278 - Understanding Biosecurity Perceptions in Pennsylvania Pig Producers

The group mental model of swine-related biosecurity for producers and experts was assessed and compared using network analysis. The proper implementation of biosecurity plans reduces the risk of biological hazards that could cripple the industry. Recently collected survey data show producer motivation to adopt a biosecurity protocol is not driven solely by the value of the operation (Hines and Falcone, unpublished). Other motivating factors exist for how producers perceive risk relating to biosecurity management. To identify how pig producers and experts conceptualize biosecurity, open-ended survey questions were asked. Survey responses (n = 123) were coded using a newly developed codebook. Intercoder reliability was established using Krippendorff’s a. Code co-occurrence was used to build a network diagram showing producer and expert mental models, or depiction of the interdependent relationships among values, beliefs, behavior, and cognitive processes of decision making. Analyses of code co-occurrence revealed differences between producers and experts. The results suggest PA-based producers think of biosecurity relating to the protection of their property (ie. inward protection) which was closely associated with limiting access of “outsiders." Also, the mental model diagram suggests producers think about biosecurity more broadly due to less clustering of ideas. Whereas experts think about biosecurity more specifically relating to two to three themes. Specifically, the expert biosecurity diagram revealed record keeping as an important component of biosecurity, which was strongly related to how experts think about cleanliness and limiting outsider access. Regarding strategies to address biohazard risks, both producers and experts recognize several options. However, experts proved to have stronger connections between concepts. Specifically, the diagrams revealed experts see all strategies as connected. From an expert perspective, strategies to address biohazard risks should be implemented simultaneously. These findings are the first step to designing communication to bridge the gaps between expert and producer understanding of biosecurity.