Preventing and mitigating farmed bivalve disease: a Northern Ireland case study

Abstract

Shellfish production forms a large proportion of marine aquaculture production in Northern Ireland (NI). Diseases represent a serious threat to the maintenance and growth of shellfish cultivation with severe consequences to production output and profitability. In Northern Ireland, production generally benefits from a good health status with the absence of notifiable diseases, except for localised cases of Bonamia ostreae, Marteilia refringens and ostreid herpes virus. In this paper, we qualitatively explore that the prevalence, risk, impact, mitigation and experience shellfish farmers in this region have in relation to disease. Sixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders within the sector. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, and Nvivo 12 was used to facilitate an inductive thematic analysis. Our results highlighted that the industry has varying attitudes and experiences with disease. At present-day temperatures, disease is not an issue and this provides vast market opportunities for the region. However, disease outbreaks have led to detrimental consequences to financial income, production output and reputation in the past, whilst control and mitigation remain reactive. It is imperative proactive disease prevention and control that are employed and enforced to sustain NI’s reputation as a healthy shellfish region, particularly under increasing global temperatures and intensified production systems. A cultural shift to disease appreciation, risk analysis and surveillance through research, education, training and collaboration is essential. This study highlights the importance of providing a bottom-up communication platform with the stakeholders directly involved in shellfish culture and management, the value of cross sector engagement and the need to improve knowledge transfer between science the sector.

A 20-year retrospective review of global aquaculture

“…Food safety risks are therefore high for molluscs cultivated in polluted environments. Moreover, the introduction of large densities of filter-feeding bivalves to a habitat, whether in suspended or bottom culture, has the potential to impart negative changes in the water quality and benthic ecosystems (for example, depletion of phytoplankton and seston, and localized increases in sedimentation rates through bio-deposition) and can present serious disease risks 96,97…”

A systematic review of social research data collection methods used to investigate voluntary animal disease reporting behaviour

“…Where studies looked at reporting for all diseases across a sector, interviews took a broad approach, often not directly referring to disease reporting. For instance, the open‐ended interview schedule in Fox et al.’s (2020) study of shellfish in Northern Ireland covers a range of biosecurity related issues and enables the authors to report generic attitudes and behaviours pertaining to disease reporting. From this, Fox et al.…”

“…From this, Fox et al. (2020) report how farmers’ perceptions of stress, predation and luck mean that dead oysters are not reported and thrown away despite requirements to report them. Similarly, two studies by Sawford et al.…”

“…to disease reporting. For instance, the open-ended interview schedule inFox et al's (2020) study of shellfish in Northern Ireland covers a range of biosecurity related issues and enables the authors to report generic attitudes and behaviours pertaining to disease reporting.From this,Fox et al (2020) report how farmers' perceptions of stress, predation and luck mean that dead oysters are not reported and thrown away despite requirements to report them. Similarly, two studies bySawford et al (2012Sawford et al ( , 2013 examined veterinarians' decision making about diagnostic submissions in Canada and Sri Lanka.…”

Factors influencing the performance of voluntary farmer disease reporting in passive surveillance systems: A scoping review

“…These include (1) farmer uncertainty around clinical signs and situations to report, (2) fear over the social stigma and economic consequences from both true positive and false positive reports, (3) negative beliefs regarding the efficacy and outcomes of disease control measures, (4) lack of trust and dissatisfaction with animal health authorities, (5) absence of sufficiently attractive financial and non-financial incentives to submit disease notifications, and (6) poor awareness of the different channels that can be used to submit reports to animal health authorities. The common underlying thread across multiple studies, species, and countries is the need for collaboration between animal health authorities, farmers, and veterinarians to develop clear guidelines on when and how to report disease concerns, what response they can expect from animal health authorities, and what measures are in place to minimise the economic and social impacts on their business (Fox, Christley, Lupo, Moore, & Campbell, 2020;Garza, Ågren, & Lindberg, 2020).…”