Table 6 - uploaded by Magdalena Jacobson
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
Biosecurity routines at herd level may reduce the probability of introduction of disease into the herd, but some measures may be regarded as expensive and cumbersome for the farmers. Custom-made measures based on individual farm characteristics may aid in improving the actual application of on-farm biosecurity. The aim of the study was to provide a...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... results for the yearly risk of introduction of each disease in each herd type in the different model versions are shown in Table 6. For the bacterial pig diseases, esti- mates of disease introduction via indirect transmission routes were much lower than for the more transmissible viral bovine diseases. ...
Citations
... Understanding differences in biosecurity practices among small-to large-scale agricultural production practices can be challenging, as there is limited research based on specific biosecurity practices by small-scale farming operations, especially in the U.S. Biosecurity concerns have been found to stem from live animals, trucks and/or vehicles, visiting people, emergencies, aerosols, wildlife, and vectors [28,29]. Disease spread has been examined through epidemiological models; however, the influence of human behavior on the spread of diseases and animal health remains underexamined [30]. ...
Agricultural biosecurity is a pressing global issue that must be given continuous attention by researchers, producers, consumers, and government agencies responsible for food security. This article examines the relevant literature specifically related to recommended practices for U.S. small-scale farms and ranches to minimize potential disease susceptibility in animals and humans. Current training and educational resources appear to focus on mechanisms of disease transmission and ecological and/or social factors that support mitigation efforts. Training against biological incursion and knowledge of diseases are typically focused on serving the continuing educational needs of veterinarians, epidemiological groups, and animal health technicians for large-scale facilities. However, there is a gap in the available resources that could be beneficial to keepers of livestock, smaller farmers, and ranchers who lack the financial capability to employ the most proven prevention or mitigation strategies. There have been limited comprehensive reviews in the U.S. of disease control, perception, education, or analysis on current prevention measures among small-scale producers. Findings from a review of the literature were used to formulate disease-prevention training resources and outreach strategies directed at U.S. small-scale farm operators and those likely to be involved in disease outbreak situations (e.g., veterinarians, first responders, and family members). The evaluation of the current types and causes of diseases, along with their respective level of current threat to agriculture, was a fundamental strategy to achieve this goal while reviewing literature focused on U.S. biosecurity and international biosecurity. Developing an evidence-based approach to prevention measures for biosecurity operations will allow for more effective execution and adoption of protocols for small-scale farms.
... It is to understand that implementation of biosecurity practices suitable for smallholders is not a "one size fits all" and thus is important to acknowledge the geographical, physical, and resource variability in smallholder farming [49]. Although BSM at the herd level reduces the probability of disease introduction into a herd, some measures can be expensive and cumbersome for the farmers [10,50]. It is therefore important developing BSM recommendations that reflect the context of smallholder farms characteristics to ensure sustained on-farm implementation [10,11,50]. ...
... Although BSM at the herd level reduces the probability of disease introduction into a herd, some measures can be expensive and cumbersome for the farmers [10,50]. It is therefore important developing BSM recommendations that reflect the context of smallholder farms characteristics to ensure sustained on-farm implementation [10,11,50]. ...
Dairy production is an important livelihood source for smallholder dairy farmers who produce the majority of milk consumed and traded in Ethiopia. Dairy production is, however, constrained by livestock diseases that impact farm productivity, food safety, and animal welfare. Biosecurity measures (BSM) include all risk reduction strategies designed to avoid the introduction of pathogenic infections from outside and minimise the spread of diseases within dairy herds. This study used a cross-sectional survey to investigate the adoption of BSM in dairy farms in Addis Ababa and Oromia regions of Ethiopia. Using a questionnaire, scores for adopted external and internal BSM were calculated based on the Ghent’s University Biocheck tool to compare the performance of different farms in Ethiopia. The weighted external biosecurity score was 49.1%, which was below average (below 50% adoption), while the weighted internal biosecurity score was 55.5%. Low adoption of crucial BSM increases the risk of disease introduction into dairy farms and transmission within herds. Adoption of BSM at the farm level was driven by individual, demographic, and socio-economic drivers, including education, farming system, milk value chain, and farming experience among others. Results of this research reveal low adoption of BSM and the imperative to encourage farmers to implement BSM can lead to a reduction in disease pressures and, thus, a reduction in antibiotic use and increased dairy farms productivity, and improved animal health and welfare. Farmers can be encouraged through proactive engagement with veterinarians and extension professionals. Moreover, creating a favourable policy environment can support farmers to adopt and implement BSM, given the known fact that “prevention is better and cheaper than curing diseases.”
... 3 Although these measures are biologically well-founded, 4 the value of each individual measure is difficult to assess and risk assessment models have been developed to address this challenge. 5,6 These models confirm that combinations of measures are required to reduce the risk of introduction and spread of infections within pig farms. The variability in risk for different diseases, different farms and different transmission routes presents a challenge in itself when it comes to motivating individual farmers to implement preventive measures. ...
Background:
Biosecurity is important in preventing the spread of infectious diseases in animal production. Previous studies have identified a disparity between the biosecurity recommendations provided by veterinarians and the actual practices implemented by farmers. This study compared group discussions with a few key actors among Swedish pig veterinarians and farmers on pig farm biosecurity.
Methods:
Two focus group discussions were conducted, one with five Swedish pig veterinarians and one with three pig farmers, to explore their views on pig farm biosecurity and efficient biosecurity measures. The discussions were analysed to identify differences and similarities in how biosecurity was perceived.
Results:
The study identified differences between the veterinarians and pig farmers in how they perceived good biosecurity and the level of biosecurity in Swedish pig herds. The veterinarians perceived that adhering strictly to the farming system and its barriers was essential for good biosecurity. The biosecurity in the pig farms was often considered inadequate. The veterinarians described difficulties in biosecurity-related communication with the farmers. The pig farmers valued the flexibility of the farming system over strict barriers and described that the level of biosecurity was good in Swedish pig herds. However, both groups also shared similar views regarding the challenges in farm biosecurity. They highlighted that biosecurity measures with proven efficacy are important for farmer motivation.
Conclusions:
This limited study suggested that different perspectives on biosecurity can contribute to communication difficulties between pig farmers and veterinarians. Acknowledging both the differences and similarities of the different perspectives may help improve cooperation and communication in biosecurity-related questions.
... Menyebarnya penyakit yang sulit dikendalikan seperti Africa Swine Fever memunculkan pemahaman mengenai hubungan kesehatan hewan ternak, salah satunya yaitu babi dengan biosekuriti yang terus meningkat (Alarcónl et al., 2021). Tingkat biosekuriti yang diterapkan dapat diketahui dengan cara mewawancarai peternak dan mengumpulkan data hasil inspeksi (Lewerin et al., 2015). Berdasarkan uraian tersebut penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui tingkat pengetahuan dan penerapan biosekuriti pada peternakan babi terhadap tingkat mortalitas akibat virus ASF di Kota Palangka Raya. ...
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui pengaruh tingkat pengetahuan peternak dan penerapan biosekuriti pada peternakan babi terhadap persentase mortalitas akibat virus African swine fever (ASF) di Kota Palangka Raya. Pada penelitian ini metode yang digunakan adalah survei dan observasi. Responden berjumlah 30 orang yang mempunyai peternakan babi di Kota Palangka Raya. Wawancara dilakukan dengan para peternak yang telah dipilih sebagai sampel, untuk memperoleh informasi dan penjelasan langsung mengenai tingkat pengetahuan biosekuriti. Tingkat penerapan biosekuriti diperoleh dengan cara observasi langsung di kandang babi. Hasil penelitian menunjukan adanya pengaruh nyata (p<0,05) pada parameter pendidikan terhadap pengetahuan biosekuriti, namun tidak ada pengaruh yang nyata (p>0,05) pada parameter usia dan jenis pekerjaan utama terhadap pengetahuan biosekuriti peternak. Peternak dikelompokkan dalam tiga katagori pengetahuan yaitu buruk (33,3%), sedang (26,7%), dan baik (40%). Tingkat penerapan biosekuriti peternak dibagi menjadi tiga yaitu buruk ada lima (16,6%), sedang 17 (56,7%) dan baik delapan (26,7%). Analisis dilanjutkan untuk melihat pengaruh pengetahuan dan penerapan sekuriti terhadap tingkat mortalitas babi yang disebabkan oleh ASF. Hasil penelitian menunjukan adanya pengaruh yang nyata antara pengetahuan dan penerapan biosekuriti (p<0,05) terhadap tingkat mortalitas babi yang disebabkan oleh ASF. Disimpulkan bahwa peternak babi di Kota Palangka Raya secara umum belum memiliki tingkat pengetahuan dan penerapan biosekuriti yang baik, sehingga perlu adanya peningkatan biosekuriti untuk menanggulangi ASF.
... Further research that looks more precisely into this and that aims at involving other stakeholders (i.e. farmers, farm workers, traders) in the opinion analysis, might help in disentangling the underlying factors that play a role in the improvement of on-farm biosecurity [19,46]. The synergies and associations between measures could not be accounted for, and no statistical tests to compare category weights or single measure relevance was undertaken. ...
Background
In the literature, there is absent or weak evidence on the effectiveness of biosecurity measures to the control of Salmonella spp. and hepatitis E virus (HEV) on pig farms. Therefore, the present study aimed to collect, weigh, and compare opinions from experts on the relevance of several biosecurity measures. An online questionnaire was submitted to selected experts, from multiple European countries, knowledgeable on either HEV or Salmonella spp. , in either indoor or outdoor pig farming systems ( settings ). The experts ranked the relevance of eight biosecurity categories with regards to effectiveness in reducing the two pathogens separately, by assigning a score from a total of 80, and within each biosecurity category they scored the relevance of specific biosecurity measures (scale 1–5). Agreement among experts was analysed across pathogens and across settings .
Results
After filtering for completeness and expertise, 46 responses were analysed, with 52% of the experts identified as researchers/scientists, whereas the remaining 48% consisted of non-researchers, veterinary practitioners and advisors, governmental staff, and consultant/industrial experts. The experts self-declared their level of knowledge but neither Multidimensional Scaling nor k-means cluster analyses produced evidence of an association between expertise and the biosecurity answers, and so all experts’ responses were analysed together without weighting or adaptation. Overall, the top-ranked biosecurity categories were pig mixing ; cleaning and disinfection ; feed, water and bedding ; and purchase of pigs or semen , while the lowest ranked categories were transport , equipment , animals (other than pigs and including wildlife) and humans . Cleaning and disinfection was ranked highest for both pathogens in the indoor setting, whereas pig mixing was highest for outdoor settings . Several (94/222, 42.3%) measures across all four settings were considered highly relevant. Measures with high disagreement between the respondents were uncommon (21/222, 9.6%), but more frequent for HEV compared to Salmonella spp.
Conclusions
The implementation of measures from multiple biosecurity categories was considered important to control Salmonella spp. and HEV on farms, and pig mixing activities, as well as cleaning and disinfection practices, were perceived as consistently more important than others. Similarities and differences in the prioritised biosecurity measures were identified between indoor and outdoor systems and pathogens. The study identified the need for further research especially for control of HEV and for biosecurity in outdoor farming.
... Due to the impact of climate change on agricultural activity, weather-related risk has acknowledged enormous attention from researchers and farmers (Wheeler & Von Braun, 2013). Fewer research (Lewerin et al., 2015) critically looks at the socio-economic factors affecting farmers' perception of IIP. Education levels, the size of the farm, and farmers' experience in farming were found to have an important influence on how farmers perceive and adopt IIP and risk management strategies (Hall et al., 2003). ...
... This approach is typically used to evaluate biosecurity related to foreign animal diseases (FADs). Although such tools may be based on risk assessment (13,14), they are not data-driven (relevant data are typically unavailable, especially for FADs). Rather, the pathways of entry into and/or spread within a farm, set of criteria and weights applied to obtain the overall biosecurity estimate or score are based on expert(s) perception of their relative importance, and of the efficiency of biosecurity measures. ...
African Swine Fever (ASF) continues to spread worldwide, with very limited eradication success in countries where the disease affects domestic pig populations. Various biosecurity tools exist to reduce the on-farm risk incursion of ASF and other diseases. However, their focus on overall biosecurity scores and benchmarking results in recommendations that are not always cost-effective. We propose to apply a risk analysis approach that actively involves farmers and farmworkers in identifying their weakest links in biosecurity and corresponding mitigation efforts. Furthermore, the approach's focus on describing and understanding pathways of introduction and/or spread specific to individual farms creates buy-in from producers for investing in biosecurity measures and improving compliance.
... Although animal feed represents a non-negligible introduction pathway for PEDV the risk for PEDV on different BSMs was assessed and was therefore moved from cluster 3 to cluster 5 (Fig. 4B). The study by Kim et al. [24], focusing on indirect transmission via farm personnel, was moved from cluster 3 to cluster 2. The study by Lewerin et al., [25], which proposed a toolset for assessment of biosecurity on farms, was found to better fit to cluster 4 instead of cluster 5, i.e., the numbers of records in Fig. 4 are not concurrent with the numbers in Fig. 4B [25]. Overall and most importantly, although BSMs appear in a large spectrum of scientific interests, the scoping review did not reveal a clear and usable definition of BSM in the scientific literature. ...
... Although animal feed represents a non-negligible introduction pathway for PEDV the risk for PEDV on different BSMs was assessed and was therefore moved from cluster 3 to cluster 5 (Fig. 4B). The study by Kim et al. [24], focusing on indirect transmission via farm personnel, was moved from cluster 3 to cluster 2. The study by Lewerin et al., [25], which proposed a toolset for assessment of biosecurity on farms, was found to better fit to cluster 4 instead of cluster 5, i.e., the numbers of records in Fig. 4 are not concurrent with the numbers in Fig. 4B [25]. Overall and most importantly, although BSMs appear in a large spectrum of scientific interests, the scoping review did not reveal a clear and usable definition of BSM in the scientific literature. ...
While biosecurity, a central component of the One Health concept, is clearly defined, a harmonized definition of the term ´biosecurity measure´ (BSM) is missing. In turn, particularly at the farm and policy level, this leads to misunderstandings, low acceptance, poor implementation, and thus suboptimal biosecurity along the food animal production chain. Moreover, different views on BSMs affects making comparisons both at the policy level as well as in the scientific community. Therefore, as part of the One Health EJP BIOPIGEE project, a work group i) collected and discussed relevant inclusion and exclusion criteria for measures to be considered in the context of biosecurity and ii) conducted a systematic literature review for potentially existing definitions for the term BSM. This exercise confirmed the lack of a definition of BSM, underlining the importance of the topic. In the pool of articles considered relevant to defining the term BSM, specific research themes were identified. Based on these outcomes, we propose a definition of the term BSM:
“A biosecurity measure (BSM) – is the implementation of a segregation, hygiene, or management procedure (excluding medically effective feed additives and preventive/curative treatment of animals) that specifically aims at reducing the probability of the introduction, establishment, survival, or spread of any potential pathogen to, within, or from a farm, operation or geographical area.”
The definition provides a basis for policymakers to identify factual BSMs, highlights the point of implementation and supports to achieve the necessary quality standards of biosecurity in food animal production. It also enables clear, harmonized, cross-sectoral communication of best biosecurity practices to and from relevant stakeholders and thus contribute to improving biosecurity and thereby strengthen the One Health approach.
... For external biosecurity purposes, the position of farm, vehicle and passenger traffic, as well as sanitary facilities and the separation of clean and dirty areas should all be assessed (Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council). According to biosecurity measures customized to fit individual farm characteristics, the farm should be demarcated from appropriate fencing and warning signs (Lewerin et al., 2015). Parking spaces should be located off the premises and a disinfection area for vehicles should be arranged. ...
Protothecosis is a potential zoonosis related to bovine mastitis. In several countries, a higher incidence of protothecal bovine mastitis that is being recorded and the resistance of Prototheca species to various factors (chlorine, high temperatures, antimicrobial and antiseptic treatments, pH variations), make it difficult to control its spread among farms. The authors aim to describe the infection caused by microalgae, focusing on the problems within cattle farms and proposing new approaches to farm management, based on Regulation (EU) No 2016/429 on transmissible animal diseases. This new flexible approach, based on risk analysis, is a further tool in protecting against Prototheca species. The list of transmissible animal diseases under Regulation (EU) No 2016/429 includes those caused by microorganisms resistant to antimicrobials, which can have important implications for human and animal health, feed and food safety. This approach would involve a series of changes to the rules used for Official Controls (Regulation (EU) No 2017/625) moving from the concept of the food chain to that of the agri-food chain.
... Due to a lack of studies in this aspect, little is known about the risk perception in livestock activities, risk management strategies, or the determinants of such risks and strategies (Gebreegziabher and Tadesse, 2014;Bishu et al., 2016). To provide enhanced institutional support for risk management, it is necessary to understand the socioeconomic factors affecting the producers' perceptions of risk along with their possible response to such risks and barriers for implementing management strategies (Sulewski and Kloczko-Gajewska, 2014;Lewerin et al., 2015;Duong et al., 2019). ...
The objective of this study was to determine the risk factors in the production processes of cattle and small ruminant breeding enterprises, along with developing a scale that could be used during the insured breeding process in different regions of Turkey. In this study, we obtained information from 252 enterprises from different provinces (Afyonkarahisar, Aksaray, Ankara, Burdur, Karaman, and Konya) of Turkey. Reliability and validity analyses were conducted using the “Risk Assessment Form in Cattle and Small Ruminant Animal Production”. The Cronbach alpha (α) coefficient was used to analyze reliability, while the exploratory factor analysis was applied to analyze the validity. About 68.7% (173) of the enterprises included cattle breeding, while the remaining 31.3% (79) involved small ruminant breeding. To determine the risk factors, twenty-four questions were directed toward the livestock enterprises, and the following six factors were determined: Economic-Political Risks, Yield/Product Losses, Enterprise Technical Risks, Credit/Financing, Workforce, Enterprise Follow-up, and Registration. In the politico-economic risk scoring, the score of enterprises already having Animal life insurance (ALI) was observed to be higher than those who did not have it, with the difference being statistically significant (p<0.05). We interpreted that producers with higher politico-economic risk factor scores preferred insurance. Although the producers could determine the risk factors well, not all producers were necessarily aware of risk measures. Thus, it was necessary to improve the farmers’ perception of risks and support their efforts to manage and reduce these risks. Also, the importance of insurance practices within and out of the farm is predicted to increase gradually to develop more conscious, sustainable, and profitable breeding in agriculture and animal product markets, which are becoming more liberalized day by day.
Keywords:
risk perception; risk management; livestock insurance; factor analysis
