Impuesto específico a las bebidas alcohólicas

Our forecast for the implementation of biosecurity measures in the future is based on the projected changes in the average farm size. Numerous other factors may influence the frequencies of implementation. Therefore, the results must be considered only as a possible scenario that may be realized. However, economic factors, changes in the overall disease situation in Finland and legislation, as well as the future prospects and motivation of farmers will affect the implementation of biosecurity measures in Finnish pig and cattle farms in the future. The costs and realized benefits of the measures will also play a role.

A positive effect on the implementation frequency in relation to farm size can be thought as an indication of an existing economic or other incentive that is positively correlated with the farm size. According to our results, farm size-related incentives appeared to cover 23–70% of the studied biosecurity measures, depending on the farm type.

Even though the implementation of some biosecurity measures did not correlate with farm size at the time of our questionnaire, it does not mean that an incentive leading to an improvement in biosecurity with increasing farm size cannot be found. One of the options could be to strengthen economic incentives and impose condi- tions on possible support payments to farms such that increased implementation of biosecurity measures would be required from enlarging farms. If improvements in biosecurity cannot be achieved through farm-size-related incentives, other moti- vating factors should be considered.

Many livestock farms will exit the industry by 2033. Exiting farms will predominantly be small farms that do not invest in new production facilities and infrastructure. If improvements are focused on those farms that continue and invest in new produc- tion capacity, they can cover a substantial proportion of future livestock production. Another argument that can be presented when targeting the improvements in biosecurity measures is that small farms have more to improve than large farms. The costs of biosecurity measures may limit the introduction of costly biosecurity measures, particularly on small farms (Niemi et al. 2015). Small farms and especially hobby farms may also be a potential group for introducing new diseases into the country. They may be less familiar with the laws and regulations than large farms. Hence, efforts should also be targeted at these farms.

However, small farms are usually less connected with other farms, especially with large professional farms. Small farms are also more likely to end production, and the investments do not therefore necessarily provide as permanent an improvement in the biosecurity conditions of the country as they do on large farms. In summary, small farms may have a large amount of improvement potential related to bio- security measures, but improvement may be more difficult to achieve and they may be less efficient in relation to the production volume than if the same effort is targeted towards larger farms. Highly connected farms would be an obvious group for targeted incentives in order to improve the overall biosecurity level. These farms are not necessarily the largest farms in the country, although farm size and connectivity with other farms generally correlate positively. In the pig sector, one of the most efficient groups in spreading a disease is elite breeding and multiplying herds (Raulo & Lyytikäinen 2006). Sow pools and multi-site pig farms were also efficient in spreading

Generalized linear models (Appendix 4) indicated 24 farm-size-dependent effects in implementation frequencies in the pig sector and 22 in the cattle sector. Half of the effects in the cattle sector and 58% of those in the pig sector were so large that the prediction for typical-sized farms in 2009 and 2033 clearly deviated (by at least 2 standard errors). Only one decline in implementation frequency was large enough to be considered relevant (Table 18). Changes appeared to be the smallest on beef cattle farms, as was also the predicted increase in farm size.

A farm size increase may also lead to minor improvements in the implementation frequency of measures that are not strongly dependent on farm, because the farm size range is larger than the change in an average-sized farm. Although the practical importance of this change is smaller, it probably has some relevance in determining the spread potential in the country as a whole.

In the pig sector, factors such as the locking the doors of the animal shelter, the use of containers for the storage of dead animals and the use of compartments within the production units showed clear farm-size dependence. These measures are relevant for the protection of pig farms. According to our results, their implementation will be more prevalent in the future. In the cattle sector, most improvements were related to visitors. In the future, the use of boots or coveralls as protective clothing will become more common than today. On cattle farms, traffic-related arrangements will also be more frequently applied in the future. Moreover, it is not rational to apply certain pig sector biosecurity measures in the cattle sector.

This raises some concerns that the use of protective measures related to animal trading is not expected to increase much in the future. This may partly be a result of the outsourcing of animal trading to slaughterhouse companies reducing the control of farmers regarding the purchasing of pigs. It is also possible that risk management is presently too concentrated on biosecurity measures. Direct animal contact is always a potential route for disease spread. The low prevalence and occurrence of animal diseases in Finland may have led to a situation where the risks related to animal trading within the country are overlooked. Some indications for this can be seen in the implementation frequencies reported in the questionnaire. For instance, internal and external traffic on the farm are separated much more seldom than visitors are offered coveralls.

The possibility to concentrate animal purchases in the same farms is lower in the cattle sector than in the pig sector. According to our questionnaire, this will not improve in the future with an increase in farm size. As farm sizes increase, there may be a peak in the demand to fill the added capacity. This period has the potential to expose the farm to animal disease risks, and it may have incentives to accept animals that are “leftover animals” from several farms. The ability of farms to select the source of their incoming animals may be dictated by the availability of animals. There should be precautionary plans for how new stock is introduced to farms, and what kind of time window and sources to acquire animals are required in order to minimise disease risks.

We performed an additional future FMD simulation in which the animal contact network was re-organized by taking the spatial distance between farms into account.

If all possible animal trading contacts of the farm were linked to those farms within a 20 km radius, this was estimated to reduce the mean epidemic outbreak size in the future by only 10%. This is partly due to farms being further apart in the future. A 20- km distance implies that the farms within the 20 km range potentially share at least some of the same farms in their restrictive zones (the radius of a protective zone is 10 km). When any farm is detected as positive, part of the potential contact network of other farms within the 20 km range is also put under restrictive measures. The decreasing farm density and increasing distance between farms will reduce the importance of this spatial risk management strategy.

It was not simulated how much the outcome would be affected if a farm could buy animals from or sell to only a limited number of farms. This type of limitation is expected to mainly affect the maximum size of an outbreak. It would be a valuable limitation if the spread potential of an animal disease in the country was high. Under Finnish conditions, such a limitation would at least be effective for weaner farms, which seemed to be the subgroup most frequently associated with large outbreaks. However, this type of limitation would not offer additional protection value to Finnish farms against the spread of FMD, ASF or BT, because the spread potential was estimated to be low and spatial risks were limited. If the future is different from our baseline scenario and animals are moved substantially more often than we estimated, the outcome of such a limitation could be different.