A semi-quantitative risk assessment was developed to classify pig farms in terms of the probability of introduction of African swine fever virus (ASFV). Following on-farm data collection via a specific checklist, we applied a modified failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) to calculate the risk priority codes (RPC's), indicating increasing risk levels ranging from 1 to 5. The importance of biosecurity measures was attributed by experts. To consider geographic risk factors, we classified pig farms based on local density of farmed pigs, and on the estimated wild boar population density. The combination of RPC's with geographical risk factors resulted into a final ranking of pig farms in terms of the risk of ASFV introduction. Furthermore, the estimation of frequency and levels of non-compliance with biosecurity measures was used to identify weak points in risk prevention at farm level. The outcome of the risk assessment was affected by choices in assigning non-compliance scores and importance to specific components of biosecurity. The method was applied in 60 commercial farms in major pig production areas in Italy. Furthermore, we applied a reduced version of our checklist in 12 non-commercial/small commercial (≤20 pigs) farms in the northern Apennines. In commercial farms, highest RPC's were obtained for biosecurity measures associated with personnel practices and farm buildings/planimetry. Intervention should be addressed to training of personnel on biosecurity and ASF, to avoid contacts with other pig herds, and to improve practices in the entrance into the farm. Sharing trucks with other farms, and loading/unloading of pigs were other weak points. Fencing was classified as insufficient in 70% of the commercial farms. Among these farms, breeding units were characterised by the lowest risk of ASFV introduction (although differences among median ranks were not statistically significant: P-value = 0.07; Kruskal–Wallis test), and increasing herd size was not significantly correlated with a higher risk (Kendall's τ = −0.13; P-value = 0.14). Density of farmed pig was greatest in the main pig production area in northern Italy. Conversely, exposure to wild boars was greatest for non-commercial/small commercial farms on the Apennines, which were also characterised by non-compliance with critical biosecurity measures.
The objective of the present study was the identification of farming practices in the production of turkeys for human consumption, and their ranking in terms of the occupational probability of exposure to antimicrobial resistant (AMR) bacteria, for farm workers. We gathered evidence and data from scientific literature, on risk factors for AMR in farmers, and on the prevalence of those hazards across farming phases. We administered semi-structured interviews to public and private veterinarians in Northern Italy, to obtain detailed information on turkey farming phases, and on working practices. Data were then integrated into a semi-quantitative Failure Modes and Effect Analysis (FMEA). Those working practices, which are characterized by direct contact with numerous animals, and which are carried out frequently, with rare use of personal protection devices resulted as associated with the greatest probability of exposure to AMR. For methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), these included vaccination and administration of any individual therapy, and removal and milling of litter, given the exposure of farmers to high dust level. Indeed, levels of occupational exposure to MRSA are enhanced by its transmission routes, which include direct contact with animal, as well as airborne transmission. Level of exposure to extended spectrum beta lactamase (ESBL) is more strictly associated with direct contact and the oral-fecal route. Consequently, exposure to ESBL resulted and associated with the routinely tipping over of poults turned on their back, and with the individual administration of therapies.
In a previous study, a semi-quantitative risk assessment was developed to rank pig holdings in terms of likelihood of introducing African swine fever virus (ASFV) by assessing their compliance with biosecurity and exposure to geographical risk factors. The method was initially developed for confined pig holdings, but given that ASF is endemic in wild boar of several countries, we modified the approach to make it suitable for free-range farms as well. In the current study, a total of 41 outdoor pig farms were assessed in an area where exposure to wild boar was generally high (density from 2.3 to 10.3 wild boar per Km2). As expected, non-compliance with biosecurity measures was frequent in outdoor farms, and the frequency of non-compliance indicated that the absence of adequate separation of pigs from the external environment was the major weakness in the farms assessed. In 46.3% of them, there was no fence or, if present, it was not adequate to avoid contact with wild boar. However, the approach adopted proved to be suitable for identifying intervention priorities to mitigate the risk of ASFV spread in free-range pig herds and for identifying the weaknesses of individual farms, as recommended by EFSA in 2021, which suggests implementing tools to improve biosecurity by favoring higher-risk farms.
Context European beef production is facing fresh challenges on various fronts: increasing public concern on animal welfare; declining EU meat consumption; and, conversely, expected growth in global demand for meat. The Italian National Reference Centre for Animal Welfare (CReNBA) has developed an assessment protocol for collecting information about beef cattle welfare and biosecurity conditions, with the intention of better understanding animal needs and disseminating best practices. Aims The protocol was applied on Italian and Irish farms, and the results were used as a starting point for a specific statistical analysis for comparing animal welfare and biosecurity levels in the two countries. Methods The protocol consists of animal-based measures and non-animal-based measures (management-based and resource-based indicators) and has been designed to determine the major hazards and benefits that can influence cattle health and welfare, including the presence of biosecurity issues. The outcomes of welfare and biosecurity assessments conducted during November 2016–July 2017 of 40 Irish beef herds reared indoors were compared with those of 85 Italian beef units assessed over the same period. Differences obtained within each beef-unit distribution were calculated by the VARNC index (diversity index), and a distance estimate of the beef-unit distribution from a hypothetical ideal condition was calculated by using the distance from ideal (dfi) index. Key results The dfi index revealed that Irish farms were closer to the ideal condition for the measures ‘experience and training of stockpersons’, ‘water provision’, ‘handling facilities’, ‘restraint facilities’, and ‘temperature, humidity and ventilations conditions’. Italian farms were closer to the ideal condition for ‘diet calculation and feed quality’, ‘feeding management’, ‘feeding place dimension’, ‘cleanliness of water points’, ‘cleanliness of floors’, ‘type of floors’, ‘cleanliness of animals’, and ‘integument alterations’. In contrast to the Italian farms, there was particular awareness of the importance of biosecurity on Irish farms. Conclusions The results revealed intrinsic management and housing differences between the two rearing systems, although only few dissimilarities were found in the animal outcomes: in fact, the assessment of the animal-based measures gave very similar results for the two countries, except for ‘cleanliness of the animals’ and ‘integument alterations’. Implications In the face of global challenges affecting the pursuit of farming sustainability, farmers should be encouraged to improve safeguards for animal welfare and reduce the spread of animal diseases. This can be achieved by facilitating knowledge exchange internationally.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.