Ugandan cattle farmers’ perceived needs of disease prevention and strategies to improve biosecurity

Abstract

Background Infectious diseases are an important role obstacle to high productivity in Ugandan cattle production. General disease prevention is particularly important in low-income countries, where veterinary services and adequate treatment regimens for many infectious diseases are insufficient. Improved biosecurity could lead to improved animal health and production with lower mortality and better reproductive rates. Any sustainable biosecurity interventions must be feasible for the farmers, from a practical as well as social and cultural aspect. An understanding of the farmers’ view of biosecurity and the diseases it is intended to prevent is also needed. The aim of the study was to explore the perceived needs of Ugandan cattle farmers as regards disease prevention, tools and strategies for improved biosecurity, and to assess the feasibility of basic biosecurity practices, in order to contribute to long-term strategies for improved livestock management. We conducted two rounds of focus group (FG) discussions about infectious diseases and biosecurity with cattle farmers in the districts Kabarole, Kamwenge and Kasese in western Uganda. Results A thematic analysis revealed four organising themes: Disease prevention and biosecurity practices, Knowledge among farmers and other actors, Community and peer pressure and Services and infrastructure. From these four organising themes, a global theme of “Biosecurity is a common effort based on collective knowledge” could be derived. Diseases represent a loss of income and wealth for farmers. Lack of knowledge, training and education among farmers were seen as a challenge. While there were claims during the first round of FGs that many biosecurity measures would be impossible to practise, in all follow-up FGs at least someone had tried. Perceived barriers for implementing biosecurity were financial and cultural. Experiences that were shared were that practising biosecurity measures had made their cattle healthier, but it also incurred extra costs. Conclusion The perceived needs of farmers that emerged include knowledge, access to veterinary services, resources and community involvement for a broader implementation of basic biosecurity. There is potential for improved cattle production by educating farmers about infectious diseases and disease prevention measures. Such training should be participatory, involve communities and encourage participants to overcome practical and cultural obstacles. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12917-019-1961-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Antimicrobial Usage Factors and Resistance Profiles of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli in Backyard Production Systems From Central Chile

“…A gap in the knowledge is recognized in terms of AM usage in BPS ( 82 , 83 ), leading to a potential misuse of AM in these settings. AM usage as disease preventers under BPS or similar low technification productive systems is well described ( 84 , 85 ), based on the socio-economic impact of this animal housekeeping production ( 10 ). Other use reported is as growth promoters, reported in small-scale poultry production systems improving feed conversion ratios and overall productivity ( 63 , 86 ), even when it has been banned in several countries, including Chile ( 87 , 88 ).…”

Perception of farmers about endometritis prevention and control measures for zero-grazed dairy cows on smallholder farms in Rwanda

“…In Rwandan comprehensive wealth-ranking system criteria [53], the sample farmers were in the group classified as poor to very poor. Because they are the most vulnerable, resource-poor farmers, they have low capacity to implement the MIs [17]. This is corroborated [54] in Canadian dairy farms where a significant barrier to implementing prevention strategies for Johne's disease was the cost to build facilities, hire more labor, and purchase the recommended equipment.…”

“…This means that treating the condition is not a solution; it is necessary to implement effective prevention and control measures [12,14]. Management interventions (MIs) that prevent the introduction and reduce the spread of disease-causing agents into and off the herd are critical components of the herd health program [17][18][19].…”

Reasons for and barriers to biosafety and biosecurity training in health-related organizations in Africa, Middle East and Central Asia: findings from GIBACHT training needs assessments 2018-2019

“…Institutional commitment is important for biosafety [ 20 ]. In a study among Ugandan cattle farmers on perceived strategies to improve biosecurity, participants mentioned that absence of support from government, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other partners affected their adequate practice of biosecurity [ 21 ]. Another study conducted among workshop attendees on biosafety and biosecurity in Pakistan also revealed nonexistence of national regulatory control [ 22 ].…”