Literature DB >> 22998848

Avian influenza transmission risks: analysis of biosecurity measures and contact structure in Dutch poultry farming.

A Ssematimba1, T J Hagenaars, J J de Wit, F Ruiterkamp, T H Fabri, J A Stegeman, M C M de Jong.   

Abstract

In the 2003 epidemic of highly pathogenic avian influenza in Dutch poultry, between-farm virus transmission continued for considerable time despite control measures. Gaining more insight into the mechanisms of this spread is necessary for the possible development of better control strategies. We carried out an in-depth interview study aiming to systematically explore all the poultry production activities to identify the activities that could potentially be related to virus introduction and transmission. One of the between-farm contact risks that were identified is the movement of birds between farms during thinning with violations of on-farm biosecurity protocols. In addition, several other risky management practices, risky visitor behaviours and biosecurity breaches were identified. They include human and fomite contacts that occurred without observing biosecurity protocols, poor waste management practices, presence of other animal species on poultry farms, and poor biosecurity against risks from farm neighbourhood activities. Among the detailed practices identified, taking cell phones and jewellery into poultry houses, not observing shower-in protocols and the exchange of unclean farm equipment were common. Also, sometimes certain protocols or biosecurity facilities were lacking. We also asked the interviewed farmers about their perception of transmission risks and found that they had divergent opinions about the visitor- and neighbourhood-associated risks. We performed a qualitative assessment of contact risks (as transmission pathways) based on contact type, corresponding biosecurity practices, and contact frequency. This assessment suggests that the most risky contact types are bird movements during thinning and restocking, most human movements accessing poultry houses and proximity to other poultry farms. The overall risk posed by persons and equipment accessing storage rooms and the premises-only contacts was considered to be medium. Most of the exposure risks are considered to be similar for layer and broiler farms. Our results, including those on farmer opinions, are relevant for the communication with farmers and poultry-related businesses about practices and risks. We conclude by providing recommendations for improvement of control strategies.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22998848     DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2012.09.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prev Vet Med        ISSN: 0167-5877            Impact factor:   2.670


  16 in total

1.  Garbage Management: An Important Risk Factor for HPAI-Virus Infection in Commercial Poultry Flocks.

Authors:  Emily Walz; Eric Linskens; Jamie Umber; Marie Rene Culhane; David Halvorson; Francesca Contadini; Carol Cardona
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2018-01-26

2.  Risk for Low Pathogenicity Avian Influenza Virus on Poultry Farms, the Netherlands, 2007-2013.

Authors:  Ruth Bouwstra; Jose L Gonzales; Sjaak de Wit; Julia Stahl; Ron A M Fouchier; Armin R W Elbers
Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 6.883

3.  "Catch 22": Biosecurity awareness, interpretation and practice amongst poultry catchers.

Authors:  Caroline Millman; Rob Christley; Dan Rigby; Diana Dennis; Sarah J O'Brien; Nicola Williams
Journal:  Prev Vet Med       Date:  2017-04-14       Impact factor: 2.670

4.  Assessing the probability of introduction and spread of avian influenza (AI) virus in commercial Australian poultry operations using an expert opinion elicitation.

Authors:  Mini Singh; Jenny-Ann Toribio; Angela Bullanday Scott; Peter Groves; Belinda Barnes; Kathryn Glass; Barbara Moloney; Amanda Black; Marta Hernandez-Jover
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Low- and High-Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5 and H7 Spread Risk Assessment Within and Between Australian Commercial Chicken Farms.

Authors:  Angela Bullanday Scott; Jenny-Ann L M L Toribio; Mini Singh; Peter Groves; Belinda Barnes; Kathryn Glass; Barbara Moloney; Amanda Black; Marta Hernandez-Jover
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2018-04-09

6.  The Links Between Public and Ecosystem Health in Light of the Recent Ebola Outbreaks and Pandemic Emergence.

Authors:  David Nabarro; Chadia Wannous
Journal:  Ecohealth       Date:  2016-05-11       Impact factor: 3.184

7.  Coaching Belgian and Dutch Broiler Farmers Aimed at Antimicrobial Stewardship and Disease Prevention.

Authors:  Nele Caekebeke; Moniek Ringenier; Franca J Jonquiere; Tijs J Tobias; Merel Postma; Angelique van den Hoogen; Manon A M Houben; Francisca C Velkers; Nathalie Sleeckx; Arjan Stegeman; Jeroen Dewulf
Journal:  Antibiotics (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-17

Review 8.  Prediction and prevention of the next pandemic zoonosis.

Authors:  Stephen S Morse; Jonna A K Mazet; Mark Woolhouse; Colin R Parrish; Dennis Carroll; William B Karesh; Carlos Zambrana-Torrelio; W Ian Lipkin; Peter Daszak
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2012-12-01       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N8 Clade 2.3.4.4b in Germany in 2016/2017.

Authors:  Anja Globig; Christoph Staubach; Carola Sauter-Louis; Klaas Dietze; Timo Homeier-Bachmann; Carolina Probst; Jörn Gethmann; Klaus R Depner; Christian Grund; Timm C Harder; Elke Starick; Anne Pohlmann; Dirk Höper; Martin Beer; Thomas C Mettenleiter; Franz J Conraths
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2018-01-24

10.  Linking Supply Chain Governance and Biosecurity in the Context of HPAI Control in Western Java: A Value Chain Perspective.

Authors:  Dikky Indrawan; Karl M Rich; Peter van Horne; Arief Daryanto; Henk Hogeveen
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2018-05-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.