Learning Processes and Trajectories for the Reduction of Antibiotic Use in Pig Farming: A Qualitative Approach
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
- -
- Context: history of the farm or of the veterinary practice, interviewee’s career, farm operation and relations with other actors in the sector (particularly cooperatives).
- -
- Use of antibiotics (and/or of alternatives): farmers’ relations with their technical and health advisors, decision-making factors and motivations regarding the various treatments used, organisation of farm work.
- -
- The demedication process (i.e., reduction in antibiotic use): developing strategies to reduce use, technical/economic effects and consequences, development of new tools and of the devices required to change practices.
- -
- Technical and health factors which come into play in the prescription and use of veterinary medicines and in the implementation of health and biosafety measures.
- -
- Economic factors relating to the costs, income and profit margins of the farms and the veterinary practices, particularly those relating to the price of antibiotics and sundry inputs (notably feed and alternatives).
- -
- Social factors, relating to the pathways of the actors interviewed, their perception of health risks, their beliefs concerning the question of antibiotic resistance, the future of the sector, the constraints and motivations when beginning a demedication process.
- -
- Organisational factors, concerning relations between individual actors (farmers, veterinarians and, to a lesser extent in this case, technicians) and groups of actors (the operation and strategies of the cooperatives, veterinary practices and farms), and the division of health-related work on the farm.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Raw Data Extracted from the Interviews
Farm, Cooperative, French Département | Set-up Year and Farmer Training | Manpower, Herd Size and Other Farm Enterprises | Building Evolution | Type of Piggery and General Management | Disease Control | Changes in Socio-Professional Network | Significant Events |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Farm 1 Coop A Dép 72 | 1989: takeover of a family farm | 1 pers. 80 sows. Grain production | 1998: Creation of a farmer-fattener building | Metering pump Blank feed Hay in gestation building. | Sow vaccination. Systematic disinfection. | 1996: Change of cooperative in order to remain with a technician | Problem with feed. Veterinarian advice (metering pump and vaccination strategy). |
Farm 2 Coop B Dép 72 | 1980 | 2 pers. 150 sows. Ewe farming until 1987. | Gradual renovation. 2013: free-range sows. | Weaning at 21 days | 2008: Circovirus and mycoplasma vaccination + feed supplementation (Systematic preventise use of antibiotics (added to piglets feed).) ceased | 1997: Change of cooperative and veterinarian. Then 5 or 6 changes of veterinarian. | Recurring problems of ileitis post-weaning. |
Farm 3 Coop B Dép 22 | 1994: Takeover of a family farm, agricultural training. | 3 pers. 310 sows. Milk production. | Renovation: 1991: fattening building 1992: Gestation building 1996: Maternity building | Metering pump | 2011: Supplementation ceased for early age. PRRS (Porcine productive and respiratory syndrome.) and mycoplasma vaccination. | 1996: Change of cooperative for feed | 2000: PMWS (Post-weaning multisystemic wasting syndrome.) |
Farm 4 Coop B Dép 22 | 1984: Agricultural training, pig-farming course. | 2 pers. 150 sows, Hotel business. | Gradual, but substantial investment. | 1992: Multiplication ceased. Weaning at 21 days | 1992: Supplementation ceased. | End 1990s: Change of cooperative. Then 3 changes of veterinarian | 1992: PMWS. 2013: Compliance with “well-being” standards (This standard requires a group housing (rather than confinement) for pregnant sows. Farmers and vets generally consider that this change in housing practice was an opportunity to change other aspects of farming practices, such as animal health management.). Ethical dilemmas relating to hotel customers (The farmer’s wife manages a little hotel near the farm. Some of their clients were worried about the antibiotics used in the piggery and their possible exposure to resistant bacteria. The farmer and his wife consider that it was an additional motivation to reduce antibiotic use.) |
Farm 5 Coop A Dép 53 | 2004: Takeover of a family farm | 2 pers. 150 sows.Grain production. | 1984: Straw in fattening building (400 places) 2004: Slatted floors in fattening building (600 places) 2008: Slatted floors in all buildings. | 2009: Farm makes its own feed; Weaning at 28 days; Metering pump | 2011: Supplementation ceased + circovirus, mycoplasma, ileitis and flu’ vaccinations. | 2009: Met a sales engineer who advised him to make his own feed. | Sows with respiratory problem. Vaccination strategy implemented with veterinarian. |
Farm 6 Coop B Dép 53 | 1996: Takeover of a family farm. Agricultural training | 2 pers. 85 sows. Milk production. | 2002: complete renovation. 2006: ventilation system changed. | 2002: Supplementation ceased. 2006: tylosin removed. 2012: complete cessation of antibiotics. Circovirus, mycoplasma and PRRS vaccination. | 2002: Change of cooperative. | 2000: reproduction problem. 2004: PRRS. 2006: Coughing problem post weaning. | |
Farm 7 Coop B Dép 22 | 1991: Takeover of a family farm, Vocational training certificate (BEP) in agriculture | 2 pers. 250 sows. | Gradual until 2005. 2006: fattening. 2008: slurry treatment plant. | 1992: installation of a metering pump. Weaning at 21 days. | Mycoplasma vaccination. 2007:Supplementation ceased. | 1992: change of feed cooperative; 2nd vet for feed. Veterinarian then changed twice. | 2010: Compliance with “well-being” standards. Problems with ileitis. |
Farm 8 Coop B Dép 22 | 2009: Takeover of a family farm. BEP, Bac pro, BTS | 3 pers. 400 sows. | 2009: Complete renovation with installation of air filtering system. | Weaning at 21 days. | PCV (Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine.) vaccination. Gradual cessation of supplementation between 2009 and 2014. | 2014: change of cooperative. | 1998: PMWS followed by restocking of herd. Compliance with “well-being” standards. |
Farm 9 Coop C Dép 22 | 2002: Trained in sales (3 years as feed technician). | 1 pers. 130 sows. Milk and grain production. | 2009: complete renovation of maternity building | Weaning at 21 days. | Circovirus vaccination. Supplementation ceased. | Veterinarian changed on several occasions. Change of technician in 2010. | Forgot to stock up on antibiotics … and no problems. |
Farm 10 Coop B Dép 44 | 1988, Vocational training certificate (BEP) in agriculture, specialisation certificate in pig production. | 5 pers. 450 sows. | 2001: renovation of fattening building. 2005: fattening building enlarged + post-weaning building renovated. | Metering pump | PCV and mycoplasma vaccination. Supplementation ceased. | 2009: change of cooperative. Change of veterinarian | 2005: PMWS and PRRS, followed by implementation of a new vaccination strategy |
Farm 11 Coop B Dép 22 | 2000: Takeover of a family farm, BTS Technico-commercial. | 2 pers. 330 sows. | 2012: complete renovation of all buildings. | 2012: introduction of disinfection periods between litters. | 2002: Change of feed cooperative. | PRRS and PMWS problem in the early 2000s. 2012: compliance with “well-being” standards. |
Vets (Age and Sex) | Experience in Pig Sector (Number of Years, Choice and Motivation) | Previous Professional Activities | Current Position (Vet Office, Number of Vets in This Office) | Number of Farms in Charge | Professional Relationship with Technicians | Demedication Strategy (of the Vet Office or the Cooperative) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Vet of farm 1 36, M | 4 years (by choice after an experience in Romania) | Vet for two farms of 2500 sows, for 4 years | A (for 4 years) Less than 5 vets | 60–70 | Works in tandem, in order to improve support’s efficiency | Antimicrobial consumption indicator (+communication on the results) |
Vet of farm 2 36, M | 2 years (by opportunity, wanted to work in a technical sector) | Mixed practice for 9 years | B (for 9 months) More than 20 vets | 130 | Thinks they have complementary skills but need to be better defined | Audit of demedication |
Vet of farm 3 57, M | 2 years (occasional replacement, pre-retirement) | Practice in dairy production, small animals medicine and surgery, pharmaceutical industry | B (for 1 year) More than 20 vets | 200 | Thinks it is important to help farmer’s decision-making | Audit of demedication |
Vet of farm 4 (same as farm 8) 35, M | 5 years (by opportunity) | Mixed practice for 6 years, veal calf production for 3 years | B (for 4 years) More than 20 vets | 100 | Doesn’t work in tandem | Audit of demedication |
Vet of farm 5 49, F | 22 years (by choice, real passion for the pig production) | Pharmaceutical industry for the pig sector | A (for 10 years) Less than 5 vets | 15 (+animal feed factories) | Works in tandem for preventive measures (but not for curative ones) | Antimicrobial consumption indicator (+communication on the results) |
Vet of farm 6 37, F | 10 years (by opportunity, wanted to work in a technical production) | Mixed practice for 2 years | B (for 8 years) More than 20 vets | 120 | Doesn’t work in tandem | Audit of demedication |
Vet of farm 7 45, M | 16 years (by opportunity, wanted to work in a technical production) | Mixed practice for 2 years | B (14 years) More than 20 vets | 120 | Variable (depending on their availability) | Audit of demedication |
Vet of farm 8 (same as farm 4) 35, M | 5 years (by opportunity) | Mixed practice for 6 years, veal calf production for 3 years | B (for 4 years) More than 20 vets | 100 | Doesn’t work in tandem | Audit of demedication |
Vet of farm 9 31, M | 7 years (by choice, real passion for the pig production) | none | C (for 6 years) Less than 10 vets | 100 | Doesn’t work in tandem | Developed a new feed (without antibiotics) to replace supplemented feed |
Vet of farm 10 45, M | 18 years (by opportunity, wanted to work in a technical production) | B (for 5 years) More than 20 vets | 100 | Thinks it is important to work together | Audit of demedication | |
Vet of farm 11 37, F | 12 years (by opportunity, likes the pig production and wanted to be employee rather than independant | Pig sector (employee of a cooperative for 5 years, then indepndant for 4 years) | B (for 3 years) More than 20 vets | 100 | Insists on the importance of trust to make the relationship efficient | Audit of demedication |
3.2. Qualitative Analysis of the Data
3.2.1. Technical Learning
“There are typologies of farmers where we can say that we can stop, that they’ll be able to use the metering pump, and then there are typologies of farmers where we really aren’t sure that they’re going to be able to manage with the metering pump. Either because they don’t go to see their pigs enough to be able to rapidly detect the first signs, or because as far as they are concerned, the metering pump may as well be a nuclear power plant. Even if we train them or whatever, we know they aren’t rigorous, that they’ll never be able to calculate the correct doses to be added. It’s just too complicated for them. We’re seeing fewer and fewer cases like that, but there’s still a somewhat elderly generation in practice”;[Veterinarian]
“A metering pump means a few extra constraints, because before that it wasn’t hard to have a lorry load of medicated feed and pour it into the silo, and then there was the distribution chain to feed the animals, there was no extra work to do. But now you have to put the drug in the metering pump, check that it’s the right dose, the right quantity, so you have to do a bit of calculating. Check that the flow is correct, check that it’s going to the right place, that it’s properly absorbed, clean the metering pump again, do the maintenance, so there’s a little bit of extra work to do.”[Veterinarian]
3.2.2. Cognitive Learning
“No, you need to know a bit about your farm and your animals, and see how it behaved previously … if you have a really bad health situation, you know that when it starts, it won’t stop, if you’ve got a spot of bother… well, you know, you have periods, a little bit, from time to time, but you keep them under control, if you’ve got a vaccination already set up for certain ones … mycoplasmas for example, PRRS or whatever, you know that you can allow yourself some time to think. You don’t have to immediately get cracking.”[Farmer]
“How do you decide whether to treat? How do you know? It’s easy to see if a piglet is ill. A piglet will isolate itself, it won’t drink, its eyes will be somewhat hollow, maybe with a bit of swelling. And it’ll lie down. So if you’ve just got one case, or two or three … but then after a couple of days it might get out of control. If we can cope with two or three cases, no problem, we’ll leave the others, I’m not going to treat the whole herd. But if I see that things are going downhill … And it’s always ten days after weaning. I wean at 21 days, the weekend, ten days later you need to be very vigilant. If there’s the slightest sign, we might decide to use the metering pump. So up to three cases, you treat them individually? Yes, yes. And beyond that? We’ll treat the whole lot.”[Farmer]
“Your veterinarian told me that for you, and even for others, it’s really a case of “trial and error, trying things out, going back a step, etc.” Does that mean you test one litter, one batch, before you decide to go ahead with everything? In general, when we do something, we give ourselves 4 or 5 months to wait for the results, to see if what we’ve done is successful or not. You can’t tell just from one or two litters. You need almost 4 or 5 months to get the answers, especially with respiratory problems. When it’s the digestive system, that’s different, because you get an almost immediate answer, but for respiratory issues it’s a long-term thing. The problem is that with pigs, when you change something, there are always other litters present, which didn’t get the treatment, so the old method or the previous situation that existed before is still ongoing. To find out what is really happening, you pretty much need to wait until all the animals in the building are either healthy or having the treatment. Then you need to be able to measure it, to have the results in figures. But generally speaking the figures confirm what we’ve been seeing every day. We farmers see our animals every day, we don’t need to wait for the figures to know whether things are alright or not.”[Farmer]
3.2.3. Organisational Learning
We record losses. We record prolificacy, productivity, growth. Every fortnight we pick up the pigs [to take them to the slaughterhouse], so we see what the slaughter weight is. We’ve got what’s written on the slaughterhouse forms, so these are criteria that we see every day. We have the muscle content. When you get low levels of muscle content, when the pigs aren’t well, generally you can see that for yourself. All of this helps us on a daily basis to see what’s going on. We see our animals two or three times a day, so we have to react before a criterion comes to light. The important thing is to react fast.[Farmer]
When did you say to yourself “health-wise I’m going to change the way I do things, I’m going to use vaccines”? It was the fact that we were always playing catch-up, we were always one step behind. When you’re playing catch-up, you can’t cope and the results are never satisfactory. When you give the pigs antibiotics, you can see that they get better, but they are never as healthy as they were before they became ill. What I wanted was to no longer have my metering pump, to no longer be giving the pigs a treatment left, right and centre. And also, afterwards you no longer know what antibiotic to use, because nothing works any more. Now, the fact that I’ve got a mycoplasma vaccination which suits my herd … (…) It takes a bit more time to do the injections, a booster shot after three weeks, but you save so much time afterwards if you have no more problems. The one hour you lost … So as far as I’m concerned, the advantage of vaccines is that everything is planned. When you’re organising your day, you know it’s all planned.[Farmer]
“When you don’t have any problems, or when you just have one problem in the whole year, you’re more relaxed when going to work. Even in everyday practice, if one morning you haven’t been able to take a look at your pigs because you’ve been busy doing something else, you haven’t been able to check the feed, you haven’t seen them, instead of seeing them twice a day you’ve only seen them once, you know that there’s a 99% chance that everything is fine.”[Farmer]
3.2.4. The Importance of Social Networks in the Learning Processes
“How do you get information on new treatments, on new health strategies, on new things relating to farming methods? Do you receive visits from veterinarians from the cooperative, from the feed manufacturer, or from other technical sales representatives? Yes, we get information like that, or from farmer colleagues who we see at meetings, or else from private sources. So by talking to people here, there and everywhere. I generally tend to trust my vet for everything to do with health. As far as technical farming methods and ways of looking after litters are concerned, we’ve known how to raise pigs for years, we know all the methods. It’s all old hat.”[Farmer]
“Personally, in my relations with farmers… I try to be didactic, i.e., I teach them too. In other words, when I do an autopsy, if the farmer is there, I’ll say “Look, you can see this, you can see that, so it’s this, it’s that”… what I mean is I like teaching people. I want them to understand why I say this or that. Sometimes, you can say to yourself “he said that, but”, if you don’t understand the reasons and the necessities, then of course you don’t take it on board. So I try to explain all that to them. So if they’re not too daft, they understand. Among my customers there are people with a certain level… what I mean is that some of my customers are agronomists. These guys have the same level as me, they have no problems understanding all that, there’s no problem. (…) They know all about the issues that they have to deal with every day, on their farms, throughout time; they are able to recognise things just as well as you can, there’s no problem, because you’ve taught them how to do it. It’s when something new comes along, that’s when they have to call the vet.[Veterinarian]
“Obviously, every time there are new specifications or changes on the farm, practices change too. From a work standpoint (…) maybe it’s still too soon for us to fully master these new production methods, but we’ll see how it goes as we gain experience. With the advice we get from the technicians, we adjust the feed, we adjust the portions, we observe and we monitor. That’s also the role of the CETA (“Centre d’études techniques agricoles” (technical agricultural study centre). Information exchange groups created in the 1960s, which have now often been recreated within cooperatives.), we compare our results in the CETA, we look at the way everyone works and then we make an assessment.”[Farmer]
4. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (Anses). Résapath. In Réseau D’épidémiosurveillance de L’antibiorésistance des Bactéries Pathogènes Animales. Bilan 2013; Anses: Maisons-Alfort, France, 2014. (In French) [Google Scholar]
- French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (Anses). Suivi des Ventes de Médicaments Vétérinaires Contenant des Antibiotiques en France en 2013; Anses: Maisons-Alfort, France, 2014. (In French) [Google Scholar]
- French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (Anses). Evaluation des Risques D’émergence D’antibiorésistances Liés aux Modes D’utilisation des Antibiotiques Dans le Domaine de la Santé Animale; Anses: Maisons-Alfort, France, 2014. (In French) [Google Scholar]
- Callens, B.; Persoons, D.; Maes, D.; Laanen, M.; Postma, M.; Boyen, F.; Hasebrouck, F.; Butaye, P.; Catry, B.; Dewulf, J. Prophylactic and metaphylactic antimicrobial use in Belgian fattening pig herds. Prev. Vet. Med. 2012, 106, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rushton, J. Anti-microbial Use in Animals: How to Assess the Trade-offs. Zoonose Public Health 2015, 62, 10–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Garforth, C. Livestock keepers’ reasons for doing and not doing things which governments, vets and scientists would like them to do. Zoonose Public Health 2015, 62, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hernandez-Jover, M.; Taylor, M.; Holyoake, P.; Dhand, N. Pig producer’s perceptions of the Influenza Pandemic H1N1/09 outbreak and its effect on their biosecurity practices in Australia. Prev. Vet. Med. 2012, 106, 284–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McIntosh, W.; Dean, W. Factors Associated with the inappropriate use of antimicrobials. Zoonose Public Health 2014, 62, 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Postma, M.; Stärk, K.D.; Sjölund, M.; Backhans, A.; Beilage, E.G.; Lösken, S.; Belloc, C.; Collineau, L.; Iten, D.; Visschers, V.; et al. Alternatives to the use of antimicrobial agents in pig production: A multi-country expert-ranking of perceived effectiveness, feasibility and return on investment. Prev. Vet. Med. 2015, 117, 294–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Simon-Grife, M.; Martin-Valls, G.E.; Vilar, M.J.; Garcia-Bocanegra, I.; Martin, M.; Matheu, E.; Casal, J. Biosecurity practices in Spanish pig herds: Perceptions of farmers and veterinarians of the most important biosecurity measures. Prev. Vet. Med. 2013, 110, 223–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Visschers, V.H.M.; Iten, D.; Riklin, A.; Hartmann, S.; Sidler, X.; Siegrist, M. Swiss pig farmers’ perception and usage of antibiotics during the fattening period. Livest. Sci. 2014, 162, 223–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alarcon, P.; Wiedland, B.; Mateus, A.; Dewberry, C. Pig Farmer’s perceptions, attitudes, influences and management of information in the decision-making process for disease control. Prev. Vet. Med. 2014, 116, 223–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moreno, A.M. Opinions of Spanish pig producers on the role, the level and the risk to public health of antimicrobial use in pigs. Res. Vet. Sci. 2014, 97, 26–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Speksnijder, D.; Jaarsma, A.D. Determinants Associated with Veterinary Antimicrobial Prescribing in Farm Animals in the Netherlands: A Qualitative Study. Zoonoses Public Health 2015, 62, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Coyne, L.A.; Pinchbeck, G.L.; Williams, N.J.; Smith, R.F.; Dawson, S.; Pearson, R.B.; Latham, S.M. Understanding antimicrobials use and prescribing behaviours by pig veterinary surgeons and farmers: A qualitative study. Vet. Rec. 2014, 175, 593–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Visschers, V.H.M.; Backhans, A.; Collineau, L.; Iten, D.; Loesken, S.; Postma, M.; Belloc, C.; Dewulf, J.; Emanuelson, U.; Beilage, E.G.; et al. Perceptions of antimicrobial usage, antimicrobial resistance and policy measures to reduce antimicrobial usage in convenient samples of Belgian, French, German, Swedish and Swiss pig farmers. Prev. Vet. Med. Vol. 2015, 119, 10–20. [Google Scholar]
- Cerf, M.; Omon, B.; Chantre, E.; Guillot, M.N.; Le Bail, M.; Lamine, C.; Orly, P. Vers des systèmes économes en intrants: Quelles trajectoires et quel accompagnement pour les producteurs en grandes cultures? Innov. Agron. 2010, 8, 105–119. (In French) [Google Scholar]
- Lamine, C.; Bellon, S. Conversion to organics, a multidimensional subject at the crossroads of agricultural and social sciences. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 29, 97–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lamine, C. Transition pathways towards a robust ecologization of agriculture and the need for system redesign. Cases from organic farming and IPM. J. Rural Stud. 2011, 27, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dedieu, B.; Servière, G. Organisation de travail et fonctionnement des systèmes d’élevage. Rencontres Rech. Rumin. 2001, 8, 245–250. (In French) [Google Scholar]
- Chantre, E.; Le Bail, M.; Cerf, M. La reconstruction de l’expérience: Comment les agriculteurs développent une agriculture économe en intrant? In Actes du Colloque Recherches et Pratiques de Didactique Professionnelle; Didapro: Dijon, France, 2009. (In French) [Google Scholar]
- Lamine, C.; Navarrete, M.; Cardona, A. Transitions towards organic farming at the farm and at the local scales: The role of innovative production and organisational modes and networks. In Organic Farming, Prototype for Sustainable Agricultures; Bellon, S., Penvern, S., Eds.; Editions Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 423–438. [Google Scholar]
- Cardona, A.; Lamine, C. Liens forts et liens faibles, l’influence des modes d’intervention socio-professionnelle sur les changements de pratique. In Sociologie des Grandes Cultures, au Cœur du Modèle Industriel Agricole; Goulet, F., Bernard de Raymond, A., Eds.; Editions Quae: Paris, France, 2014; pp. 97–111. (In French) [Google Scholar]
- Glaser, B.; Strauss, A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research; Aldine de Gruyter: New York, NY, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
- Baker, S.E.; Edwards, R. How many qualitative interviews is enough? Available online: http://blog.soton.ac.uk/dissertation/files/2013/09/how_many_interviews.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2015).
- Guest, G.; Bunce, A.; Johnson, L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 2006, 18, 59–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silverman, D. Interpreting Qualitative Data; Sage Publication Ltd.: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Barbier, M.; Lemery, B. Learning through processes of change in agriculture: A methodological framework. In Cow up a Tree. Knowing and Learning for Change in Agriculture; Cerf, M., Gibbon, D., Hubert, B., Ison, R., Jiggins, J., Paine, M., Proost, J., Röling, N., Eds.; INRA: Paris, France, 2014; pp. 381–396. [Google Scholar]
- Hendry, C. Understanding and creating whole organizational change through learning theory. Hum. Relat. 1996, 49, 621–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicolini, D.; Meznar, M. The social construction of organizational learning: Conceptual and practical issues in the fields. Hum. Relat. 1995, 48, 727–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valeeva, N.I.; van Asseldonk, M.A.; Backus, G.B. Perceived risk and strategy efficacy as motivators of risk management strategy adoption to prevent animal disease in pig farming. Prev. Vet. Med. 2011, 102, 284–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bernard de Raymond, A. Des « agriculteurs à mi-temps »! Spécialisation céréalière, travail et temporalité. In Sociologie des Grandes Cultures, au Cœur du Modèle Industriel Agricole; Goulet, F., Bernard de Raymond, A., Eds.; Editions Quae: Paris, France, 2014; pp. 81–96. (In French) [Google Scholar]
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Fortané, N.; Bonnet-Beaugrand, F.; Hémonic, A.; Samedi, C.; Savy, A.; Belloc, C. Learning Processes and Trajectories for the Reduction of Antibiotic Use in Pig Farming: A Qualitative Approach. Antibiotics 2015, 4, 435-454. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics4040435
Fortané N, Bonnet-Beaugrand F, Hémonic A, Samedi C, Savy A, Belloc C. Learning Processes and Trajectories for the Reduction of Antibiotic Use in Pig Farming: A Qualitative Approach. Antibiotics. 2015; 4(4):435-454. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics4040435
Chicago/Turabian StyleFortané, Nicolas, Florence Bonnet-Beaugrand, Anne Hémonic, Carole Samedi, Arnaud Savy, and Catherine Belloc. 2015. "Learning Processes and Trajectories for the Reduction of Antibiotic Use in Pig Farming: A Qualitative Approach" Antibiotics 4, no. 4: 435-454. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics4040435