True Cowmen and Commercial Farmers: Exploring Vets’ and Dairy Farmers’ Contrasting Views of ‘Good Farming’ in Relation to Biosecurity

Orla Shortall,Lee‐Ann Sutherland,Annmarie Ruston,Jasmeet Kaler

doi:10.1111/soru.12205

Orla Shortall, Lee‐Ann Sutherland + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12205

Copy DOI

Abstract

AbstractResponsibility for biosecurity in UK farming is being devolved from government to industry, with a greater emphasis on the veterinarian (vet)‐farmer relationship. Although social science has shown that care for animals is part of ‘good farming’, the British dairy sector sees a need to improve biosecurity. This research uses the good farmer concept to compare how vets and dairy farmers define good farming for biosecurity based on qualitative interviews with 28 vets and 15 dairy farmers in England. The results revealed two conflicting ‘good farmer’ identities: the large, commercial farmer who has the economic capital to invest in biosecurity and veterinary services; and the self‐sufficient stock keeper whose cultural and social capital lead them to manage herd health independently. These identities reflect changing ‘rules of the game’, following Bourdieu's use of the term, and increasing penetration of vets’ cultural capital into the sector. They involve different constructions of risk which need to be recognised within debates about good biosecurity.

Highlights

Biosecurity is defined as a set of practices that stop the spread of disease onto or out of an area where farm animals are present (Defra et al, 2004)
Both farmers and vets contrasted the cultural capital of stock keeping skills with the more ‘hard-nosed’ commercial farmer habitus
The findings have demonstrated the cultural and social capital costs farmers may face in accumulating economic capital under current ‘rules of the game’

Summary

Introduction

Biosecurity is defined as a set of practices that stop the spread of disease onto or out of an area where farm animals are present (Defra et al, 2004). A small number of studies have used the good farming concept in relation to animal disease These studies have shown that good farming is exemplified through the cultural capital embodied in stock keeping skills: having the skills to assess the health and welfare of an animal by eye (Naylor et al., 2016; Burton, 2008; Butler & Holloway, 2015; Haggerty et al, 2009). As actors in the farming field, who provide advice and assistance to farmers, they express and reinforce the ‘rules of the game’ Their differing experience, knowledge and priorities may lead them to assess the farming rules of the game and the ideal of good farming for biosecurity differently to farmers. The paper addresses the following questions: how do vets and farmers understand good farming in relation to biosecurity? What kinds of social, economic and cultural capital exchange are associated with different ideals of good farming for biosecurity? How have these different conceptions of good farming come about within the farming and veterinary professions, (within the context of changing and challenging rules of the game)? What are the implications for the future development of the vet/farmer relationship?

Methods

Discussion and conclusion