# Farmers’ views and attitudes towards bovine tuberculosis and bluetongue in Northern Ireland using semi-structured interviews

## TL;DR

This study explores how farmers in Northern Ireland feel about bovine tuberculosis and bluetongue, revealing frustrations and concerns that affect disease control efforts.

## Contribution

The study provides new insights into farmers' attitudes and the challenges of disease eradication through direct interviews and question slips.

## Key findings

- Stagnation in bTB eradication has led to frustration and belief in conspiracy theories among farmers.
- Farmers are concerned about BT incursions but focus more on control measures than clinical impacts.
- Confidence in bTB skin tests varies, affecting trust in disease management.

## Abstract

Understanding the attitude of farmers towards infectious diseases and government interventions is essential for understanding behavioural responses during outbreaks, compliance with control measures, and preventing and eradicating diseases.

This study aimed to improve the understanding of farmers’ attitudes towards bluetongue (BT) and bovine tuberculosis (bTB), which are key epizootic and endemic diseases in Northern Ireland, and provide insight into how this may affect disease control and eradication.

Short answer question slips, each containing a single question, relating to BT and bTB were presented on the Department of Agricultural, Environment and Rural Affairs stand at the Balmoral Show in May 2025. Visitors were encouraged to anonymously complete the questions. Simultaneously, visitors to the show were interviewed using semi-structured questionnaires on either BT or bTB. The conversations were recorded and transcribed. Grounded Theory was used to analyse transcripts.

A total of 141 question slips, each containing a single question, were completed. Of which, 99 questions related to bTB and 42 to BT. Interviews ranged between 1 and 3 minutes. There were 77 interviews: 46 for BT and 31 for bTB. Results show that stagnation in bTB eradication has led to frustration and disillusionment creating an environment fertile for blame, conspiracy theories and superstition. Respondents were aware of the limitations of bTB diagnostic tests. However, their confidence in a negative bTB skin test varied depending on the situation. Most farmers expressed concern about the risk of a BT incursion. However, the impact was perceived in terms of government-imposed control measures rather than the clinical impact of cases. Most farmers were supportive of movement restrictions. A small number of farmers expressed cynicism and highlighted the negative impact of movement restrictions.

Information is available continuously through various platforms, but misinformation and disinformation is widespread. Combatting this, and disseminating accurate, timely information is increasingly challenging but necessary for eradication to be successful. Ascertaining the extent to which farmers’ confidence in the bTB skin test varies across different situations and how it impacts behaviour would be beneficial to disease control policy. Discussing BT usually elicited an acute, often abstract, fear from farmers compared to bTB where they focused on the financial burden and mental health impact of long-term control measures.