Vaccination compliance: how can vets motivate farmers?

Vaccination is an important tool in the prevention and control of infectious disease in all livestock systems. A range of diseases can affect different groups of animals and the relevance and risk to each individual farm needs to be understood by both the farmer and veterinarian.

Implementation of any vaccination programme will depend on the management system, location of the farm, sourcing policies, herd/flock history, farm targets/outcomes and, most importantly, the farmer’s belief in the strategy.

As farm animal veterinarians, we are an important source of information for our clients about diseases and the impact they may have on their farms. Reviewing disease status, vaccine strategies and protocols and continuing diagnostics should all form an important part of the regular health planning we undertake with clients.

The UK has no compulsory vaccination programmes, so the decision to vaccinate falls to the farmer. This decision should be based on in-depth consultation with the veterinary practice to ensure the best strategies are implemented in a successful manner. The reliance of farmers on their veterinarian to provide up-to-date knowledge on diseases and a suitable plan for their individual needs demonstrates the importance of building good relationships and trust with clients. It is imperative farmers see their vet as part of their team and not just someone to deal with emergencies and sell them drugs.

These trusting relationships cannot be built overnight and it is important we, as vets, recognise that. There are many ways to build relationships with clients (and many ways to lose them), but the foundation block is good communication. Even in multi-vet practices, having a specific person as the “primary” vet for each farm can help build a long-lasting working relationship. This need not be the vet who “does all their routines”, or who even does the majority of the visits, but may be someone who is familiar with the farm set up, its targets and, ideally, the vet who does the annual herd health report.

Having one point of reference provides farmers with someone who they know, who has knowledge of the key aspects of the enterprise and who will be able to relate their questions to the specifics of the farm. In multi-vet practices it is, therefore, vital information from visits to the farms is disseminated across the veterinary group so any primary vet contact with the farm is up to date and the primary vet is aware of new and emerging issues.

Keep clients well informed

So how can we motivate farmers to vaccinate? Again, the first step is probably communication. This includes not only communication between vets within the practice, but also communication with the farmer. As relationships are developed with clients, communication becomes much easier, especially when it comes to changing protocols or implementing new strategies.

The key to good communication with clients is not just the ability to talk freely with them, but, more importantly, it is about the information that needs to be put across. Plenty of outlets for clients to get information are available, including the farming press or websites. In view of this, vets need to ensure they have the most up-to-date information to pass to clients.

An important consideration when planning CPD may be to allocate some time to reviewing current diagnostic and treatment methods for infectious diseases. Diagnostic laboratories, including the APHA and pharmaceutical companies who produce the vaccines, are useful sources of information about current strategies for disease monitoring and control.

Disease information can be shared with the clients during herd planning sessions or through informal chats on farm or over the telephone. This could be instigated by a request from the farmer, a recent disease outbreak or as a result of recent diagnostic samples. However, for every client who enquires about a disease or is concerned he or she may have a problem, there could be any number of other clients with the same concerns.

A useful method of conveying information to all of your clients about important disease topics is through practice newsletters and client evenings. These can be used to explain about diseases, how we can monitor for them, why they are important and what we can do to prevent them. These outlets of information are useful as they are under your control and can ensure the best information is reaching your clients. A simple newsletter article may lead to further questions from clients or to an invitation for you to have an informal consultation meeting on farm. Anything that gets our clients wanting information can only be a good thing for practice relationships.

On-farm strategy

When considering implementing a disease control strategy on a farm, it is important to understand the motivations behind vaccination (and also why some farmers are reluctant).

Cresswell et al (2014) gathered data from more than 250 farmers about the use of cattle vaccines. They found the reasons that motivated farmers to vaccinate were due to:

• losses on farm
• following veterinary advice
• to control a perceived disease problem
• following disease testing or monitoring
• as a requirement for shows
• sales

Some farmers also responded they vaccinated because they always had done. The reasons for not vaccinating included:

• no perceived problem
• negative diagnostic tests
• having a closed herd
• cost

These reasons provide a useful insight for the veterinary profession in how we may be able to motivate farmers who do not vaccinate their stock. Monitoring herds for early signs of disease or using herd screening tests may indicate rising levels of disease.

Detailed explanations of the value of further diagnostics where diseases such as bovine viral diarrhoea (BVD), infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) or leptospirosis may be a differential could lead to the early identification of herd disease when examining an individual sick cow. This may also stimulate a conversation with the farmer where we can explain the risks of that disease to his or her herd, the immediate potential economic cost of disease and the ongoing costs for monitoring and preventive strategies.

If vaccination is a requirement for shows or sales then farmers already have an idea of the economic value of a vaccination programme. However, knowing a farmer is regularly bringing stock to and from sales or shows can open up discussions about the risks associated with such practices of bringing disease into their herd. This can nicely lead on to in-depth evaluation of quarantine and biosecurity measures, as well as calculating the risks to cattle that remain on the farm and whether vaccination protocols may reduce this risk.

It is a far more difficult conversation to have if a farmer vaccinates “because he or she always has”, and we, as the veterinarian, do not believe vaccination is necessary. It is easy to keep protocols in place rather than risk a disease breakdown, but a thorough understanding of how the disease and the vaccination work and why the farmer originally started vaccinating could be used in conjunction with diagnostics to replace vaccination with a monitoring scheme. It is worth considering any accreditation schemes that farms are part of and ensure our veterinary advice matches their requirements.

If we consider Cresswell et al’s (2014) findings regarding motivators behind not vaccinating, we can also highlight ways we could get farmers to buy into protocols if we feel their stock would benefit. If there is no perceived problem then herd data (fertility or milking) can be carefully analysed to see if there is anything that may support subclinical or emerging infectious diseases. This might be a higher than expected number of returns, or barren cows, or occasional herd wide dips in milk production. Emerging disease may also be identified by increasing numbers of individual, “sick” cows being presented to the vet.

If a farmer has found previous tests to be negative, it is important both we and the farmer understand the limitations of the tests. What might produce a false negative? Does the negative result match the clinical picture? Have we tested a suitable number and type of animal? One negative test does not mean the farm is not at risk of having disease.

Even if vaccination is not suitable, disease-free status needs to be protected by good monitoring, biosecurity and quarantine protocols. The same can be said for farmers who do not vaccinate as they have closed herds. Even truly closed herds can be at risk of new disease. Farms are busy places with a range of visitors and animals coming and going.

Although good biosecurity protocols are essential in limiting the risk of disease, it is still possible for farms to succumb. Early identification of disease is, therefore, essential and relies on farmer and veterinary knowledge and suitable interventions being instigated rapidly.

Will it work?

Another problem that can prevent farmers from being motivated from vaccinating or stopping vaccination protocols is a perceived failure of the vaccine. In the face of overwhelming challenge all vaccines run the risk of failing.

However, it is much more likely there has been some error in the handler’s compliance with the product and protocol than a fault with the vaccine.

A wide range of vaccines are available in the UK to treat a range of viral, bacterial and parasitic diseases, and Richens et al (2015) states approximately 36 are listed by NOAH for cattle. Of the diseases protection is offered against, the most commonly vaccinated for are BVD, leptospirosis and IBR (Cresswell et al, 2014). Even within these three diseases the range of available vaccines is numerous. It is easy to see where compliance issues may arise when vaccines for the same disease have such a variety of product specifics, dose rates, routes of administration, duration of actions, primary courses and so on.

Once again it is important, as veterinary surgeons, we are aware of the key differences in products and are able to select the most appropriate one for each individual farm. Many factors will contribute to whether a certain vaccine is appropriate, including staffing levels, cost, repeat doses and age of animal. By understanding the dynamics of each of our clients’ farms we can ensure the products we advise will fit into the management system. If a vaccination protocol is straight forward then compliance can only improve.

Cresswell et al (2014) found less than half of their respondents were actually administering the second dose of a primary course correctly, 14% were vaccinating animals outside of the recommended data sheet age range, and around 30% were administering vaccines by the wrong route.

It is vital communication of the importance of following data sheet recommendations regarding all of these compliance issues is conveyed to farmers. It is our responsibility to ensure clients realise not all vaccines are the same and that we, as the vet, understand the nuances of the product we have recommended. The pharmaceutical industry has teams of vets on hand to offer advice on their products and this is probably an underused resource available to the profession.

In summary, there are many pitfalls to consider when starting a vaccination programme with a client. However, with up-to-date knowledge, good client relationships and the ability to communicate effectively, there is no reason why we cannot motivate any farmer to vaccinate their animals when necessary.