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.