Animal Health Management Practices Among Smallholder Livestock Producers in Australia and Their Contribution to the Surveillance System

Abstract

The risks posed for disease introduction and spread are believed to be higher for smallholder livestock producers than commercial producers. Possible reasons for this is the notion that smallholders do not implement appropriate animal health management practices and are not part of traditional livestock communication networks. These factors contribute to the effectiveness of passive disease surveillance systems. A cross-sectional study, using a postal survey ( n = 1,140) and group interviews (28 participants in three groups), was conducted to understand the animal health management and communication practices of smallholders keeping sheep, cattle, pigs, dairy goats and alpacas in Australia. These practices are crucial for an effective passive surveillance system. Findings indicate that there is a need for improvement in animal health management practices, such as contact with veterinarians and attitudes toward reporting. Results also indicate that these practices differ depending on the livestock species kept, with sheep ownership being associated with lower engagement with surveillance activities and smallholders keeping dairy goats and alpacas having in general better practices. Other factors associated with surveillance practices among participant smallholders are gender and years of experience raising livestock. Despite the differences observed, over 80% of all smallholders actively seek information on the health of their livestock, with private veterinarians considered to be a trusted source. Emergency animal diseases are not a priority among smallholders, however they are concerned about the health of their animals. The finding that veterinarians were identified by producers to be the first point of contact in the event of unusual signs of disease, strengthens the argument that private veterinarians play a vital role in improving passive surveillance. Other producers are also a point of contact for animal health advice, with government agencies less likely to be contacted. The effectiveness of on-farm passive surveillance could be enhanced by developing strategies involving both private veterinarians and producers as key stakeholders, which aim to improve awareness of disease and disease reporting responsibilities.

Assessing Biosecurity Risks for the Introduction and Spread of Diseases Among Commercial Sheep Properties in New South Wales, Australia, Using Foot-and-Mouth Disease as a Case Study

“…Taylor et al ( 9 ) and the qualitative interviews indicate that personal hygiene for visitors when handling animals is of low priority to sheep producers (16.6 and 0.05%, respectively), and these results are similar to those among commercial beef producers, with approximately 14% of producers applying personal hygiene practices to prevent disease spread. Interestingly, this percentage was higher (approximately 40%) among smallholder livestock producers ( 10 , 11 ). These findings suggest that these practices can be improved among livestock producers, and therefore, it is recommended that personal clothing and equipment are properly disinfected between properties to limit the transmission of disease.…”

“…The study used data from a qualitative study with a cohort of 12 sheep commercial producers, which gathered information to support the development of the models, describing the pathways of exposure and spread of FMD and for estimating the input parameters to populate these models. Data from previous studies among commercial and smallholder sheep producers were also considered when populating the models to increase the validity and representativeness of the estimates ( 9 , 11 ).…”

“…Recently, other studies have also assessed biosecurity attitudes and practices of cattle producers ( 10 ) and smallholder livestock producers ( 11 ). Findings indicate that the lack of coordination and collaboration across agencies and organizations in relation to emergency animal disease (EAD) activities ( 12 ) has resulted in confusion from a cattle producer perspective.…”

The importance of understanding end user acceptability of new technology to support animal health management

“…Sheep producers have been identified in previous research to have less contact with private veterinarians . Given that the aim of the app is to strengthen the producer–veterinarian relationship, sheep producers were considered to be an important group to include.…”

Veterinarians’ Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Associated with Bovine Viral Diarrhoea Virus Control and Prevention in South-East Australia

“…In addition, we also acknowledge that veterinarians' knowledge of how clients employ measures to control BVDV might only reflect clients with close working relationships with their veterinarians, rather than producers who, for example, have small farms that require less veterinary input or only engage veterinary services for emergency reasons. Studies have shown the producers with good working relationships with veterinarians and prior knowledge are more likely to engage in discussion and follow advice [33,47,48]. Although sample size was small, the aim of this survey was to gain a range of responses from veterinarians, rather than a statistically significant consensus.…”