Biosecurity and the management of emergency animal disease among commercial beef producers in New South Wales and Queensland (Australia)

Incorporating heterogeneity in farmer disease control behaviour into a livestock disease transmission model

Human behaviour is critical to effective responses to livestock disease outbreaks, especially with respect to vaccination uptake. Traditionally, mathematical models used to inform this behaviour have not taken heterogeneity in farmer behaviour into account. We address this by exploring how heterogeneity in farmers vaccination behaviour can be incorporated to inform mathematical models. We developed and used a graphical user interface to elicit farmers (n = 60) vaccination decisions to an unfolding fast-spreading epidemic and linked this to their psychosocial and behavioural profiles. We identified, via cluster analysis, robust patterns of heterogeneity in vaccination behaviour. By incorporating these vaccination behavioural groupings into a mathematical model for a fast-spreading livestock infection, using computational simulation we explored how the inclusion of heterogeneity in farmer disease control behaviour may impact epidemiological and economic focused outcomes. When assuming homogeneity in farmer behaviour versus configurations informed by the psychosocial profile cluster estimates, the modelled scenarios revealed a disconnect in projected distributions and threshold statistics across outbreak size, outbreak duration and economic metrics.

Individual drivers and barriers to adoption of disease control and welfare practices in dairy and beef cattle production: a scoping review

The implementation of disease control and welfare practices is an essential part of limiting disease exposure in livestock, however successful adoption of these practices seem to be low in both the beef and dairy cattle industries. The main objectives of this scoping review were to characterize literature published exploring beef and dairy cattle producers' perceptions on the implementation of various disease control and welfare practices, identify major themes of drivers and barriers that influence producers' adoption of these practices, and identify current gaps in knowledge. A total of 2,486 articles were obtained from two database literature searches and screened, from which 48 articles published between 2010 and 2021 were deemed eligible and charted. Europe was the most common region for articles (58%). A majority of articles focused solely on dairy producers (52%). A wide range of barriers and drivers which were categorized into 4 and 5 key themes, respectively. The most commonly mentioned driver was animal health, welfare, and safety, while the most common barrier was costs. Potential gaps in literature were identified, including the underrepresentation of beef producer perceptions relative to dairy producers in current literature.

Understanding biosecurity behaviors of Australian beef cattle farmers using the ten basic human values framework

Introduction

On-farm biosecurity is an essential component of successful disease management in the beef cattle industry on an individual, regional, and national level. Participation in mandatory or voluntary assurance schemes, knowledge and trusted relationships have all been demonstrated to contribute to the development of behaviors that promote biosecurity. However, compliance with rules, socio-psychological relationships and knowledge-seeking behavior are all contingent upon the motivations and beliefs of the individual. It is widely accepted that the motivations and beliefs of all cultures can be defined by ten basic values (Self-direction, Stimulation, Hedonism, Achievement, Power, Security, Conformity, Tradition, Benevolence and Universalism). In this study, we use the ten basic values to characterize the on-farm biosecurity behaviors of Australian beef farmers to facilitate the identification of interventions that are most likely to align with producer motivations and therefore, more likely to result in wider adoption of effective on-farm biosecurity.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 Australian beef farmers to discuss the reasons behind decisions to alter or implement biosecurity practices in response to endemic diseases. Thematic analysis was used to identify the motivations, opportunities, and capability of biosecurity behaviors. The ten basic human values were used to characterize these behaviors and inform enablers and barriers to biosecurity adoption.

Results and discussion

Benevolence and Self-direction, relating to self-transcendence and an openness to change, were the principal values associated with good biosecurity behaviors. This suggests that farmers will be receptive to education strategies that communicate the actual risk of disease in their area, the impact of disease on animal welfare, and the ability for on-farm biosecurity to mitigate these impacts. Farmers also expressed values of Security which entrenched behaviors as common practice; however, in some cases the Security of trusted relationships was identified as a potential barrier to behavior change. Overall, values associated with biosecurity behaviors were found to align with values that are most important for social cohesion, suggesting that collaborative disease efforts between industry stakeholders and farmers are likely to succeed if designed with these values in mind.

The right strategy for you: Using the preferences of beef farmers to guide biosecurity recommendations for on-farm management of endemic disease

Effective on-farm biosecurity measures are crucial to the post-border protection of emerging agricultural diseases and are the foundation of endemic disease control. Implementation of on-farm biosecurity measures are contingent on the priorities of individual producers, which can often be neglected for other aspects of the farming enterprise. The on-farm approach to prevention of endemic diseases, like bovine viral diarrhoea virus (BVDV), is inconsistent between farms and it is not realistic to assume that farmers take an entirely normative approach to on-farm decision making. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been used for disease prioritisation and national disease control in human and animal health; however, it is yet to be used as a decision tool for disease control at the farm level. This study used MCDA to determine the most appropriate biosecurity combinations for management of BVDV, based on the preferences of Australian beef producers. Beef producer preferences were obtained from an online survey using indirect collection methods. Point of truth calibration was used to aggregate producer preferences and the performance scores of 23 biosecurity combinations for control of BVDV based on four main criteria: the probability of BVDV introduction, the on-farm impact of BVDV, the off-farm impact of BVDV and the annual input cost of the practice. The MCDA found that biosecurity combinations that included "double-fencing farm boundaries" used in conjunction with "vaccination against BVDV" were most appropriate for management of BVDV in an initially naïve, self-replacing seasonal single-calving beef herd over a 15-year period. Beef producers prioritised practices that preserved the on-farm health of their cattle more than any other criteria, a finding that was persistent regardless of demographic or farming type. Consequently, combinations with "vaccination against BVDV" were consistently ranked higher than those that included "strategic exposure of a persistently infected cow," which is sometimes used by Australian beef producers instead of vaccination. Findings of this study indicate that the benefits of "double-fencing farm boundaries" and "vaccination against BVDV" outweigh the relatively high cost associated with these practices based on the priorities of the Australian beef producer and may be used to demonstrate the benefits of on-farm biosecurity during discussions between livestock veterinarians and beef farmers.

Lessons learned for animal health governance from bovine viral diarrhea eradication schemes in Scotland and Ireland

This paper explores lessons learned for animal health governance from bovine viral diarrhea (BVD) eradication schemes in Scotland and Ireland, drawing on qualitative key stakeholder interviews. Bovine viral diarrhea is an endemic cattle disease that causes animal health and welfare problems, as well as financial losses to farmers. Initial voluntary industry-led schemes to eradicate BVD were introduced in both countries in the 2010s, followed by compulsory phases involving legislation. The paper uses a theoretical framework of co-productive governance to analyze stakeholder views on how well the design and execution of the eradication schemes worked and what can be learned to inform future directions of animal health governance. The term “co-productive governance” comes from the field of environmental governance and was developed to describe how science and politics influence each other in a context where governance is carried out by multiple actors working collaboratively. The results of key stakeholder interviews are analyzed using the concepts of vision, context, knowledge, and process. In relation to vision, the results show the importance of creating a clear narrative about the goal of disease eradication schemes, which may incorporate or replace existing vet or farmer “narratives” about a disease. With regard to context, it is difficult to engage all actors in biosecurity governance, when initiatives are developed with the legacy of existing relationships and tensions. In relation to knowledge, the results showed the importance but political complexity of basing decisions on scientific research. One of the lessons learned was the benefit of involving industry stakeholders in setting scientific questions to inform the design of the scheme. Additionally, with reference to the process, while interviewees were enthusiastic about future prospects for industry and government working together to achieve biosecurity goals co-productive governance is not a panacea for enrolling all actors in biosecurity goals. The results also highlighted that farmers and other actors might object to an eradication scheme, whether it is run by government or private industry. Thus, it is useful to keep questions about who benefits in what way from biosecurity governance open.

One size does not fit all: Exploring the economic and non-economic outcomes of on-farm biosecurity for bovine viral diarrhoea virus in Australian beef production

Bovine viral diarrhoea virus (BVDV) is a disease of global importance, affecting the production and welfare of cattle enterprises through poor reproductive performance and calf mortality. In Australia, the prevention of BVDV introduction and spread is primarily achieved with on-farm biosecurity; however, the use of these practices can vary amongst producers. Economic utility is commonly identified as a contributor to the uptake of on-farm biosecurity, but other factors such as animal welfare, producer priorities and introduction risk also influence farmer behaviour. This study uses an individual-based, stochastic simulation model to examine the economic and non-economic value of 23 on-farm biosecurity combinations for the control of BVDV in Australian beef farms without (N0) and with (N1) a neighbouring population of persistently infected (PI) cattle. Combinations of quarantine of purchased bulls (Q), hygiene during herd health events (H), double-fencing adjacent boundaries with neighbouring farms (F) and vaccination against BVDV (V) were tested. This study is the first to simulate the use of strategic PI exposure (PI) as an alternative to V, a contentious practice performed by some Australian beef farmers. Introduction of BVDV into a naïve 300-breeder self-replacing beef herd was achieved through the purchase of PI bulls (N0 and N1 herds) and over-the-fence contact with neighbouring PI animals (N1 herds only). The predicted median cumulative loss due to BVDV over a 15-year period was AUD$172/breeder and AUD$453/breeder for an N0 and N1 herd, respectively. Early establishment of BVDV in the simulation period was found to be the primary factor contributing to economic loss. Consequently, the Q and QF combinations resulted in the highest predicted average annual cost-benefit for BVDV-free N0 and N1 herds. In the five years following establishment of BVDV, use of QP (N0 herds) and V (N1 herds) combinations were most cost-effective. Combinations that involved V and P (in conjunction with F in N1 herds) also resulted in the lowest number of PI animals sold to other farms or feedlots over the simulation period. However, in both N0 and N1 herds, P resulted in the highest number of infected cattle, which has implications for poor animal welfare and increased antimicrobial use on Australian beef farms. The outcomes reported in this study can guide decisions to prevent BVDV introduction and spread on extensive beef farms using on-farm biosecurity, based on the risk of BVDV exposure and the priorities of the individual farmer.

Australian veterinarians' perspectives on the contribution of the veterinary workforce to the Australian animal health surveillance system

This study investigated the involvement of private veterinarians in surveillance activities and the veterinary workforce's contribution to the Australian animal health surveillance system. The perception that there is overall a decreased engagement by veterinarians in surveillance outcomes at a time when there is increased need for bolstering of surveillance systems was investigated. Three key questions were considered: (1) What is the current contribution of private veterinarians to the Australian surveillance system? (2) What is the veterinary professions capacity to assume a more prominent role in surveillance? (3) What is the interest and ability of the veterinary profession in Australia to undertake this surveillance role now and into the future? Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 17 private veterinarians with data analyzed qualitatively to identify key themes. Results demonstrate that private veterinarians are aware of their responsibilities and are engaged in surveillance activities at both formal and informal levels. The key challenges associated with current and future contributions were related to workload, remuneration, conflicts of interest and clarity over how responsibility for surveillance is shared amongst those involved in the system. The study has demonstrated that even amongst an engaged population, barriers do need to be addressed if private veterinarians are to be tasked with increasing their involvement in animal health surveillance activities.

Cattle farmer psychosocial profiles and their association with control strategies for bovine viral diarrhea

Bovine viral diarrhea (BVD) is endemic in the United Kingdom and causes major economic losses. Control is largely voluntary for individual farmers and is likely to be influenced by psychosocial factors, such as altruism, trust, and psychological proximity (feeling close) to relevant “others,” such as farmers, veterinarians, the government, and their cows. These psychosocial factors (factors with both psychological and social aspects) are important determinants of how people make decisions related to their own health, many of which have not been studied in the context of infectious disease control by farmers. Farmer psychosocial profiles were investigated using multiple validated measures in an observational survey of 475 UK cattle farmers using the capability, opportunity, motivation-behavior (COM-B) framework. Farmers were clustered by their BVD control practices using latent class analysis. Farmers were split into 5 BVD control behavior classes, which were tested for associations with the psychosocial and COM-B factors using multinomial logistic regression, with doing nothing as the baseline class. Farmers who were controlling disease both for themselves and others were more likely to do something to control BVD (e.g., test, vaccinate). Farmers who did not trust other farmers, had high psychological capability (knowledge and understanding of how to control disease), and had high physical opportunity (time and money to control disease) were more likely to have a closed, separate herd and test. Farmers who did not trust other farmers were also more likely to undertake many prevention strategies with an open herd. Farmers with high automatic motivation (habits and emotions) and reflective motivation (decisions and goals) were more likely to vaccinate and test, alone or in combination with other controls. Farmers with high psychological proximity (feeling of closeness) to their veterinarian were more likely to undertake many prevention strategies in an open herd. Farmers with high psychological proximity to dairy farmers and low psychological proximity to beef farmers were more likely to keep their herd closed and separate and test or vaccinate and test. Farmers who had a lot of trust in other farmers and invested in them, rather than keeping everything for themselves, were more likely to be careful introducing new stock and test. In conclusion, farmer psychosocial factors were associated with strategies for BVD control in UK cattle farmers. Psychological proximity to veterinarians was a novel factor associated with proactive BVD control and was more important than the more extensively investigated trust. These findings highlight the importance of a close veterinarian-farmer relationship and are important for promoting effective BVD control by farmers, which has implications for successful nationwide BVD control and eradication schemes.

Modeling the Effect of Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus in Australian Beef Herds

Bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) is an economically important disease in Australian beef farming. The disease typically results in low-level production losses that can be difficult to detect for several years. Simulation modeling can be used to support the decision to control BVDV; however, current BVDV simulation models do not adequately reflect the extensive farming environment of Australian beef production. Therefore, the objective of this study was to develop a disease simulation model to explore the impact of BVDV on beef cattle production in south-east Australia. A dynamic, individual-based, stochastic, discrete-time simulation model was created to simulate within-herd transmission of BVDV in a seasonal, self-replacing beef herd. We used the model to simulate the effect of herd size and BVDV introduction time on disease transmission and assessed the short- and long-term impact of BVDV on production outputs that influence the economic performance of beef farms. We found that BVDV can become established in a herd after a single PI introduction in 60% of cases, most frequently associated with the breeding period. The initial impact of BVDV will be more severe in smaller herds, although self-elimination is more likely in small herds than in larger herds, in which there is a 23% chance that the virus can persist for >15 years following a single incursion in a herd with 800 breeders. The number and weight of steers sold was reduced in the presence of BVDV and the results demonstrated that repeat incursions exacerbate long-term production losses, even when annual losses appear marginal. This model reflects the short- and long-term production losses attributed to BVDV in beef herds in southeast Australia and provides a foundation from which the influence and economic utility of BVDV prevention in Australian beef herds can be assessed.

A systematic review of social research data collection methods used to investigate voluntary animal disease reporting behaviour

Voluntary detection of emerging disease outbreaks is considered essential for limiting their potential impacts on livestock industries. However, many of the strategies employed by animal health authorities to capture data on potential emerging disease threats rely on farmers and veterinarians identifying situations of concern and then voluntarily taking appropriate actions to notify animal health authorities. To improve the performance of these systems, it is important to understand the range of socio-cultural factors influencing the willingness of individuals to engage with disease reporting such as trust in government, perceived economic impacts, social stigma and perceptions of 'good farming'. The objectives of this systematic review were to assess how different social research methodologies have been employed to understand the role these socio-cultural dimensions play in voluntary disease reporting and to discuss limitations to address in future research. The review uncovered 39 relevant publications that employed a range of quantitative and qualitative methodologies including surveys, interviews, focus groups, scenarios, observations, mixed-methods, interventions and secondary data analysis. While these studies provided valuable insights, one significant challenge remains eliciting accurate statements of behaviour and intentions rather than those that reflect desirable social norms. There is scope to develop methodological innovations to study the decision to report animal disease to help overcome the gap between what people say they do and their observable behaviour. A notable absence is studies exploring specific interventions designed to encourage disease reporting. Greater clarity in specifying the disease contexts, behavioural mechanisms and outcomes and the relationships between them would provide a more theoretically informed and policy relevant understanding of how disease reporting works, for which farmers, and in which disease contexts.

Factors influencing the performance of voluntary farmer disease reporting in passive surveillance systems: A scoping review

The impacts of exotic disease incursions on livestock industries can be mitigated by having robust surveillance systems in place that decrease the time between disease introduction and detection. An important component of this is having farmers routinely observe their animals for indications of clinical disease, recognise the existence of problems, and then decide to notify their veterinarian or animal health authorities. However, as highlighted by this literature review, farmers are believed to be underreporting clinical events due to factors such as (1) uncertainty around the clinical signs and situations that warrant reporting, (2) fear over the social and economic consequences from both positive and false positive reports, (3) negative beliefs regarding the efficacy and outcomes of response measures, (4) mistrust and dissatisfaction with animal health authorities, (5) absence of sufficiently attractive financial and non-financial incentives for submitting reports, and (6) poor awareness of the procedures involved with the submission, processing, and response to reports. There have been few formal studies evaluating the efficacy of different approaches to increasing farmer engagement with disease reporting. However, there is a recognised need for any proposed solutions to account for farmer knowledge and experience with assessing their own farm situation as well as the different identities, motivations, and beliefs that farmers have about their role in animal health surveillance systems. Empowering farmers to take a more active role in developing these solutions is likely to become even more important as animal health authorities increasingly look to establish public-private partnerships for biosecurity governance.

Biosecurity in pig farms: a review

The perception of the importance of animal health and its relationship with biosecurity has increased in recent years with the emergence and re-emergence of several diseases difficult to control. This is particularly evident in the case of pig farming as shown by the recent episodes of African swine fever or porcine epidemic diarrhoea. Moreover, a better biosecurity may help to improve productivity and may contribute to reducing the use of antibiotics. Biosecurity can be defined as the application of measures aimed to reduce the probability of the introduction (external biosecurity) and further spread of pathogens within the farm (internal biosecurity). Thus, the key idea is to avoid transmission, either between farms or within the farm. This implies knowledge of the epidemiology of the diseases to be avoided that is not always available, but since ways of transmission of pathogens are limited to a few, it is possible to implement effective actions even with some gaps in our knowledge on a given disease. For the effective design of a biosecurity program, veterinarians must know how diseases are transmitted, the risks and their importance, which mitigation measures are thought to be more effective and how to evaluate the biosecurity and its improvements. This review provides a source of information on external and internal biosecurity measures that reduce risks in swine production and the relationship between these measures and the epidemiology of the main diseases, as well as a description of some systems available for risk analysis and the assessment of biosecurity. Also, it reviews the factors affecting the successful application of a biosecurity plan in a pig farm.

Veterinarians' Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Associated with Bovine Viral Diarrhoea Virus Control and Prevention in South-East Australia

Simple Summary

Bovine Viral Diarrhoea Virus is a disease of cattle that causes production losses. Despite the virus being widespread across Australia, there are no government or industry-led programs to mitigate the impacts or eliminate Bovine Viral Diarrhoea Virus. Veterinarians were surveyed about their knowledge, attitudes and recommended practices regarding Bovine Viral Diarrhoea Virus and its control. We found that veterinarians’ knowledge of Bovine Viral Diarrhoea Virus in their region is limited, and their attitudes and recommendations for controlling the virus do not always align with those of producers. For example, veterinarians are concerned about the welfare and potential for disease spread associated with control measures involving persistently infected cattle, including a previously undocumented practice in which producers administer blood from persistently infected cattle into naïve cattle as a form of vaccination. This study highlights that a greater understanding of producers’ and veterinarians’ values is needed before Bovine Viral Diarrhoea Virus control could be implemented at a regional or country level.

Abstract

In Australia, the responsibility and associated costs for the control and prevention of Bovine Viral Diarrhoea Virus (BVDV) rest solely with producers. Veterinarians provide producers with farm-specific options for BVDV management and support BVDV control and elimination in their region. We surveyed veterinarians to determine their knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) associated with BVDV control in south-east Australia. We found that veterinarians’ recommendations do not always align with producers’ control measures. Veterinarians were uncertain about BVDV prevalence and the proportion of producers using BVDV control measures in their regions. Veterinarians generally promoted biosecurity and vaccination, and were concerned about the welfare and additional disease risks associated with persistently infected (PI) cattle. Veterinarians highlighted concerns about disease risks associated with a previously undocumented practice in which producers collect blood from PI cattle to administer to BVDV naïve cattle; termed “vampire vaccination” in this study. A greater understanding of the burden, impact and economics of BVDV is needed to align veterinarians’ and producers’ KAP to improve BVDV management on farms, and more appreciation of veterinarians’ and producers’ values is needed before BVDV control could be implemented at a regional or country level.

Knowledge and attitudes of Australian livestock producers concerning biosecurity practices

Biosecurity risks are a major threat to the profitability of the industry as well as impacting human and animal health. Livestock producers play a crucial role in biosecurity as the first to notice changes in the health or productivity of their stock and are generally responsible for implementing protective measures. However, uptake of biosecurity measures by producers is variable. We critically appraised the current literature regarding biosecurity practices in Australian livestock industries and highlight aspects that are well understood as well as those where further research or information is needed. Findings from 12 cross-sectional studies suggest that Australian producers' knowledge of biosecurity methods and importance might have a positive influence on their willingness to implement or incorporate biosecurity practices. There is moderate evidence supportive of biosecurity being well understood by livestock producers across Australia. Barriers to producers using biosecurity practices included lack of information or communication from agricultural, veterinary or government organisations. It was found that larger stock numbers were positively correlated with biosecurity implementation and that producers used veterinarians, government and industry agencies as resources for trusted information.

Knowledge, attitudes and management of bovine viral diarrhoea virus among eastern Australian cattle producers: results from a 2013 cross-sectional study

Bovine viral diarrhoea virus (BVDV) is an economically significant disease affecting the Australian cattle industry, with losses stemming from decreased production and reproductive performance and control costs. However, these losses can be difficult to appreciate, particularly in endemic regions. Overall, there is a variable but high herd-level seroprevalence in Australia. Despite a potentially high financial burden of the disease, the onus for control ultimately falls on producers and strategies employed will vary between regions. A cross-sectional study, using a postal survey, was conducted in 2013 to evaluate the BVDV knowledge, attitudes and management practices utilised by Australian cattle producers. A total of 192 producers participated in the study, and results indicate that knowledge and attitudes towards disease risk are variable and can be improved. Producer knowledge of how persistently infected (PI) animals are produced was higher than that of disease outcomes or transmission pathways. Implementation of biosecurity practices was limited, with approximately half of respondents employing quarantine procedures for introduced stock and only 2% indicating they would antigen test introduced stock for BVDV. Approximately a third (36%) of producers reported engaging in BVDV control, with the majority of these using vaccination strategies over deliberate exposure to a PI. Knowledge of and engagement with BVDV control was positively influenced by the producer relationships with veterinarians. Findings from this study suggest that building on education and delivering a consistent message among stakeholders would likely improve producer awareness and understanding in relation to BVDV and support decision making in BVDV management.

Australian beef producers' knowledge and attitudes relating to hydatid disease are associated with their control practices

Despite available control strategies, hydatid disease in beef cattle has been shown to have a wider geographic range and higher prevalence than previously recognised in Australia. The aim of the current study was to determine whether producer knowledge and attitudes are associated with farm management practices that could influence transmission among domestic dogs, wildlife, livestock and humans. Between June and August 2019, a cross-sectional study was conducted among beef producers throughout Australia (N = 62). Producers were asked to complete an online survey to obtain information on their knowledge about hydatid disease, their attitudes towards the disease and their farm management practices that could affect transmission. Descriptive statistics were conducted to investigate potential predictors for practices that might influence transmission of the parasite. A Bayesian network (BN) model was then constructed to evaluate the interrelationships between variables. The results show that most respondents (87 %; 54/62) had heard of hydatid disease. However, only 61 % of respondents knew how hydatid disease is transmitted (38/62) and only half knew how to prevent transmission (52 %; 32/62). Of respondents that knew that hydatid disease could affect humans (44/62), many did not think their family was at risk (46 %, 20/44) because they dewormed their dogs and prevented their dogs' access to offal. However, most respondents who owned dogs did not deworm their dogs frequently enough to prevent patency of Echinococcus granulosus infection (86 %; 49/57). Almost all respondents (94 %; 58/62) said they would take action if they found out their cattle were infected. BN analysis revealed that implementation of practices that could reduce the risk of hydatid disease transmission were associated with producers' knowledge and attitudes. In the model, practices were most influenced by attitudes (percentage change in variance = 42 %). All respondents in the "hydatid prevention" practices group were in the "good" knowledge group and the "less concerned" attitudes group. In comparison, most of the respondents in the "standard husbandry" practices group were in the "poor" knowledge group and the "more concerned" attitudes group. In summary, the results indicate that greater knowledge of hydatid disease among beef producers is associated with practices that reduce hydatid risk and attitudes of less concern about hydatid impact on properties. Therefore, increasing producer knowledge is warranted to encourage adoption and improvement of hydatid prevention practices and would be well received by beef producers.

Impact of participatory training of smallholder pig farmers on knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding biosecurity for the control of African swine fever in Uganda

We evaluated the impact of a participatory training of pig farmers on knowledge, attitude and practices (KAP) of biosecurity relating to ASF control in two districts of Uganda using a randomized control trial (RCT). A total of 830 pig farmers from 32 villages were included in the study, with 425 farmers receiving training, while 405 did not. An item response theory model was used to assess the impact of the training on farmer's KAP. Logistic regression models were used to assess the factors that affected knowledge gain and change in attitude and practices after training. Focus group discussions (FGD) were carried out with selected farmers from the treatment group at the end of the intervention, to share their experiences and discuss potential factors that could hinder adoption of biosecurity in their communities. Results of the regression analyses showed that there was a significant effect of biosecurity training (p = .038) on gain in knowledge after 12 months, but there were limited changes in farmer's attitude and practice at 12 and 28 months after training. Pig production domain (peri-urban/urban production), group membership, gender (male) and education of the farmer positively influenced knowledge gain and attitude of farmers towards biosecurity. This paper provides empirical evidence on the impact of training intervention on biosecurity practices for disease prevention or control. In addition, it breaks down the components of the biosecurity practices and documents the specific challenges to its uptake by the farmers. It therefore relaxes the assumption of knowledge constraint as a barrier to uptake. The results clearly show that knowledge is not the binding constraint to uptake of the biosecurity interventions.

The importance of understanding end user acceptability of new technology to support animal health management

This pilot study investigates the acceptability of a mobile application (app) developed to assist livestock producers make better animal health decisions with the support of a local veterinarian. With the increase in new technologies available for producers, acceptability evaluation is important to ensure that technology is designed considering end users' needs. An acceptability qualitative study, using semi-structured interviews, was designed including a purposive selection of sheep producers and livestock veterinarians. Eleven producers and six veterinarians participated in the study. Results suggest that producers would use such a tool to contact private veterinarians in non-emergency situations to obtain animal health advice. From veterinarians' perspective, while features of the app, such as messaging and notifications, were considered useful, concerns were raised about its capacity to enhance business opportunities and potential privacy implications. This study highlights the importance of engaging with end users in the early stages of the design and the introduction of new technology to maximise potential for adoption.

Understanding the vulnerability of beef producers in Australia to an FMD outbreak using a Bayesian Network predictive model

Effective and adaptable biosecurity and surveillance systems are crucial for maintaining and increasing Australia's competitive advantages in international markets, and for the production of high quality, safe animal products. These systems are continuously strengthened by ongoing government and industry investment. However, a better understanding of evolving disease risks and the country's capacity to respond to these risks is needed. This study developed a vulnerability framework based on characteristics and behaviours of livestock producers that impact exposure and response capacity to an emergency animal disease (EAD) outbreak among beef producers in Australia, with a focus on foot and mouth disease (FMD). This framework articulated producer vulnerability typologies to better inform surveillance resource allocation and future research direction. A cross-sectional study of beef producers in Australia was conducted to gather information on producers' demographics, husbandry characteristics, biosecurity and animal health management practices and beliefs, including those specific to FMD risk and response capacity. A Bayesian Network (BN) model was developed from the vulnerability framework, to investigate the complex interrelationships between variables and identify producer typologies. A total of 375 usable responses were obtained from the cross-sectional study. Regarding EAD exposure, producers implemented appropriate biosecurity practices for incoming stock, such as isolation (72.0 %), inspection for disease (88.7 %) and the use of vendor declarations (78.5 %); however, other biosecurity practices were limited, such as restriction of visitor access, visitor biosecurity requirements or feral animal control. In relation to response capacity, a moderate uptake of practices was observed. Whilst daily or weekly visual inspection of animals was reported by most producers (90.1 %), physical inspection was less frequent. Most producers would call a private veterinarian in response to unusual signs of disease in their cattle; however, over 40 % of producers did not cite calling a government veterinarian as a priority action. Most producers believe an FMD outbreak would have extremely serious consequences; however, their level of concern was moderate and their confidence in identifying FMD symptoms was low. The BN analysis identified six vulnerability typologies, with three levels of exposure (high, moderate, low) and two levels of response capacity (high, low), as described by producer demographics and practices. The model identified property size, number of cattle and exposure variables as the most influential to the overall producer vulnerability. Results from this study can inform how to best use current biosecurity and surveillance resources and identify where opportunities exist for improving Australia's preparedness for future EAD incursions.

Dairy goat producers' understanding, knowledge and attitudes towards biosecurity and Q-fever in Australia

The Australian dairy goat sector is an emerging animal industry undergoing rapid expansion. Limited information is available within this industry in relation to socio-demographic characteristics and biosecurity implementation. Q-Fever, caused by the bacterium Coxiella burnetii, is a zoonotic disease endemic in Australia, with a range of domestic and wild-animal reservoir species, including goats, with infected pregnant goats posing a significant public health risk. The aim of the current study was to investigate the socio-demographics of Australian dairy goat producers, their biosecurity implementation and levels of understanding, knowledge and attitudes towards Q-Fever. To achieve this aim, a cross-sectional study was conducted, using an online survey and follow-up semi-structured interviews among dairy goat producers. A total of 106 goat producers participated in the online survey (35.3% response rate) and 14 participated in the semi-structured interviews. Findings from this study suggest that most goat producers implement biosecurity practices related to direct animal husbandry, such as separating sick goats (86%), vaccinations (79%) and providing separate kidding space (75%); and, practices minimizing the risk of disease introduction, such as maintaining boundary fences (86%) and isolating incoming animals (67%). However, implementation of other biosecurity practices, such as keeping records of visitors and visitor biosecurity requirements, was inadequate. Furthermore, this study identifies a deficit of knowledge and understanding surrounding Q-Fever in the Australian dairy goat sector, and a disconnect between producers' perception of risk and implementation of known appropriate biosecurity measures. The research has identified that producers rely on 'trusted' community networks to provide advice on biosecurity implementation, due to a perceived absence of industry-specific, reputable information sources. Producers identified those outside of these networks as the 'other'. The creation of this other allows producers to deflect responsibility for individual biosecurity on to the other. A multifaceted approach is necessary to increase knowledge, understanding and perception of risk surrounding Q-fever, and promote positive uptake of biosecurity measures, for improved outcomes for animal and human health.

Antibiotic use in food animals worldwide, with a focus on Africa: Pluses and minuses

Antibiotics are frequently used in food animal production in developing countries to promote the well-being and growth of animals. This practice provides some economic benefits to producers and consumers at large. Nevertheless, this practice is also associated with a number of concerns. A major concern has been that repeatedly exposing these animals to small doses of antibiotics contributes significantly to antimicrobial resistance, since a good fraction of the antibiotics used are the same or surrogates of antibiotics used in human therapeutic practices. Studies over decades have shown an explicit relationship between antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in veterinary science. Many antibiotics can be purchased over the counter in African countries, and antibiotic resistance is an important issue to address in this region. This review examines some of the risks and benefits associated with antibiotic use in food animals. We conclude that the use of antibiotics in food animal production constitutes a major contributing factor to the current antimicrobial resistance crisis and that antibiotics should only be used for the treatment of sick animals based on prior diagnosis of disease.

Animal Health Management Practices Among Smallholder Livestock Producers in Australia and Their Contribution to the Surveillance System

The risks posed for disease introduction and spread are believed to be higher for smallholder livestock producers than commercial producers. Possible reasons for this is the notion that smallholders do not implement appropriate animal health management practices and are not part of traditional livestock communication networks. These factors contribute to the effectiveness of passive disease surveillance systems. A cross-sectional study, using a postal survey (n = 1,140) and group interviews (28 participants in three groups), was conducted to understand the animal health management and communication practices of smallholders keeping sheep, cattle, pigs, dairy goats and alpacas in Australia. These practices are crucial for an effective passive surveillance system. Findings indicate that there is a need for improvement in animal health management practices, such as contact with veterinarians and attitudes toward reporting. Results also indicate that these practices differ depending on the livestock species kept, with sheep ownership being associated with lower engagement with surveillance activities and smallholders keeping dairy goats and alpacas having in general better practices. Other factors associated with surveillance practices among participant smallholders are gender and years of experience raising livestock. Despite the differences observed, over 80% of all smallholders actively seek information on the health of their livestock, with private veterinarians considered to be a trusted source. Emergency animal diseases are not a priority among smallholders, however they are concerned about the health of their animals. The finding that veterinarians were identified by producers to be the first point of contact in the event of unusual signs of disease, strengthens the argument that private veterinarians play a vital role in improving passive surveillance. Other producers are also a point of contact for animal health advice, with government agencies less likely to be contacted. The effectiveness of on-farm passive surveillance could be enhanced by developing strategies involving both private veterinarians and producers as key stakeholders, which aim to improve awareness of disease and disease reporting responsibilities.

A cross-sectional study of horse owners' awareness and perceived risk of exotic diseases in the United Kingdom

The international nature of the equine industry provides opportunities for the spread of infectious diseases between countries. While incursions of exotic diseases into the United Kingdom (UK) equine population have been rare, the potential socioeconomic and welfare impacts are a significant concern. However, little is known about leisure horse owners' ability or willingness to prepare for an exotic disease incursion. The objectives of this study were to describe UK leisure horse owners' awareness and perceptions of exotic diseases, and to identify clusters of horse owners characterised by their awareness and perceived risk of exotic diseases. A cross-sectional study of leisure horse owners in the UK was conducted between April and July 2018. Participants (n = 403) completed an online questionnaire with questions pertaining to demographics, experiences with endemic diseases, and awareness and perceptions of exotic diseases. Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to identify groups of participants that were similar in regard to their awareness and perceived risk of exotic diseases. Participants identified a median of 3 (IQR 2-4) exotic diseases, with the most recognised exotic diseases being African horse sickness and West Nile virus. The most frequently mentioned clinical signs that participants thought were associated with exotic diseases included high temperature (57.2%), discharge (46.5%), and lack of energy (41.2%). Hierarchical cluster analysis identified three clusters of participants: 1) those who were aware of exotic diseases and perceived a high amount of risk (n = 78); 2) those who were aware of exotic diseases but perceived a low amount of risk (n = 111); and 3) those who were less aware of exotic diseases and perceived a low amount of risk (n = 214). Efforts to communicate the relevance and consequences of exotic diseases to horse owners should consider the potential difference in receptiveness among horse owners in each cluster. Further investigations are required to determine the implications of horse owners' perceived risk on exotic disease preparedness.

Assessing Biosecurity Risks for the Introduction and Spread of Diseases Among Commercial Sheep Properties in New South Wales, Australia, Using Foot-and-Mouth Disease as a Case Study

Sheep production systems are a major industry in Australia, with a gross value of roughly $4.66 billion; 87.3% of which is attributable to export markets. Exotic diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) are a potential threat to the viability of Australia’s export market. Previous outbreaks of FMD in developed countries, and challenges in the management of onshore biosecurity, signify the importance of on-farm biosecurity in controlling disease transmission. This study aims to investigate the risk of disease introduction and spread among New South Wales (NSW) sheep properties using FMD as a case study and draw recommendation for the industry. Exposure and partial consequence assessments, using scenario trees and Monte Carlo stochastic modeling, were conducted to identify pathways of introduction and spread and calculate the probabilities of these pathways occurring. Input parameters were estimated from the data obtained during qualitative interviews with producers and scientific literature. According to the reported practices of sheep producers and assuming each pathway was carrying the FMD virus, the exposure assessment estimates the median (5–95%) probability of FMD exposure of sheep on a naive property to be 0.619 (0.541–0.698), 0.151 (0.085–0.239), 0.235 (0.153–0.324), and 0.710 (0.619–0.791) for introduction through new stock, wildlife, carriers (humans, dogs, and vehicles), and neighbors, respectively. The spread assessment estimated the median probability of FMD spreading from an infected sheep property to neighboring enterprises to be 0.603 (0.504–0.698). A similar probability was estimated for spread via wildlife (0.523; 0.404–0.638); and a lower spread probability was estimated for carriers (0.315; 0.171–0.527), sheep movement (0.285; 0.161–0.462), and dead stock (0.168; 0.070–0.312). The sensitivity analysis revealed that the introduction of an FMD-infected sheep was more influential for exposure via new stock than isolation practices. Sharing adjacent boundaries was found to be the most influential factor for exposure and spread between neighboring enterprises, and to a lesser extent, hygiene practices were found to have the most influence on exposure and spread through carriers. To minimize the potential risk of FMD introduction and spread between sheep properties, maintenance of boundary fences, identification of infected animals before introduction to the property, and hygiene and disinfection practices should be improved.