Table 3.
Results of a multivariable logistic regression analysis investigating animal health management practices (contact with veterinarians and record keeping as dependent variables) of 746 smallholders keeping cattle and sheep participating in a cross-sectional study in Australia in 2013–2015 (Only significant associations are shown).
| Practice | Producers | %* | B | SE | Odds ratio | 95% CI | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CONTACTED A VETERINARIAN IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS | |||||||
| Species kept | 0.008 | ||||||
| Sheep | 37 | 29.8 | −0.62 | 0.25 | 0.54 | 0.3–0.9 | |
| Cattle | 154 | 34.6 | −0.35 | 0.33 | 0.70 | 0.4–1.4 | |
| Cattle and sheep | 60 | 46.2 | 0 | 1.00 | |||
| Cattle, sheep, and pigs | 6 | 18.8 | −1.84 | 0.61 | 0.16 | 0.1–0.5 | |
| Horses in the property | <0.001 | ||||||
| No | 144 | 28.3 | 0 | 1.00 | |||
| Yes | 113 | 49.1 | 0.90 | 0.21 | 2.45 | 1.6–3.7 | |
| Biosecurity knowledge | 0.006 | ||||||
| No-poor | 90 | 31.5 | 0 | 1.00 | |||
| Mod-High | 117 | 45.2 | 0.54 | 0.20 | 1.72 | 1.2–2.5 | |
| Property hectares | 0.012 | ||||||
| <10 | 70 | 31.8 | −0.39 | 0.26 | 0.67 | 0.4–1.1 | |
| 10–29 | 68 | 30.8 | −0.71 | 0.24 | 0.49 | 0.3–0.8 | |
| 30–79 | 93 | 41.9 | 0 | 1.00 | |||
| ≥80 | 20 | 38.5 | 0.28 | 0.41 | 1.32 | 0.6–3.0 | |
| KEEP RECORDS OF ANIMALS WITH DISEASE | |||||||
| Gender | 0.001 | ||||||
| Male | 219 | 51.0 | 0 | 1.00 | |||
| Female | 123 | 63.1 | 0.63 | 0.19 | 1.87 | 1.3–2.7 | |
| Species kept | 0.002 | ||||||
| Sheep | 39 | 35.5 | 0 | 1.00 | |||
| Cattle | 239 | 60.7 | 0.89 | 0.24 | 2.43 | 1.5–3.9 | |
| Cattle and sheep | 59 | 53.6 | 0.63 | 0.29 | 1.89 | 1.1–3.3 | |
| Cattle, sheep, and pigs | 14 | 51.9 | 0.42 | 0.48 | 1.53 | 0.6–3.9. | |
| State | <0.001 | ||||||
| NSW | 84 | 76.4 | 0 | 1.00 | |||
| QLD | 50 | 60.2 | −0.82 | 0.33 | 0.44 | 0.2–0.8 | |
| SA | 52 | 42.3 | −1.43 | 0.31 | 0.24 | 0.1–0.4 | |
| TAS | 57 | 49.1 | −1.18 | 0.31 | 0.31 | 0.2–0.6 | |
| VIC | 65 | 51.2 | −1.20 | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.2–0.5 | |
| WA | 43 | 52.4 | −1.00 | 0.33 | 0.37 | 0.2–0.7 | |
| KEEP RECORDS OF ANIMALS THAT DIED OR EUTHANASED? | |||||||
| Gender | 0.002 | ||||||
| Male | 261 | 60.0 | 0 | 1.00 | |||
| Female | 144 | 71.3 | 0.62 | 0.20 | 1.86 | 1.3–2.8 | |
| Species kept | 0.027 | ||||||
| Sheep | 48 | 41.7 | 0 | 1.00 | |||
| Cattle | 270 | 68.7 | 0.71 | 0.24 | 2.03 | 1.3–3.3 | |
| Cattle and sheep | 80 | 68.4 | 0.73 | 0.31 | 2.08 | 1.1–3.8 | |
| Cattle, sheep, and pigs | 18 | 60.0 | 0.53 | 0.47 | 1.70 | 0.7–4.3 | |
| Property hectares | <0.001 | ||||||
| <10 | 86 | 45.3 | 0 | 1.00 | |||
| 10–29 | 127 | 62.9 | 0.56 | 0.22 | 1.75 | 1.1–2.7 | |
| 30–79 | 156 | 77.6 | 1.20 | 0.24 | 3.33 | 2.1–5.4 | |
| ≥80 | 41 | 82.0 | 1.71 | 0.43 | 5.54 | 2.4–12.7 | |
| KEEP RECORDS OF TREATMENT ROUTINE | |||||||
| Biosecurity knowledge | 0.016 | ||||||
| No-poor | 157 | 63.1 | 0 | 1.00 | |||
| Mod-High | 176 | 75.5 | 0.51 | 0.21 | 1.67 | 1.1–2.5 | |
| Property hectares | <0.001 | ||||||
| <10 | 104 | 55.6 | 0 | 1.00 | |||
| 10–29 | 133 | 65.8 | 0.48 | 0.26 | 1.62 | 1.0–2.7 | |
| 30–79 | 145 | 75.1 | 1.01 | 0.27 | 2.74 | 1.6–4.6 | |
| ≥80 | 37 | 80.4 | 1.50 | 0.56 | 4.49 | 1.5–13.6 | |
*
Proportion of producers within each row conducting the specific practice investigated in the model (denominators not provided).