No abstract

On-farm biosecurity is important for preventing the spread of several contagious animal diseases. In this study, biosecurity routines among Swedish farmers with livestock (cattle, pigs, sheep or goats) were examined through questionnaires posted by mail. Moreover, the use of protective clothing among professionals visiting farms, such as animal transporters and veterinarians, were investigated through assessments made by the farmers. Questionnaires were completed, partly or fully, by 518 farmers (overall response rate 34%). Possible associations between biosecurity routines and livestock species, geographic location and herd size were analysed. Large variations in biosecurity routines were found, both within and between groups, and some farms appeared to have a relatively high level of biosecurity. However, <40% of the farmers reported that they provide protective clothing for visitors, and 50% of farmers buying live animals introduced these directly into the herd without prior isolation. In general, a higher level of biosecurity was reported by farmers with herds with only pigs, when compared to farmers with cattle, sheep/goats or mixed species. A higher level of biosecurity was also reported by larger farms compared to hobby farms. Inconsistent biosecurity routines were reported, which was interpreted as a lack of knowledge of how different infections can spread and how this can be prevented. Furthermore, some replies indicated that the farmers perceived the risk of introduction of disease as low. According to the farmers' assessments, the use of protective clothing among professionals visiting farms varied considerably, both among different professions and within the same profession. On average, veterinarians and artificial insemination (AI) technicians got high scores in this assessment, while salesmen, repairmen and animal transporters were reported to seldom use protective clothing. Based on the findings, there is room for improvement of on-farm biosecurity. There is also a need to further investigate the motivators and constraints for altered routines among both Swedish livestock farmers and professionals visiting farms.

Uganda is a low-income country with the largest pig population in East Africa. Pig keeping has a large potential, commercially and as a tool for poverty reduction, but African swine fever (ASF) is a major hurdle for development of the sector. The objective of this study was to evaluate knowledge, attitudes and practices related to ASF in the smallholder pig production value chain in northern Uganda. The study included three separate series of participatory rural appraisals (PRA), comprising purposively selected farmers and other actors in the pig production value chain. In the PRAs, various participatory epidemiology tools were used. A total of 49 PRAs and 574 participants, representing 64 different villages, were included. The results indicate that participants were well aware of the clinical signs of ASF, routes for disease spread and measures for disease control. However, awareness of the control measures did not guarantee their implementation. A majority of middlemen and butchers acknowledged having sold live pigs, carcasses or pork they believed infected with ASF. Outbreaks of ASF had a strong negative impact on participants' socio-economic status with loss of revenue and reversal into more severe poverty. In conclusion, lack of knowledge is not what is driving the continuous circulation of ASF virus in this setting. To control ASF and reduce its impact, initiatives that stimulate changes in management are needed. Because the behaviour of all actors in the value chain is largely influenced by the deep rural poverty in the region, this needs to be combined with efforts to reduce rural poverty.

No abstract

African swine fever (ASF) is one of the most important pig diseases, causing high case fatality rate and trade restrictions upon reported outbreaks. In Uganda, a low-income country with the largest pig population in East Africa, ASF is endemic. Animal disease impact is multidimensional and include social and economic impact along the value chain. In low-income settings, this impact keep people poor and push those that have managed to escape poverty back again. If the diseases can be controlled, their negative consequences can be mitigated. However, to successfully argue for investment in disease control, its cost-benefits need to be demonstrated. One part in the cost-benefit equations is disease impact quantification. The objective of this study was therefore to investigate the socio-economic impact of ASF outbreaks at household level in northern Uganda. In a longitudinal study, structured interviews with two hundred, randomly selected, pig-keeping households were undertaken three times with a six month interval. Questions related to family and pig herd demographics, pig trade and pig business. Associations between ASF outbreaks and economic and social impact variables were evaluated using linear regression models. The study showed that pigs were kept in extreme low-input-low-output farming systems involving only small monetary investments. Yearly incidence of ASF on household level was 19%. Increasing herd size was positively associated with higher economic output. The interaction between ASF outbreaks and the herd size showed that ASF outbreaks were negatively associated with economic output at the second interview occasion and with one out of two economic impact variables at the third interview occasion. No significant associations between the social impact variables included in the study and ASF outbreaks could be established. Trade and consumption of sick and dead pigs were coping strategies used to minimize losses of capital and animal protein. The results indicate that causality of social and economic impact of ASF outbreaks in smallholder systems is complex. Pigs are mostly kept as passive investments rather than active working capital, complicating economic analyses and further disqualifying disease control arguments based only on standard economic models.

After 27 years with no detected cases, an outbreak of anthrax occurred in a beef cattle herd in the south of Sweden. The outbreak was unusual as it occurred in winter, in animals not exposed to meat-and-bone meal, in a non-endemic country.The affected herd consisted of 90 animals, including calves and young stock. The animals were kept in a barn on deep straw bedding and fed only roughage. Seven animals died during 10 days, with no typical previous clinical signs except fever. The carcasses were reportedly normal in appearance, particularly as regards rigor mortis, bleeding and coagulation of the blood. Subsequently, three more animals died and anthrax was suspected at necropsy and confirmed by culture and PCR on blood samples.The isolated strain was susceptible to tetracycline, ciprofloxacin and ampicillin. Subtyping by MLVA showed the strain to cluster with isolates in the A lineage of Bacillus anthracis.Environmental samples from the holding were all negative except for two soil samples taken from a spot where infected carcasses had been kept until they were picked up for transport.The most likely source of the infection was concluded to be contaminated roughage, although this could not be substantiated by laboratory analysis. The suspected feed was mixed with soil and dust and originated from fields where flooding occurred the previous year, followed by a dry summer with a very low water level in the river allowing for the harvesting on soil usually not exposed. In the early 1900s, animal carcasses are said to have been dumped in this river during anthrax outbreaks and it is most likely that some anthrax spores could remain in the area.The case indicates that untypical cases in non-endemic areas may be missed to a larger extent than previously thought. Field tests allowing a preliminary risk assessment of animal carcasses would be helpful for increased sensitivity of detection and prevention of further exposure to the causative agent.

BackgroundIn addition to livestock movements, other between-farm contacts such as visitors may contribute to the spread of contagious animal diseases. Knowledge about such contacts is essential for contingency planning. Preventive measures, risk-based surveillance and contact tracing may be facilitated if the frequency and type of between-farm contacts can be assessed for different types of farms. The aim of this study was to investigate the frequency and types of visitors on farms with cloven-hoofed animals in Sweden and to analyse whether there were differences in the number of visitors attributable to region, season, and type of herd. Data were collected from Swedish farmers through contact-logs covering two-week periods during four different seasons.ResultsIn total, 482 (32%) farmers filled in the contact log for at least one period and the data represent 18,416 days. The average number of professional and non-professional visitors per day was 0.3 and 0.8, respectively. Whereas the number of professional visitors seemed to increase with increasing herd size, this relation was not seen for non-professional visits. The mean numbers of visitors per day were highest in the summer and in the farm category ‘small mixed farm’. Reports of the visitors’ degree of contact with the animals showed that veterinarians, AI-technicians, animal transporters and neighbours were often in direct contact with the animals or entered the stables and 8.8% of the repairmen were also in direct contact with animals, which was unexpected. In a multivariable analysis, species, herd size and season were significantly associated with the number of professional visitors as well as the number of visitors in direct contact with the animals.ConclusionIn conclusion there was a large variation between farms in the number and type of contacts. The number of visitors that may be more likely to spread diseases between farms was associated with animal species and herd size.

BackgroundOn-farm biosecurity is an important part of disease prevention and control, this applies to live animal contacts as well as indirect contacts e.g. via professionals visiting farms in their work. The objectives of this study were to investigate how professionals visiting animal farms in Sweden in their daily work perceive the on-farm conditions for biosecurity, the factors that influence their own biosecurity routines and what they describe as obstacles for biosecurity. Suggestions for improvements were also asked for. Questionnaires were distributed to professionals visiting farms in their daily work; veterinarians, livestock hauliers, artificial insemination technicians, animal welfare inspectors and cattle hoof trimmers. The sample was a convenience sample, based on accessibility to registers or collaboration with organisations distributing the questionnaire. Respondents were asked about the availability of certain biosecurity conditions related to farm visits, e.g. if facilities for hand washing were available, how important different factors were for their own routines and, through open ended questions, to describe obstacles and suggestions for improvement.ResultsAfter data cleaning, there were responses from 368 persons. There was a difference in the proportion of visited farms reported to have certain biosecurity measures in place related to animal species present on the farm. In general, visited pig farms had a higher proportion of biosecurity measures in place, whereas the conditions were poorer on sheep and goat farms and horse farms. There were also differences between the visitor categories; the perceived conditions for biosecurity varied between the groups, e.g. livestock hauliers did not have access to hand washing facilities as often as veterinarians did. In all groups, a majority of the respondents perceived obstacles for on-farm biosecurity, among veterinarians 66% perceived that there were obstacles. Many of the reported obstacles related to the very basics of biosecurity, such as access to soap and water. Responsibility was identified to be a key issue; while some farmers expect visitors to take responsibility for keeping up biosecurity they do not provide the adequate on-farm conditions.ConclusionsMany of the respondents reported obstacles for keeping good biosecurity related to on-farm conditions. There was a gap when it came to responsibility which needs to be clarified. Visitors need to take responsibility for avoiding spread of disease, while farmers need to assume responsibility for providing adequate conditions for on-farm biosecurity.