Video Gallery

Welcome and a Word from our Sponsor: ADBCAP Director Julie Smith welcomes the audience, makes announcements, provides an overview of the project goals and team, and introduces Michelle Colby from USDA NIFA to discuss NIFA programs in biosecurity. Dr. Smith goes over the plan for the day before introducing the next speaker.

A Systems Approach to Improving Biosecurity Investments: Chris Koliba presents an overview of how the Social Ecological Gaming and Simulation (SEGS) laboratory at the University of Vermont uses innovative approaches to help solve complex real world problems and provides a graphical illustration of the operational, tactical, and strategic levels at which the lab has investigated biosecurity-related choices and consequences in agricultural production systems.

Serious Games and Decision Making: Scott Merrill and Luke Trinity of the SEGS laboratory at the University of Vermont explain how experiments run with a game-like interface helped them examine the effects of risk perception and information on biosecurity decision-making by farm workers at the operational level of agricultural production. They present results of the “compliance” game.

Willingness to Invest in Livestock Biosecurity: Evidence from Digital Field Experiments: Scott Merrill, Ollin Langle, and Eric Clark of the SEGS laboratory at the University of Vermont present results of the “protocol adoption” game designed to query choices at the tactical level (by managers or owner/operators) of production systems. They present some unexpected findings in answer to the question: “How does the level of information a farm manager or owner/operator have about the biosecurity levels and contamination of surrounding farms impact their willingness to invest in additional biosecurity measures at their own farms?”

US Swine Survey Insights: Glynn Tonsor of Kansas State University presents results based in large part on the work of Lee Schulz of Iowa State University to understand the implications of various indemnity policies. A survey administered to hog producers throughout the country focused on two primary issues: indemnity expectations and how these expectations affect the adoption of biosecurity measures. Tune in at the 6-minute mark for some key take-aways.

Information Sharing in the Beef Cattle Industry: Glynn Tonsor of Kansas State University provides an analysis of survey-derived data on private market choices when premiums or discounts are offered for animals with traceability attributes. As expected, cow-calf producers and feedlots respond inversely to these signals, and neither situation without external incentives results in adoption of traceability for a majority of cattle. Tonsor ends with a teaser for results of a survey exploring how government policy in terms of foreign animal disease control strategies affects producers’ willingness to report suspected diseases.

Socio-Psychological Determinants of Cattle Producers’ Intent to Comply with Animal Disease Control Practices: Using data collected previously by Amy Delgado, Asim Zia of the University of Vermont discusses the use of structural equation modeling to build causal models of factors influencing behavior, in this case under the framework of the Theory of Planned Behavior. The findings shed light on communication and trust-building approaches regulatory agencies might use to improve compliance of cattle producers with regulatory requirements in a foreign animal disease outbreak.

A Stimulated Production System for Strategic Decisions on Disease Control: Gabriela Bucini, Eric Clark, and Ollin Langle from the University of Vermont discuss and demonstrate agent-based models (ABM) used to model animal disease outbreaks while accounting for human behavior. These models can be used to explore the interaction between operational level decisions and policies implemented at the strategic level. Models show that greater risk tolerance (and less adoption of biosecurity) makes outbreaks less predictable and more likely to be widespread and severe. Shifting the distribution of behaviors (from baseline determined by the “protocol adoption” game) away from risk tolerance to risk aversion moderates the size and severity of modeled outbreaks. Future work can focus on effective ways to encourage risk aversion/biosecurity implementation.

Risk Communication, the IDEA Model and Improving Biosecurity: PEDv as a Case Study: Risk and crisis communication specialists, Timothy and Deanna Sellnow of the University of Central Florida, introduce the IDEA Model, an effective instructional model, applied to motivating swine producers to take appropriate action in response to porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDv). The elements of the model are internalization, distribution, explanation, and action.

Online Biosecurity Education for Youth: What a Great IDEA! Educating youth about biosecurity can be considered “trickle-up education” because more educated youth will not only influence future generations, but current generations and communities. Educational designer Jeannette McDonald describes the online learning modules developed for 6th-12th grade FFA and 4-H members and how they are consistent with the IDEA model. The goal is to develop students who are knowledgeable and able to be advocates for biosecurity.

SCRUB Kits: Science Creates Real Understanding of Biosecurity: Kris Hiney of Oklahoma State University presents an overview of hands-on activities that complement the online learning modules (described by Jeannette McDonald). The SCRUB (Science Creates Real Understanding of Biosecurity) kits are designed to engage youth in grades 6-12 who have an existing interest in animal science with fun science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) activities to reinforce the ideas of animal biosecurity in four areas: disease transfer, cleaning and disinfecting, vaccine handling, and building a biosecure farm.

Healthy Farms, Healthy Agriculture for Biosecurity: Joanna Cummings of the University of Vermont presents an overview of the Healthy Farms, Healthy Agriculture (HFHA) website under development. The website will feature information organized under the headings: prevent, detect, and respond as well as planning resources and tools. The site will initially serve as a hub for all things to do with animal biosecurity and in the future can be extended to include crop and plant biosecurity as well.

Funding Agencies and Foundations: Peter Johnson, DVM, Ph.D., USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA); Robert O’Connor, Ph.D., NSF Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE); Timothy Kurt, DVM, Ph.D., Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR).

National Animal Health Laboratory Network Overview: Christina Loiacono, DVM, Ph.D., National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN); Cheryl Skjolaas, Extension Disaster Education Network (EDEN); Rubella Goswami, Ph.D., National Plant Diagnostic Network (NPDN).

Q & A on National Animal Health Laboratory Network & Funding Agencies and Foundations: Christina Loiacono, DVM, Ph.D., NAHLN; Cheryl Skjolaas, EDEN; Rubella Goswami, Ph.D., NPDN; Peter Johnson, DVM, Ph.D., USDA NIFA; Robert O’Connor, Ph.D., NSF; Timothy Kurt, DVM, Ph.D., FFAR.

Welcome, Opening remarks from the ADBCAP Project Director: Julie Smith DVM, Ph.D., University of Vermont.

Economist Perspective on “So What?” Glynn Tonsor of Kansas State University uses three examples to illustrate ways that economists quantify the “so what?” associated with outcomes of selected actions.

Social Marketing to Save Farmers’ Lives: Matthew Myers, dialog education consultant, explains how the Vermont Rebates for Rollbars Program successfully used a social marketing approach to get farmers to retrofit older tractors with rollbars to prevent death and injury from rollover accidents.

Narratives as Storytelling: Implications of the IDEA Model: Timothy and Deanna Sellnow of the University of Central Florida expand upon the use of the IDEA model by illustrating the value of storytelling with examples from animal disease outbreaks such as foot-and-mouth disease, highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), and porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDv).

Considering a Communities of Practice Approach: Joel Iverson of the University of Montana explores how to think about a community of practice (CoP) and how the concept applies to understanding and improving how we address agricultural biosecurity concerns. He explains how we can analyze our communication processes in terms of mutual engagement, shared repertoires, and negotiation of a joint enterprise.

My Vision of Success: Project Director Julie Smith presents her vision of success where the community is competent in conveying information to motivate change relevant to agricultural biosecurity. The revamped Healthy Farms, Healthy Agriculture website is part of achieving that vision. The avoidance of disease crises means the preservation of healthy farms and healthy agriculture, hence the name. The ideal website would provide information in response to the needs of the user in an intuitive way and allow members of the community to share with each other. Smith invites the community to help shape how that happens.

Agricultural Biosecurity: Pre-crisis and Risk Communication: Matthew Seeger of Wayne State University, a leading expert in crisis and risk communication, delivered the keynote address. He uses the CDC crisis and emergency risk communication model as a framework for discussing how to send and receive messages to support the implementation of appropriate actions.

Planting, Fertilizing and Growing a Community of Practice: [Audio only] Joel Iverson of the University of Montana encourages the audience to reconsider communities of practice. Interweaving several stories, he addresses key challenges in bringing people to the table and determining how best to engage and share experience and expertise in a way that supports best practice. He challenges us to design a community that works!