Skip to main content

Table 1 The Norwegian farmers' responses to a questionnaire study in 2002

From: Norwegian farmers' vigilance in reporting sheep showing scrapie-associated signs

   Reporting behaviour
   No. of responses (row %)
Explanatory variable/Category N for variable Not report Re-examine Notifying
Region 1973    
   Northern Norway   76 (31) 133 (53) 40 (16)
   Middle Norway   102 (32) 154 (48) 64 (20)
   Western Norway   211 (25) 448 (53) 190 (22)
   South-Eastern Norway   167 (30) 276 (50) 112 (20)
Flock size 1973    
   ≥ 100 breeding sheep   111 (40) 119 (43) 47 (17)
   50–99 breeding sheep   209 (32) 330 (50) 122 (18)
   10–49 breeding sheep   236 (23) 562 (54) 237 (23)
Knowledge of scrapie-associated symptoms 1852    
   0 signs recognised   13 (37) 22 (63) 0 (0)
   1 signs recognised   105 (36) 138 (47) 49 (17)
   2 signs recognised   147 (29) 248 (49) 115 (23)
   3 signs recognised   143 (27) 290 (55) 92 (18)
   4 signs recognised   87 (27) 157 (48) 83 (25)
   5 signs recognised   24 (15) 91 (56) 48 (29)
I need more knowledge of scrapie symptoms 1697    
   Very important   185 (27) 354 (51) 157 (23)
   Less important   297 (30) 511 (51) 193 (19)
Having easy access to a District Veterinary Officer (DVO) 1856    
   Very important   236 (24) 523 (52) 244 (24)
   Less important   286 (34) 418 (49) 149 (17)
Being offered free examination of scrapie suspects 1748    
   Very important   244 (29) 376 (45) 213 (26)
   Less important   260 (28) 501 (55) 154 (17)
The Government compensates for the cost of the control measures when scrapie is detected 1815    
   Very important   404 (29) 692 (49) 310 (22)
   Less important   111 (27) 221 (54) 77 (19)
Worried about losing income 1737    
   Very important   279 (30) 447 (48) 215 (23)
   Less important   222 (28) 424 (53) 150 (19)
Worried about losing work 1622    
   Very important and Important   200 (29) 339 (49) 153 (22)
   Of minor Importance and Not important   267 (29) 483 (52) 180 (19)
Worried about loss of breeding material 1683    
   Very important   188 (27) 350 (51) 147 (21)
   Less important   296 (30) 506 (51) 196 (20)
Worried about the emotional distress of losing animals 1720    
   Very important   207 (25) 440 (54) 174 (21)
   Less important   288 (32) 433 (48) 178 (20)
Worried about being accused of spreading scrapie 1631    
   Very important and Important   278 (26) 551 (52) 222 (21)
   Of minor Importance and Not important   189 (33) 276 (48) 115 (20)
Worried about blaming oneself for having got scrapie 1616    
   Very important and Important   220 (26) 455 (53) 181 (21)
   Of minor Importance and Not important   250 (33) 361 (48) 149 (20)
Satisfied that the detection of scrapie would enable the eradication of the disease from the flock 1711    
   Very important   264 (24) 548 (50) 276 (25)
   Less important   212 (34) 327 (52) 84 (13)
  1. The distribution of the responses is given with regard to the reporting behaviour for non-recovering listeriosis cases.
  2. Less important includes the categories: Important, Of minor importance, and Not important.