1
|
Makovska I, Chantziaras I, Caekebeke N, Dhaka P, Dewulf J. Assessment of Cleaning and Disinfection Practices on Pig Farms across Ten European Countries. Animals (Basel) 2024; 14:593. [PMID: 38396561 PMCID: PMC10886142 DOI: 10.3390/ani14040593] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2023] [Revised: 01/30/2024] [Accepted: 02/08/2024] [Indexed: 02/25/2024] Open
Abstract
This study delves into the assessment of cleaning and disinfection (C&D) measures within the context of European pig farming, employing the Biocheck.UGent™ tool as an effective instrument for evaluation. A comprehensive set of relevant parameters was examined to enable meaningful comparisons across farms from 10 European countries during four years (2019-2022). Findings indicate a notable increase in C&D measure implementation in select countries (Belgium, Finland, Italy, and Spain), reflecting heightened awareness and responsibility among farmers. Additionally, the overall score for the C&D subcategory highlights variation across countries, with Italy (75), Poland (74), and Belgium (72) displaying the highest scores, while Ireland (56), Slovenia (55), and Serbia (50) reported the lowest scores. However, the considerable variation in the number of participating farms necessitates cautious comparisons. The study identifies well-implemented C&D measures in the frame of external biosecurity but underscores gaps in the application of C&D measures for the material introduction practices across farms (22% of farms), which are attributed to awareness gaps and resource limitations. In the areas of internal biosecurity, strong points include C&D procedures after each production cycle (79%), implementing different stages in the C&D process (65%) and sufficient sanitary break (82%), while gaps are evident in the presence and using of hand hygiene stations (19% of farms) and boots disinfection equipment (40% of farms) between compartments/units. Notably, the study reveals a lack of evaluation of hygiene after C&D procedures (only 1% of farms), signaling critical knowledge gaps among farmers regarding proper assessment tools and methods. In conclusion, this comprehensive analysis sheds light on the implementation status of C&D measures in European pig farming, offering insights into both areas of progress and those requiring improvement. The findings emphasize the need for targeted awareness campaigns and training initiatives to bolster biosecurity practices within the industry.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Iryna Makovska
- Veterinary Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium; (I.C.); (P.D.); (J.D.)
| | - Ilias Chantziaras
- Veterinary Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium; (I.C.); (P.D.); (J.D.)
| | | | - Pankaj Dhaka
- Veterinary Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium; (I.C.); (P.D.); (J.D.)
- Centre for One Health, College of Veterinary Science, Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana 141004, India
| | - Jeroen Dewulf
- Veterinary Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium; (I.C.); (P.D.); (J.D.)
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Mallikarjun A, Charendoff I, Moore MB, Wilson C, Nguyen E, Hendrzak AJ, Poulson J, Gibison M, Otto CM. Assessing Different Chronic Wasting Disease Training Aids for Use with Detection Dogs. Animals (Basel) 2024; 14:300. [PMID: 38254469 PMCID: PMC10812555 DOI: 10.3390/ani14020300] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/27/2023] [Revised: 01/09/2024] [Accepted: 01/10/2024] [Indexed: 01/24/2024] Open
Abstract
Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a highly infectious, fatal prion disease that affects cervid species. One promising method for CWD surveillance is the use of detection dog-handler teams wherein dogs are trained on the volatile organic compound signature of CWD fecal matter. However, using fecal matter from CWD-positive deer poses a biohazard risk; CWD prions can bind to soil particles and remain infectious in contaminated areas for extended periods of time, and it is very difficult to decontaminate the affected areas. One solution is to use noninfectious training aids that can replicate the odor of fecal matter from CWD-positive and CWD-negative deer and are safe to use in the environment. Trained CWD detection dogs' sensitivity and specificity for different training aid materials (cotton, GetXent tubes, and polydimethylsiloxane, or PDMS) incubated with fecal matter from CWD-positive and CWD-negative deer at two different temperatures (21 °C and 37 °C) for three different lengths of time (6 h, 24 h, and 48 h) were evaluated. Cotton incubated at 21 °C for 24 h was identified as the best aid for CWD based on the dogs' performance and practical needs for training aid creation. Implications for CWD detection training and for training aid selection in general are discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amritha Mallikarjun
- Penn Vet Working Dog Center, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19146, USA (M.B.M.); (C.W.); (E.N.); (A.J.H.); (J.P.); (C.M.O.)
| | - Ila Charendoff
- Penn Vet Working Dog Center, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19146, USA (M.B.M.); (C.W.); (E.N.); (A.J.H.); (J.P.); (C.M.O.)
| | - Madison B. Moore
- Penn Vet Working Dog Center, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19146, USA (M.B.M.); (C.W.); (E.N.); (A.J.H.); (J.P.); (C.M.O.)
| | - Clara Wilson
- Penn Vet Working Dog Center, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19146, USA (M.B.M.); (C.W.); (E.N.); (A.J.H.); (J.P.); (C.M.O.)
| | - Elizabeth Nguyen
- Penn Vet Working Dog Center, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19146, USA (M.B.M.); (C.W.); (E.N.); (A.J.H.); (J.P.); (C.M.O.)
| | - Abigail J. Hendrzak
- Penn Vet Working Dog Center, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19146, USA (M.B.M.); (C.W.); (E.N.); (A.J.H.); (J.P.); (C.M.O.)
| | - Jean Poulson
- Penn Vet Working Dog Center, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19146, USA (M.B.M.); (C.W.); (E.N.); (A.J.H.); (J.P.); (C.M.O.)
| | - Michelle Gibison
- Wildlife Futures Program, New Bolton Center, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square, PA 19348, USA;
| | - Cynthia M. Otto
- Penn Vet Working Dog Center, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19146, USA (M.B.M.); (C.W.); (E.N.); (A.J.H.); (J.P.); (C.M.O.)
- Department of Clinical Sciences and Advanced Medicine, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, PA 19104, USA
| |
Collapse
|