farmers implementation of recommended changes (Wassink et al., 2005; Benjamin et al., 2010; Sorge et al., 2010a; Relun et al., 2013; Alarcon et al., 2014; Horseman et al., 2014). After insufficient time, lack of labor was the second most important barrier to lameness control in dairy cattle, with almost half of farmers considering it “extremely important” or “very important” (Leach et al., 2010b). The impracticality of recommended changes, for instance due to inadequate structural layout of the farm, can be another barrier. Examples include lack of available land and facilities, or inappropriate layout of buildings (Jonsson and Matschoss, 1998; Benjamin et al., 2010; Sorge et al., 2010a; Garforth, 2011; Garforth et al., 2013; Alarcon et al., 2014). Facility restructuring might represent a substantial financial burden, and might not be instantly achievable, but motivated farmers indicated their willingness to make changes as soon as their situation permitted (Ritter et al., 2016). Until they can implement permanent structural changes, some farmers use innovative solutions to decrease the risk of pathogen transmission (e.g., placing a newborn calf in a clean feed or silage cart, which allows the cow to interact with the calf but prevents nursing and limits the calfs contact with cow manure; Godkin and Jansen, 2010; Economic Factors Farmers assessment of the expected outcome of a management change and the individually evaluated tradeoff between its perceived benefits and barriers ultimately influence farmers adoption. One important driver for farmers is perceived cost-effectiveness: strategies are more likely to be implemented if the returns seem to justify them (Fraser et al., 2010; Garforth et al., 2013; Alarcon et al., 2014; Table 4). For example, in the case of bovine viral diarrhea, over 70% of interviewed South Australian cattle farmers said they would be willing to pay a small cost to participate in a control program if it could be shown that the long-term benefits exceeded the fees (Lanyon et al., 2015). Most farmers (75%) interviewed in northwest England believed that having biosecurity measures in place was more cost-effective than treating a disease on-farm (Brennan and Christley, 2013). Similarly, farmers in Great Britain mentioned improved profitability as a key motivator for implementing biosecurity strategies (Gunn et al., 2008). Many dairy farmers that have MAP-positive herds participate in voluntary Johnes disease control programs to avoid production losses. For cattle farms that test negative for MAP, farmers often believe that participating in a certification program results in enhanced marketability of their cattle and that the economic advantages outweigh associated costs (Kovich et al., 2006; Benjamin et al., 2009; Nielsen, 2011; Table 4). However, many cattle producers that purchase animals do not consider the infection status of replacement animals for pathogens such as MAP or bovine leukemia virus (Benjamin et al., 2010; Young et al., 2010b; Ritter et al., 2016). This highlights the importance of farmers context: the farming industry can determine whether it is worthwhile for farmers to participate in certification programs. In an even broader context, consumer demand can also be a driver for farmers to strive for a certain standard (e.g., retailers might not purchase animal products that do not meet a standard). Information about how much farmers are prepared to pay for the purchase of low-risk replacements instead of animals with unknown or high-risk status is not available. However, studies using “willingness to pay” approaches, as applied in marketing research, could yield new insights (Breidert, 2006; Nayga et al., 2006; Benjamin et al., 2010). As a way of motivating farmers to take steps toward improved disease detection, prevention, and control, recent control programs have offered financial support, for example by reimbursing farmers for Johnes disease testing or for culling high-titer, MAP-positive cows (Kelton et al., 2014; Table 4). Penalties for not achieving predetermined thresholds have also been suggested, and in the case of bulk-milk SCC, financial penalties have been more effective than financial premiums (Valeeva et al., 2007; Fraser et al., 2010; Table 4). However, relying on these external motivators might cause farmers to participate only as long as the motivators are in place, as observed when industry funding for MAP herd-level testing in the Alberta Johnes Disease Initiative was terminated (unpublished data). Noneconomic Factors Besides financial drivers, non-economic motivators are equally— potentially even more—important for many farmers when weighing the advantages and disadvantages of proposed management measures (Garforth and Rehman, 2006; Swinkels et al., 2015; Table 4). For example, Gramig et al. (2010) estimated that 41% of dairy farmers would adopt dehorning practices that minimized the risk of bovine leukemia virus transmission to uninfected animals, even if adoption of these practices would not avoid financial losses due to this virus. The authors did not assess other factors that might have played a role in that decision. However, studies suggest that enhancing cattle welfare is an important consideration for improving lameness and mastitis management, as well as for controlling zoonotic pathogens (Valeeva et al., 2007; Ellis-Iversen et al., 2010; Leach et al., 2010b; Relun et al., 2013). One goal of on-farm disease control measures is to enhance animal health. Although 39% of dairy producers thought their calf and herd health improved after they had implemented at least one strategy for Johnes disease control, some felt that particular recommendations (e.g., immediate removal of the calf from the dam) would compromise animal health and welfare (Sorge et al., 2010a; Table 4). A Swedish study reported that some dairy farmers believed regular exposure to infections could be beneficial to animal health (Frössling and Nöremark, 2016), whereas a justified concern mentioned by cattle farmers in Australia was that reincursion of ticks after eradication would jeopardize their animals health because of increased risk of tick fever (Jonsson and Matschoss, 1998). THANK YOU.