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

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.

An argument for pandemic risk management using a multidisciplinary One Health approach to governance: an Australian case study

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and the subsequent COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant global impact. However, COVID-19 is just one of several high-impact infectious diseases that emerged from wildlife and are linked to the human relationship with nature. The rate of emergence of new zoonoses (diseases of animal origin) is increasing, driven by human-induced environmental changes that threaten biodiversity on a global scale. This increase is directly linked to environmental drivers including biodiversity loss, climate change and unsustainable resource extraction. Australia is a biodiversity hotspot and is subject to sustained and significant environmental change, increasing the risk of it being a location for pandemic origin. Moreover, the global integration of markets means that consumption trends in Australia contributes to the risk of disease spill-over in our regional neighbours in Asia-Pacific, and beyond. Despite the clear causal link between anthropogenic pressures on the environment and increasing pandemic risks, Australia's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, like most of the world, has centred largely on public health strategies, with a clear focus on reactive management. Yet, the span of expertise and evidence relevant to the governance of pandemic risk management is much wider than public health and epidemiology. It involves animal/wildlife health, biosecurity, conservation sciences, social sciences, behavioural psychology, law, policy and economic analyses to name just a few.The authors are a team of multidisciplinary practitioners and researchers who have worked together to analyse, synthesise, and harmonise the links between pandemic risk management approaches and issues in different disciplines to provide a holistic overview of current practice, and conclude the need for reform in Australia. We discuss the adoption of a comprehensive and interdisciplinary 'One Health' approach to pandemic risk management in Australia. A key goal of the One Health approach is to be proactive in countering threats of emerging infectious diseases and zoonoses through a recognition of the interdependence between human, animal, and environmental health. Developing ways to implement a One Health approach to pandemic prevention would not only reduce the risk of future pandemics emerging in or entering Australia, but also provide a model for prevention strategies around the world.

Using a Bayesian Network Predictive Model to Understand Vulnerability of Australian Sheep Producers to a Foot and Mouth Disease Outbreak

To maintain and strengthen Australia's competitive international advantage in sheep meat and wool markets, the biosecurity systems that support these industries need to be robust and effective. These systems, strengthened by jurisdictional and livestock industry investments, can also be enhanced by a deeper understanding of individual producer risk of exposure to animal diseases and capacity to respond to these risks. This observational study developed a Vulnerability framework, built from current data from Australian sheep producers around behaviors and beliefs that may impact on their likelihood of Exposure and Response Capacity (willingness and ability to respond) to an emergency animal disease (EAD). Using foot and mouth disease (FMD) as a model, a cross-sectional survey gathered information on sheep producers' demographics, and their practices and beliefs around animal health management and biosecurity. Using the Vulnerability framework, a Bayesian Network (BN) model was developed as a first attempt to develop a decision making tool to inform risk based surveillance resource allocation. Populated by the data from 448 completed questionnaires, the BN model was analyzed to investigate relationships between variables and develop producer Vulnerability profiles. Respondents reported high levels of implementation of biosecurity practices that impact the likelihood of exposure to an EAD, such as the use of appropriate animal movement documentation (75.4%) and isolation of incoming stock (64.9%). However, adoption of other practices relating to feral animal control and biosecurity protocols for visitors were limited. Respondents reported a high uptake of Response Capacity practices, including identifying themselves as responsible for observing (94.6%), reporting unusual signs of disease in their animals (91.0%) and daily/weekly inspection of animals (90.0%). 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 most influential Exposure variables on producer Vulnerability included adoption levels of visitor biosecurity and visitor access protocols. Findings from this study can guide decisions around resource allocation to improve Australia's readiness for EAD incursion and strengthen the country's biosecurity system.

The goat industry in Australia: Using Bayesian network analysis to understand vulnerability to a foot and mouth disease outbreak

Australia's goat industry is one of the largest goat product exporters in the world, managing both farmed and wild caught animals. To protect and maintain the competitive advantage afforded to the Australian goat industry by the absence of many diseases endemic elsewhere, it is important to identify the vulnerability of producers to livestock disease incursions. This study developed a framework of producer vulnerability built from the beliefs and practices of producers that may impact on their likelihood of exposure and response capacity to an emergency animal disease (EAD), using foot and mouth disease as a model. A cross-sectional questionnaire gathered information on producer/enterprise demographics, animal health management and biosecurity practices, with 107 participating in the study. The biosecurity measures that were most commonly implemented by producers were always using animal movement documentation for purchased stock (74.7 %) and isolating new stock (73.1 %). However, moderate to low uptake of biosecurity protocols related to visitors to the property were reported. Response capacity variables such as checking animals daily (72.0 %) and record keeping (91.7 %) were reported by the majority of respondents, with 40.7 % reporting yearly veterinary inspection of their animals. Using the vulnerability framework, a Bayesian Network model was developed and populated by the survey data, and the relationships between variables were investigated. Six vulnerability profiles were developed, with three levels of exposure (high, moderate, low) and two levels of response capacity (high, low), as described by producer demographics and practices. The most sensitive exposure variables on producer vulnerability included implementation of visitor biosecurity and control of feral animals. Results from this study can inform risk based perspectives and decisions around biosecurity and surveillance resource allocation within the goat industry. The results also highlight opportunities for improving Australia's preparedness for a future EAD incursion by considering producer behaviour and beliefs by applying a vulnerability framework.