Role of Backyard Flocks in Transmission Dynamics of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A(H5N8) Clade 2.3.4.4, France, 2016-2017

How Do Flemish Laying Hen Farmers and Private Bird Keepers Comply with and Think about Measures to Control Avian Influenza?

Competent authorities of many countries, including Belgium, impose control measures (preventing wild bird access to feeders and water facilities, indoor confinement of captive birds, or fencing off outdoor ranges with nets) on professional and non-professional keepers of birds to prevent the spread of avian influenza (AI). Flemish laying hen farmers (FAR, n = 33) and private keepers of captive birds (PRI, n = 263) were surveyed about their opinion on and compliance with AI measures legally imposed during the most recent high-risk period before this survey in 2021. Participants answered questions on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = the worst, 3 = neutral, and 5 = the best). FAR indicated better compliance with the AI measures than PRI, except for net confinement. FAR indicated that they and other poultry farmers complied better with AI measures than PRI. Additionally, PRI indicated that they better complied than other PRI keepers. FAR regarded the AI measures as more effective than PRI. To prevent the spread of AI more effectively, national authorities could focus on information campaigns explaining to private bird keepers the need for the various control measures that they impose. If these campaigns fail, local authorities may need stricter enforcement or alternative ways to increase compliance.

Vaccination of poultry against highly pathogenic avian influenza - Part 2. Surveillance and mitigation measures

Selecting appropriate diagnostic methods that take account of the type of vaccine used is important when implementing a vaccination programme against highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). If vaccination is effective, a decreased viral load is expected in the samples used for diagnosis, making molecular methods with high sensitivity the best choice. Although serological methods can be reasonably sensitive, they may produce results that are difficult to interpret. In addition to routine molecular monitoring, it is recommended to conduct viral isolation, genetic sequencing and phenotypic characterisation of any HPAI virus detected in vaccinated flocks to detect escape mutants early. Following emergency vaccination, various surveillance options based on virological testing of dead birds ('bucket sampling') at defined intervals were assessed to be effective for early detection of HPAIV and prove disease freedom in vaccinated populations. For ducks, virological or serological testing of live birds was assessed as an effective strategy. This surveillance could be also applied in the peri-vaccination zone on vaccinated establishments, while maintaining passive surveillance in unvaccinated chicken layers and turkeys, and weekly bucket sampling in unvaccinated ducks. To demonstrate disease freedom with > 99% confidence and to detect HPAI virus sufficiently early following preventive vaccination, monthly virological testing of all dead birds up to 15 per flock, coupled with passive surveillance in both vaccinated and unvaccinated flocks, is recommended. Reducing the sampling intervals increases the sensitivity of early detection up to 100%. To enable the safe movement of vaccinated poultry during emergency vaccination, laboratory examinations in the 72 h prior to the movement can be considered as a risk mitigation measure, in addition to clinical inspection; sampling results from existing surveillance activities carried out in these 72 h could be used. In this Opinion, several schemes are recommended to enable the safe movement of vaccinated poultry following preventive vaccination.

Backyard poultry: exploring non-intensive production systems

The concept of backyard poultry historically encompassed "food-producing animals." Nevertheless, a recent shift in livestock production paradigms within developed countries is evident, as backyard poultry owners now raise their birds for purposes beyond self-consumption, raising animals in a familiar way, and fostering emotional bonds with them. Because backyard animals are frequently privately owned, and the resulting products are typically not marketed, very little information is available about the demographic profile of backyard owners and information on flocks' characteristics, husbandry, and welfare. Thus, this review aims to clarify the characteristics of backyard poultry, highlighting the prevalent infectious diseases and the zoonotic risk to which farmers are exposed. According to the FAO, there are different types of poultry production systems: intensive, sub-intensive, and extensive. The system conditions, requirements, and the resulting performance differ extensively due to the type of breed, feeding practices, prevalence of disease, prevention and control of diseases, flock management, and the interactions among all these factors. The presence and transmission of infectious diseases in avian species is a problem that affects both the animals themselves and public health. Bacterial (Escherichia coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Mycoplasma), parasitic (helminths, louses, and mites), and viral (Avian influenza, Newcastle, Marek, Infectious Bronchitis, Gumboro, Infectious Laringotracheitis, and Fowlpox) are the most important pathogens involved in backyard poultry health. In addition, Avian influenza, Salmonella, Campylobacter, and E. coli, could be a risk for backyard farmers and/or backyard-derived products consumers. Thus, proper biosecurity implementation measures are mandatory to control them. While the principles and practices of on-farm biosecurity may be well-versed among commercial farmers, hobbyists, and backyard farmers might not be familiar with the necessary steps to protect their flocks from infectious diseases and curb their transmission. This sector represents the fourth category of poultry farming, characterized by the lowest biosecurity standards. Consequently, it is imperative to address the legal status of backyard poultry, educate owners about biosecurity measures, and promote proper veterinary care and disease control.

Vaccination of poultry against highly pathogenic avian influenza - part 1. Available vaccines and vaccination strategies

Several vaccines have been developed against highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), mostly inactivated whole-virus vaccines for chickens. In the EU, one vaccine is authorised in chickens but is not fully efficacious to stop transmission, highlighting the need for vaccines tailored to diverse poultry species and production types. Off-label use of vaccines is possible, but effectiveness varies. Vaccines are usually injectable, a time-consuming process. Mass-application vaccines outside hatcheries remain rare. First vaccination varies from in-ovo to 6 weeks of age. Data about immunity onset and duration in the target species are often unavailable, despite being key for effective planning. Minimising antigenic distance between vaccines and field strains is essential, requiring rapid updates of vaccines to match circulating strains. Generating harmonised vaccine efficacy data showing vaccine ability to reduce transmission is crucial and this ability should be also assessed in field trials. Planning vaccination requires selecting the most adequate vaccine type and vaccination scheme. Emergency protective vaccination is limited to vaccines that are not restricted by species, age or pre-existing vector-immunity, while preventive vaccination should prioritise achieving the highest protection, especially for the most susceptible species in high-risk transmission areas. Model simulations in France, Italy and The Netherlands revealed that (i) duck and turkey farms are more infectious than chickens, (ii) depopulating infected farms only showed limitations in controlling disease spread, while 1-km ring-culling performed better than or similar to emergency preventive ring-vaccination scenarios, although with the highest number of depopulated farms, (iii) preventive vaccination of the most susceptible species in high-risk transmission areas was the best option to minimise the outbreaks' number and duration, (iv) during outbreaks in such areas, emergency protective vaccination in a 3-km radius was more effective than 1- and 10-km radius. Vaccine efficacy should be monitored and complement other surveillance and preventive efforts.

Exploring the responses of smallscale poultry keepers to avian influenza regulations and guidance in the United Kingdom, with recommendations for improved biosecurity messaging

Understanding how smallscale ('backyard') poultry keepers interpret and respond to governmental directives designed to reduce the transmission of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) is of paramount importance in preparing for future HPAI outbreaks. Qualitative insights from open questions in an online survey conducted during the 2021-22 HPAI season (1,559 responses) shed light on smallscale poultry keepers' understanding of, and responses to, governmental directives to control HPAI exposure and onwards transmission. A follow-up participatory workshop (21 participants) explored the HPAI-related information sources used by smallscale poultry keepers, their trust in these sources, perceptions of HPAI-related risk, and interpretation of, opinions on and adherence to government regulations and communications regarding biosecurity and housing measures. This paper draws on a multi-scale behaviour change model to explore barriers to compliance with HPAI-related regulations. Insights from behaviour settings theory reveal how poultry-keeping settings and routines might be 'disrupted' and 're-configured' to improve long-term biosecurity and reduce the risk of HPAI exposure. The findings highlight the need for HPAI-related guidance that is tailored to smallscale poultry keepers. This guidance should include clear action points and simple, practical, affordable and sustainable suggestions for improving compliance with biosecurity measures.

Evaluation of three hemagglutinin-based vaccines for the experimental control of a panzootic clade 2.3.4.4b A(H5N8) high pathogenicity avian influenza virus in mule ducks

In France during winter 2016-2017, 487 outbreaks of clade 2.3.4.4b H5N8 subtype high pathogenicity (HP) avian influenza A virus (AIV) infections were detected in poultry and captive birds. During this epizootic, HPAIV A/decoy duck/France/161105a/2016 (H5N8) was isolated and characterized in an experimental infection transmission model in conventional mule ducks. To investigate options to possibly protect such ducks against this HPAIV, three vaccines were evaluated in controlled conditions. The first experimental vaccine was derived from the hemagglutinin gene of another clade 2.3.4.4b A(H5N8) HPAIV. It was injected at three weeks of age, either alone (Vac1) or after a primer injection at day-old (Vac1 + boost). The second vaccine (Vac2) was a commercial bivalent adjuvanted vaccine containing an expressed hemagglutinin modified from a clade 2.3.2 A(H5N1) HPAIV. Vac2 was administered as a single injection at two weeks of age. The third experimental vaccine (Vac3) also incorporated a homologous 2.3.4.4b H5 HA gene and was administered as a single injection at three weeks of age. Ducks were challenged with HPAIV A/decoy duck/France/161105a/2016 (H5N8) at six weeks of age. Post-challenge virus excretion was monitored in vaccinated and control birds every 2-3 days for two weeks using real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction and serological analyses (haemagglutination inhibition test against H5N8, H5 ELISA and AIV ELISA) were performed. Vac1 abolished oropharyngeal and cloacal shedding to almost undetectable levels, whereas Vac3 abolished cloacal shedding only (while partially reducing respiratory shedding) and Vac2 only partly reduced the respiratory and intestinal excretion of the challenge virus. These results provided relevant insights in the immunogenicity of recombinant H5 vaccines in mule ducks, a rarely investigated hybrid between Pekin and Muscovy duck species that has played a critical role in the recent H5 HPAI epizootics in France.

Cross-sectional survey of barriers and opportunities for engaging backyard poultry producers and veterinarians in addressing poultry health

AIMS

To assess the current level of engagement between backyard poultry keepers and veterinarians in New Zealand; to understand the opportunities and barriers for improving access to poultry health care; and to gauge the interest of backyard poultry keepers in participating in a voluntary national poultry health information system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Backyard poultry were defined as any bird species kept for non-commercial purposes. Separate cross-sectional surveys were administered to backyard poultry keepers and veterinarians in New Zealand over 12-week periods starting 22 March 2021 and 03 May 2021 respectively. The veterinarian survey was advertised in the monthly update e-mail from the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, while the survey for backyard poultry keepers was advertised on various online platforms that focus on raising backyard poultry. Results for quantitative variables were reported as basic descriptive statistics, while qualitative free-text responses from open-ended questions were explored using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 125 backyard poultry keepers and 35 veterinarians completed the survey. Almost half (56/125; 44.8%) of backyard poultry keepers reported that they had never taken their birds to a veterinarian, with common reasons being difficulty finding a veterinarian, cost of treatment, and perceptions that most visits result in the bird being euthanised. The majority (113/125; 90.4%) of backyard poultry keepers reported that a general internet search was their primary source for poultry health advice. However, it remains unclear if owners were satisfied with the advice found online, as many cited that having access to reliable health information would be an incentive for registering with a poultry health information system. Of the veterinarian responses, 29/35 (82.9%) reported treating an increasing number of poultry in the last 5 years, although many (27/35; 77.1%) suggested they would be hesitant to increase their poultry caseload due to concerns over their lack of knowledge and confidence in poultry medicine; a lack of clinic resources to treat poultry; concerns over the cost-effectiveness of treatments; and a general feeling of helplessness when treating poultry, with most consultations being for end-stage disease and euthanasia.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study highlight opportunities for increased engagement between backyard poultry keepers and veterinarians, including making available accurate poultry health information and providing veterinarians with improved training in poultry medicine. The results also support the development of a poultry health information system in New Zealand to further enhance health and welfare in backyard poultry populations.

Backyard poultry flocks in France: A diversity of owners and biosecurity practices

Over the past few years, the number of backyard poultry flocks has been increasing in France. A mandatory step to improve backyard poultry management is to assess health risks by characterizing the flocks and understanding the owners' motivations for keeping poultry and their husbandry practices. A survey of backyard poultry owners was conducted in France to gather information about their motivations for owning poultry, flock characteristics, and breeding and biosecurity practices. The survey was completed by 1,160 owners. The major motivations for owning poultry flocks were egg consumption (93.3 %), recycling (72.4 %) and having pet animals (53.2 %). Most owners had already heard about avian influenza (96.7 %), but were less aware about other diseases such as Newcastle Disease (41.6 %), salmonellosis (79.1 %), or campylobacteriosis (18.6 %). Owners mainly kept only egg-layers (78.4 %), and the median size flock was five egg-layers. Owners gave eggs to their relatives, occasionally or regularly, in 86.6 % of the cases. Contacts with other family poultry owners were frequent (68.9 %) and biosecurity practices were poorly implemented: 50 % of owners did not wash their hands systematically after visiting the flock and more than 60 % of owners did not wear specific shoes. Drawing from the survey data, five profiles of family poultry flocks were identified with multiple correspondence analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis. The profiles, based on flock characteristics and owners' practices and motivations, illustrate the heterogeneity of the backyard poultry sector: 1) urban poultry, 2) traditional poultry, 3) student poultry, 4) pet poultry and 5) hobby poultry. Urban poultry consisted of recently constituted (< 2 years old), small (< 3 birds) flocks of layers, and traditional poultry of older, medium-sized flocks belonging to retired and older people. These two profiles were characterized by limited contacts (direct or indirect) with other flocks and owners. Student poultry consisted of younger owners (<30 years old) with flocks over 5 years old. Pet poultry consisted of recently established, medium-size flocks of layers located in both rural or urban environments. Hobby poultry consisted of dedicated owners who breed and sell poultry and participate in exhibitions and poultry shows. Pet and hobby poultry profiles were characterized by greater knowledge of diseases and biosecurity practices, more bird movements, and reported more frequent clinical signs. The observation of different profiles can help target veterinary and public health education messages to prevent disease transmission in backyard poultry flocks in France.

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Risk Perception Toward Avian Influenza Virus Exposure Among Cuban Hunters

A critical step for decreasing zoonotic disease threats is to have a good understanding of the associated risks. Hunters frequently handle potentially infected birds, so they are more at risk of being exposed to zoonotic avian pathogens, including avian influenza viruses (AIVs). The objective of the current study was to gain a better understanding of Cuban hunters' general hunting practices, focusing on their knowledge and risk perception on avian influenza. An anonymous and voluntary semi-structured questionnaire was designed and applied to 398 hunters. Multiple correspondence analyses found relationships with potential exposure of AIVs to people and domestic animals. The main associated risks factors identified were not taking the annual flu vaccine (60.1%) and not cleaning hunting knives (26.3%); Direct contact with water (32.1%), cleaning wild birds at home (33.2%); receiving assistance during bird cleaning (41.9%), keeping poultry at home (56.5%) and feeding domestic animals with wild bird leftovers (30.3%) were also identified as significant risk factors. The lack of use of some protective measures reported by hunters had no relationship with their awareness on avian influenza, which may imply a lack of such knowledge. The results evidenced that more effective risk communication strategies about the consequences of AIVs infecting human or other animals, and the importance of reducing such risks, are urgently needed.

Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A(H5N8) Virus Spread by Short- and Long-Range Transmission, France, 2016-17

We detected 3 genotypes of highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N8) virus in France during winter 2016–17. Genotype A viruses caused dramatic economic losses in the domestic duck farm industry in southwestern France. Our phylogenetic analysis suggests that genotype A viruses formed 5 distinct geographic clusters in southwestern France. In some clusters, local secondary transmission might have been started by a single introduction. The intensity of the viral spread seems to correspond to the density of duck holdings in each production area. To avoid the introduction of disease into an unaffected area, it is crucial that authorities limit the movements of potentially infected birds.

Modelling the domestic poultry population in the United States: A novel approach leveraging remote sensing and synthetic data methods

Comprehensive and spatially accurate poultry population demographic data do not currently exist in the United States; however, these data are critically needed to adequately prepare for, and efficiently respond to and manage disease outbreaks. In response to absence of these data, this study developed a national-level poultry population dataset by using a novel combination of remote sensing and probabilistic modelling methodologies. The Farm Location and Agricultural Production Simulator (FLAPS) (Burdett et al., 2015) was used to provide baseline national-scale data depicting the simulated locations and populations of individual poultry operations. Remote sensing methods (identification using aerial imagery) were used to identify actual locations of buildings having the characteristic size and shape of commercial poultry barns. This approach was applied to 594 U.S. counties with > 100,000 birds in 34 states based on the 2012 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Census of Agriculture (CoA). The two methods were integrated in a hybrid approach to develop an automated machine learning process to locate commercial poultry operations and predict the number and type of poultry for each operation across the coterminous United States. Validation illustrated that the hybrid model had higher locational accuracy and more realistic distribution and density patterns when compared to purely simulated data. The resulting national poultry population dataset has significant potential for application in animal disease spread modelling, surveillance, emergency planning and response, economics, and other fields, providing a versatile asset for further agricultural research.

The Structural Characteristics, Management, and Challenges of Backyard Poultry Farming in Residential Areas of Turkey

Simple Summary

Relatively little is known about backyard poultry flocks in urban areas in Turkey, their size and how they are managed. To address this knowledge gap, a semi-structured survey was conducted of backyard poultry owners in Turkey with regard to flock characteristics, management, biosecurity practices and the challenges of backyard poultry flocks. Data derived from 1094 respondents across Turkey showed that the majority of respondents owned small flocks with fewer than 50 birds. Most participants reported keeping poultry as food for family use and free-range coops were the most preferred type of housing. Keeping different poultry species together, which poses a significant biosecurity risk, was reported by 64% of owners. Internal-external parasites, Escherichia coli infections and chronic respiratory diseases were the most common health problems in backyard flocks. Although there is a significant amount of backyard poultry farming activity in residential districts of Turkey, lack of regional regulations and animal theft were the most cited challenges. The results highlighted the need for biosecurity measures and for a regulatory framework that takes into account the risks to commercial poultry flocks and public health. A thorough understanding of the complexities of backyard poultry practices and the needs of backyard breeders will help authorities to design effective policies for the backyard poultry sector in Turkey.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to collect, for the first time, comprehensive information about the backyard poultry sector in Turkey. This included a profile of the poultry owners, flock characteristics, husbandry, housing conditions, the owners’ biosecurity measures and the challenges of backyard poultry farming in residential areas of Turkey. An online semi-structured survey was fully completed by 1094 respondents. The majority of respondents (91%) owned fewer than 50 birds and reported raising other poultry species besides chickens (64%). Most of the participants indicated that they kept poultry as food for family use (83%) and had been involved in chicken-raising activities for less than 10 years (86%). Free-range coops were the type of housing most preferred by the respondents (86%). However, there was a lack of awareness about poultry diseases and poultry health care conditions. Respondents that confirmed wild bird and rodent access to their feeders and drinkers reported high rates of internal-external parasites, Escherichia coli infections and chronic respiratory diseases (p < 0.001). Lack of regional regulations (84%), animal theft (80%), lack of information on poultry management (79%), minimizing predation (75%), and the need for vaccination and veterinary services (73%) were the most cited challenges. The results highlighted the need for improved biosecurity measures and for a regulatory framework that takes into account the risks to commercial poultry flocks and public health.

The genetics of highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses of subtype H5 in Germany, 2006-2020

The H5 A/Goose/Guangdong/1/1996 (gs/GD) lineage emerged in China in 1996. Rooted in the respective gs/GD lineage, the hemagglutinin (HA) gene of highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses (HPAIV) has genetically diversified into a plethora of clades and subclades and evolved into an assortment of sub- and genotypes. Some caused substantial losses in the poultry industry and had a major impact on wild bird populations alongside public health implications due to a zoonotic potential of certain clades. After the primary introduction of the HPAI H5N1 gs/GD lineage into Europe in autumn 2005 and winter 2005/2006, Germany has seen recurring incursions of four varying H5Nx subtypes (H5N1, H5N8, H5N5, H5N6) carrying multiple distinct reassortants, all descendants of the gs/GD virus. The first HPAIV H5 epidemic in Germany during 2006/2007 was caused by a clade 2.2 subtype H5N1 virus. Phylogenetic analysis confirmed three distinct clusters belonging to clades 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2, concurring with geographic and temporal structures. From 2014 onwards, HPAIV clade 2.3.4.4 has dominated the epidemiological situation in Germany. The initial clade 2.3.4.4a HPAIV H5N8, reaching Germany in November 2014, caused a limited epidemic affecting five poultry holdings, one zoo in Northern Germany and few wild birds. After November 2016, HPAIV of clade 2.3.4.4b have dominated the situation to date. The most extensive HPAIV H5 epidemic on record reached Germany in winter 2016/2017, encompassing multiple incursion events with two subtypes (H5N8, H5N5) and entailing five reassortants. A novel H5N6 clade 2.3.4.4b strain affected Germany from December 2017 onwards, instigating low-level infection in smallholdings and wild birds. Recently, in spring 2020, a novel incursion of a genetically distinct HPAI clade 2.3.4.4b H5N8 virus caused another epidemic in Europe, which affected a small number of poultry holdings, one zoo and two wild birds throughout Germany.

A Review of Pathogen Transmission at the Backyard Chicken-Wild Bird Interface

Habitat conversion and the expansion of domesticated, invasive species into native habitats are increasingly recognized as drivers of pathogen emergence at the agricultural-wildlife interface. Poultry agriculture is one of the largest subsets of this interface, and pathogen spillover events between backyard chickens and wild birds are becoming more commonly reported. Native wild bird species are under numerous anthropogenic pressures, but the risks of pathogen spillover from domestic chickens have been historically underappreciated as a threat to wild birds. Now that the backyard chicken industry is one of the fastest growing industries in the world, it is imperative that the principles of biosecurity, specifically bioexclusion and biocontainment, are legislated and implemented. We reviewed the literature on spillover events of pathogens historically associated with poultry into wild birds. We also reviewed the reasons for biosecurity failures in backyard flocks that lead to those spillover events and provide recommendations for current and future backyard flock owners.

Pathobiology of the highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses H7N1 and H5N8 in different chicken breeds and role of Mx 2032 G/A polymorphism in infection outcome

Chickens are highly susceptible to highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses (HPAIVs). However, the severity of infection varies depending of the viral strain and the genetic background of the host. In this study, we evaluated the pathogenesis of two HPAIVs (H7N1 and H5N8) and assessed the susceptibility to the infection of local and commercial chicken breeds from Spain. Eight chicken breeds were intranasally inoculated with 10⁵ ELD₅₀ of A/Chicken/Italy/5093/1999 (H7N1) or A/Goose/Spain/IA17CR02699/2017 (H5N8 clade 2.3.4.4. B) and monitored during 10 days. Chickens were highly susceptible to both HPAIVs, but H7N1 was considerably more virulent than H5N8 as demonstrated by the highest mortality rates and shortest mean death times (MDT). Both HPAIVs produced severe necrosis and intense viral replication in the central nervous system, heart and pancreas; however, the lesions and replication in other tissues were virus-dependent. High levels of viral RNA were detected by the oral route with both viruses. In contrast, a low number of H5N8-inoculated chickens shed by the cloacal route, demonstrating a different pattern of viral shedding dependent of the HPAIV. We found a high variation in the susceptibility to HPAIVs between the different chicken breeds. The birds carrying the genotype AA and AG at position 2032 in chicken Mx gene presented a slightly higher, but not significant, percentage of survival and a statistically significant longer MDT than GG individuals. Our study demonstrated that the severity of HPAI infection is largely dependent of the viral isolate and host factors, underlining the complexity of HPAI infections.

Evaluation of vaccination strategies to control an avian influenza outbreak in French poultry production networks using EVACS tool

France recently faced two epizootic waves of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in poultry (H5N6 in 2015-2016 and H5N8 in 2016-2017), mainly in the fattening duck production sector. Vaccination against avian influenza (AI) is currently not authorised in France even though its potential benefits were discussed during these epizootic events. The objective of this work was to evaluate the potential efficiency of different vaccination strategies that could be applied against AI in France. The EVACS tool, which is a decision support tool developed to evaluate vaccination strategies, was applied in several French poultry production sectors: broiler, layer, turkey, duck and guinea fowl. EVACS was used to simulate the performance of vaccination strategies in terms of vaccination coverage, immunity levels and spatial distribution of the immunity level. A cost-benefit analysis was then applied based on EVACS results to identify the most efficient strategy. For each sector, vaccination protocols were tested according to the production type (breeders/production, indoor/outdoor), the integration level (integrated/independent) and the type of vaccine (hatchery vaccination using a recombinant vaccine/farm vaccination using an inactivated vaccine). The most efficient protocols for each sector were then combined to test different overall vaccination strategies at the national level. Even if it was not possible to compare vaccination protocols with the two vaccines types in "foie gras" duck, meat duck and guinea fowl production sectors as no hatchery vaccine currently exist for these species, these production sectors were also described and included in this simulation. Both types of vaccination (at hatchery and farm level) enabled protective immunity levels for the control of AI, but higher poultry population immunity level was reached (including independent farms) using hatchery vaccination. We also showed that hatchery vaccination was more efficient (higher benefit-cost ratio) than farm vaccination. Sufficient and homogeneously spatially distributed protective levels were reached in the overall poultry population with vaccination strategies targeting breeders, chicken layers and broilers and turkeys, without the need to include ducks and guinea fowls. However, vaccination strategies involving the highest number of species and production types were the most efficient in terms of cost-benefit. This study provides critical information on the efficiency of different vaccination strategies to support future decision making in case vaccination was applied to prevent and control HPAI in France.

Exploring the attitudes of backyard poultry keepers to health and biosecurity

Backyard poultry producers have been associated with outbreaks of exotic (e.g. avian influenza) and endemic (e.g. Salmonella) disease all over the world. Currently in the UK the registration of small flocks (less than 50 birds) with local authorities is voluntary therefore there is not an accurate record of how many keepers and birds there are or where they are located. This lack of information (e.g. how many birds they keep, what type of birds, biosecurity measures they implement, etc.) may compromise contingency planning in an outbreak. A questionnaire was designed and implemented to gather information that will allow some of the knowledge gaps to be filled. The questionnaire comprised a total of 63 questions divided into seven sections (characterisation of the keeper, location of the enterprise and interest in poultry, poultry husbandry, transport of poultry, details about the poultry enterprise, marketing of poultry products, and poultry health/biosecurity). The questionnaire was implemented through an online survey, which was promoted through web links in smallholders' websites, Facebook pages, the SRUC network, a course about poultry welfare, and leaflets at smallholders' festivals. The survey was open from 24th October 2016 to 10th April 2017 and 176 questionnaires were completed by target respondents. Overall, our results suggest that the level of disease identified by backyard poultry keepers is low but the majority of the backyard poultry keepers also keep other livestock species, with an associated increased risk for disease transmission between species. Almost all respondents reported implementing at least one biosecurity measure, although in the majority of cases the measures taken were not comprehensive. A lack of knowledge about the legislation concerning poultry-keeping activities was evidenced by the answers given to some questions, such as the feeding of kitchen scraps and how to dispose of dead stocks. This investigation fills gaps in knowledge which will allow industry stakeholders and policy makers to adapt their current disease programmes and contingency plans to the reality of the health and biosecurity status of backyard poultry. It also highlights that government could play a more active role in engaging with backyard poultry keepers and in finding ways to disseminate reliable information generally and about disease outbreaks specifically, to these keepers.