Farmers play a decisive role in raising animal welfare and health standards on their farms. It is often assumed that they act on a purely economic basis. However, changing insights have shown that psychological and sociological drivers should also be acknowledged. This was tested in a study focusing on dairy farmers’ decision making concerning participation in a hypothetical dairy health programme. Bovine Virus Diarrhoea (BVD) was chosen as a case to create a realistic setting for the 130 dairy farmers participating in the study. Of the farmers, 82 already participated in the dairy health programme (DHP farmers). The 48 farmers who did not participate were asked whether they would consider joining the programme if they were offered a reward of €3 per healthy (BVD-free) calf, or a fine of €30 per (BVD-) infected calf. Of these farmers, 38 (79%) chose to join the programme (DHP-test farmers), and ten did not (DHP-no-test farmers). In comparison with DHP-test farmers and DHP-no-test farmers, DHP farmers had a more positive attitude towards the programme, were more convinced that joining the programme should lead to fewer sick cows and calves on the farm, more often thought it was bad luck if BVD should occur on their farm anyway, and perceived fewer problems with BVD. DHP-no-test farmers seemed to be the most distinct group in this study. They were less convinced than DHP- and DHP-test farmers that joining the programme benefits the cows’ health and welfare, and will increase work pleasure, and they were less convinced than DHP farmers that joining the programme will increase farm income and that joining the programme will be approved by people in their locality. They seemed to be less ambiguity averse than the other farmers and were more hesitant to join the dairy health programme than DHP-test farmers. This study indicates that dairy farmers who make different choices with regard to animal health, differ in their sensitivity to a reward or a fine. In addition, they have different intentions to join a health programme and different attitudes, beliefs and perceptions towards such a programme. These insights should be taken into account when designing tailor-made interventions for farmers and other agents. A better understanding of farmers’ adoption of practices that reduce animal (and human) health risks would be very helpful for veterinarians, advisers, policymakers and industrial agents.

农民在提高农场动物福利和健康标准方面起着决定性作用。通常认为它们的行为纯粹是出于经济目的。然而，不断变化的见解表明，心理和社会学驱动因素也应得到承认。在一项针对奶农关于参与假设的奶健康计划的决策的研究中，对此进行了测试。选择牛病毒性腹泻（BVD）作为案例，为参与研究的130个奶农创造了一个现实的环境。在奶农中，已有82人（DHP奶农）参加了牛奶健康计划。询问了48位未参加的农民，如果他们获得每头健康小牛（无BVD）小牛3欧元的奖励，或每头受感染小牛（BVD-）30欧元的罚款，他们是否会考虑加入该计划。在这些农民中，38个（79％）选择加入该计划（接受DHP测试的农民），有10个没有加入（接受DHP测试的农民）。与接受DHP检验的农民和未经DHP检验的农民相比，DHP农民对该计划抱有更积极的态度，他们坚信加入该计划应减少农场上的病牛和犊牛，更多时候认为这是如果BVD无论如何应该出现在他们的农场上，那倒霉，并且认为BVD的问题更少。DHP无需测试的农民似乎是本研究中最与众不同的群体。他们不像接受DHP和DHP测试的农民相信加入该计划有益于奶牛的健康和福利，并且会增加工作乐趣，而且他们不相信DHP农民相信加入该计划将增加农场的收入，并且相信加入该计划。该计划将获得当地人的批准。他们似乎比其他农场主不那么模棱两可，并且比参加DHP测试的农场主更犹豫地加入乳制品健康计划。这项研究表明，在动物健康方面做出不同选择的奶农对奖励或罚款的敏感性不同。此外，他们有不同的意愿参加健康计划，并且对这种计划有不同的态度，信念和看法。在为农民和其他代理商设计量身定制的干预措施时，应考虑这些见解。更好地了解农民采用减少动物（和人类）健康风险的做法将对兽医，顾问，政策制定者和工业代理商非常有帮助。