Search

Efficient traceability is paramount for Australia's biosecurity system and market access. Electronic identification (eID) offers higher traceability performance than that achieved with visual and mob‐based identification used for the sheep and goats National Livestock Identification System (NLIS). The current study aims to gain an understanding of the barriers and motivations of using eID for NLIS sheep and goats in New South Wales (NSW) and to provide recommendations to support the transition to eID. A social research study using a mixed‐methods approach was used through semi‐structured interviews and a cross‐sectional epidemiological and behavioural study among sheep and goat producers. The COM‐B behaviour change model based on capabilities, opportunities and motivations was used as a framework for the study. A total of 269 participants informed this study: 25 interviews were conducted with government, industry and private stakeholders, and 184 and 58 sheep and goat producers participated in the cross‐sectional study, respectively. The study identified poor understanding of the purpose and importance of NLIS among producers, with over two‐thirds not supporting eID implementation. The main barriers identified to the eID implementation were practical, including costs, technology quality and increased workload. Attitudinal, behavioural and knowledge barriers, such as the perception of the current system providing efficient traceability and the perceived lack of benefits of eID were also identified. This study provides an in‐depth analysis of practices and perceptions of stakeholders and producers on sheep and goat traceability and recommendations to address barriers identified, based on education and appropriate behavioural and technical support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Routine Bovine Viral Diarrhoea Virus (BVDV) monitoring of a commercial beef herd in southern New South Wales over a 10‐year period provided an opportunity to assess the impact of the introduction of BVDV on that herd. BVDV antibody testing provided strong evidence that the herd was initially free of BVDV (2009–2011). Testing from 2012 suggested BVDV had been introduced into the herd and this was confirmed in 2015 with the identification of persistently infected (PI) animals. Having become established in the herd, the owners then set out to eliminate BVDV from the herd. Antigen testing aimed at identifying PI animals revealed BVDV was already absent from the herd. Subsequent antibody testing confirmed that the herd was now free from BVDV. Despite the incursion of BVDV in this herd, there was little measurable impact on reproductive performance (pregnancy rates), although suspected increased calf losses from birth to calf marking were reported. This is the first time such self‐clearance has been documented as part of a longitudinal study under Australian conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bovine viral diarrhoea virus (BVDV) is an economically significant disease affecting the Australian cattle industry, with losses stemming from decreased production and reproductive performance and control costs. However, these losses can be difficult to appreciate, particularly in endemic regions. Overall, there is a variable but high herd‐level seroprevalence in Australia. Despite a potentially high financial burden of the disease, the onus for control ultimately falls on producers and strategies employed will vary between regions. A cross‐sectional study, using a postal survey, was conducted in 2013 to evaluate the BVDV knowledge, attitudes and management practices utilised by Australian cattle producers. A total of 192 producers participated in the study, and results indicate that knowledge and attitudes towards disease risk are variable and can be improved. Producer knowledge of how persistently infected (PI) animals are produced was higher than that of disease outcomes or transmission pathways. Implementation of biosecurity practices was limited, with approximately half of respondents employing quarantine procedures for introduced stock and only 2% indicating they would antigen test introduced stock for BVDV. Approximately a third (36%) of producers reported engaging in BVDV control, with the majority of these using vaccination strategies over deliberate exposure to a PI. Knowledge of and engagement with BVDV control was positively influenced by the producer relationships with veterinarians. Findings from this study suggest that building on education and delivering a consistent message among stakeholders would likely improve producer awareness and understanding in relation to BVDV and support decision making in BVDV management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Australia places great importance on the prevention and management of emergency animal diseases (EAD), with strict quarantine measures offshore and at the border. Livestock producers are crucial for disease control onshore; however, limited information is available on commercial livestock producers’ practices in relation to the management of disease risks. The aims of this paper are to investigate how commercial beef producers in Australia’s Northern and Southern beef zones manage EADs and to identify drivers for effective biosecurity and EAD prevention. This paper forms part of a broader mixed methods research project involving an analysis of literature and current policies, qualitative semi-structured interviews with government and industry stakeholders and a cross-sectional study among beef producers. The cross-sectional study used a postal survey (n = 182) and face-to-face interviews (n = 34) to gather data on beef producers’ knowledge and practices on biosecurity and EADs and their communication networks. Findings indicate that producers are uncertain about the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders involved in biosecurity and EAD management. This uncertainty may create confusion about EAD management and impact upon producers’ willingness to report animal disease, with over 20% reporting the last veterinary contact more than five years ago and an additional 8.5% who had never contacted a veterinarian. Producers had a generally high awareness of the key sources of animal disease risk and they prioritise herd health planning as part of their everyday practices. Over 40% of producers had limited knowledge of the meaning of EAD; and EAD and biosecurity planning was given a low priority, primarily due to the perceived limited likelihood of an EAD event in Australia and the belief that EAD prevention is primarily the role of government. Only a moderate implementation of biosecurity practices, such as isolating incoming animals, having a single property entry point or keeping visitors’ records was reported. If faced with an unusual disease event, most producers would contact their private or government veterinarian; however, in some instances most would also treat themselves and over a third would do nothing. Findings from this study suggest that there is a need for better coordination between stakeholders to encourage a shared biosecurity and EAD understanding and to communicate a consistent message to all stakeholders including producers. Further, there is a need for improving producer awareness of the importance of EAD prevention and biosecurity practices as well as the stakeholders’ roles within the broader animal health system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Extension and communication needs amongst small-scale pig producers, described as pig producers with less than 100 sows, have been previously identified. These producers, who are believed to pose a biosecurity risk to commercial livestock industries, are characterized by a lack of formal networks, mistrust of authorities, poor disease reporting behaviour and motivational diversity, and reliance on other producers, veterinarians and family for pig health and production advice. This paper applies stakeholder identification and analysis tools to determine stakeholders’ influence and interest on pig producers’ practices. Findings can inform a risk communication process and the development of an extension framework to increase producers’ engagement with industry and their compliance with biosecurity standards and legislation in Australia. The process included identification of stakeholders, their issues of concerns regarding small-scale pig producers and biosecurity and their influence and interest in each of these issues. This exercise identified the capacity of different stakeholders to influence the outcomes for each issue and assessed their success or failure to do so. The disconnection identified between the level of interest and influence suggests that government and industry need to work with the small-scale pig producers and with those who have the capacity to influence them. Successful biosecurity risk management will depend on shared responsibility and building trust amongst stakeholders. Flow-on effects may include legitimating the importance of reporting and compliance systems and the co-management of risk. Compliance of small-scale pig producers with biosecurity industry standards and legislation will reduce the risks of entry and spread of exotic diseases in Australia. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objectives Evaluate current disease surveillance activities at saleyards and abattoirs in New South Wales (NSW) in order to establish the prevalence of clinical anomalies in pigs at different sites and to compare the sensitivity of detecting anomalies inside versus outside of pens. Procedure Routine inspections of pigs by staff and government inspectors were observed at two saleyards and two abattoirs in NSW during three visits over a 2-month period (January 2008–March 2008). All pigs presented for sale or slaughter were examined for 19 clinical anomalies from either the side of the pen or while animals were moving outside the pen, with data being combined to give an assumed ‘gold standard’. We compared the prevalence of anomalies among animals at the four sites using logistic regression, as well as the sensitivity of detection of the two inspection methods. Results Frequency and methodology of routine inspection varied among sites. Of the 7747 pigs inspected, 822 (10.6%) showed at least one clinical anomaly. There was moderate agreement between detecting anomalies in penned pigs versus while being moved. Pigs at one abattoir exhibited significantly fewer anomalies than pigs at the other sites. Conclusion The prevalence of anomalies among pigs at saleyards and abattoirs in NSW was relatively high (≈10%). Weaknesses in current disease surveillance activities for pigs post-farmgate have been identified. Increased regulation, surveillance training and modification of standard operational procedures for inspection have the potential to improve the current system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract As of 2018, Australia has experienced seven outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in poultry since 1976, all of which involved chickens. There is concern that increases in free-range farming could heighten HPAI outbreak risk due to the potential for greater contact between chickens and wild birds that are known to carry low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI). We use mathematical models to assess the effect of a shift to free-range farming on the risk of HPAI outbreaks of H5 or H7 in the Australian commercial chicken industry, and the potential for intervention strategies to reduce this risk. We find that a shift of 25% of conventional indoor farms to free-range farming practices would result in a 6–7% increase in the risk of a HPAI outbreak. Current practices to treat water are highly effective, reducing the risk of outbreaks by 25–28% compared to no water treatment. Halving wild bird presence in feed storage areas could reduce risk by 16–19% while halving wild bird access of potential bridge-species to sheds could reduce outbreak risk by 23–25%, and relatively small improvements in biosecurity measures could entirely compensate for increased risks due to the increasing proportion of free-range farms in the industry. The short production cycle and cleaning practices for chicken meat sheds considerably reduce the risk that an introduced low pathogenic avian influenza virus is maintained in the flock until it is detected as HPAI through increased mortality of chickens. These findings help explain HPAI outbreak history in Australia and suggest practical changes in biosecurity practices that could reduce the risk of future outbreaks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The location of properties holding livestock is fluid; edging towards the boundaries of urban Australia, increasing the likelihood that veterinarians will be exposed to livestock as part of the provision of routine veterinary services. This study was conducted to ascertain the challenges, knowledge level and training needs of veterinarians working within this landscape, with the ultimate aim of informing the development of resources and training to better equip them in this capacity. For this purpose, a cross-sectional study, using a self-administered questionnaire was conducted among Australian veterinarians. The questionnaire comprised a mixture of 47 short closed, semi-closed and open-ended questions and was available for electronic distribution. Data was analysed descriptively and logistic regression analysis was used to identify potential factors associated with knowledge and practices of veterinarians in relation to smallholders. Complete responses were obtained from 91 veterinarians. The main livestock species kept by smallholder clients were sheep, goats, and cattle; with on-farm visits reported the most frequent interaction type, and responding to emergency situations the most frequently performed activity. The challenges experienced by veterinarians when working with smallholders were mostly related to external factors such as; lack of facilities, lack of client knowledge on animal health management and client’s financial constraints. Over 95% of respondents provided some level of biosecurity advice and zoonotic disease information as part of their routine veterinary service. Although veterinarians provide advice and support to smallholders, only 14.5% considered themselves to be highly influential on smallholder practices. Confidence level in investigating disease differed by livestock species, with lower confidence reported in pigs, poultry and alpaca. Respondents were open to receiving assistance to support smallholders on matters related to disease, welfare or biosecurity, with other veterinarians (government and private), reported as the most frequently utilised resource. Having access to materials that could be distributed to smallholders was considered to be an effective way in which to provide information. While the risk of zoonotic disease was considered a challenge associated with working with smallholders, respondent’s use of personal protective equipment (PPE), whilst performing common veterinary activities, was in many instances inadequate. Similarly, vaccination levels among veterinarians and other workers within the veterinary practice to prevent zoonotic diseases were variable. This study provides an insight into the way in which veterinarians engage with smallholders and highlight the importance of providing both groups with the tools necessary to manage the livestock to which are exposed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Smallholder livestock producers are a diverse population with wide ranging motivations for keeping livestock. The biosecurity risk posed by smallholders has been the subject of much conjecture, with comparisons often made between the level of animal health and biosecurity knowledge of smallholders, versus that of commercial livestock producers. This research aimed to gain a better understanding of current knowledge of smallholder production in Australia, particularly in relation to biosecurity and emergency animal disease, and to investigate the relationships that exist between smallholders and the organisations and individuals from which they seek information, assistance and support. Engagement with stakeholders is an important component of an effective biosecurity communication strategy as the dissemination of biosecurity related information from a single source cannot be expected to satisfy the needs of such a broad ranging population. A qualitative study involving a review of literature, semi-structured interviews with government and non-government stakeholders and the development of smallholder and stakeholder influence and interest grids was undertaken. This paper forms part of a broader mixed methods research project among smallholders. Results from the stakeholder analysis showed variation in the parameters used to define smallholders and in the level of stakeholder involvement. Smallholders identified breeding consultants, other producers, private veterinarians and family, friends and colleagues as having a significant to high level of interest and potential to influence their practices. Government agencies were perceived to only have some level of interest but significant influence. Industry stakeholders and rural suppliers were positioned in the quadrant reflecting perceived low levels of interest and influence. The interest and influence grid developed from stakeholder’s perspectives demonstrate a clustering around the mid points for both interest and influence, with the exception of those from industry who described low levels of interest and influence. Commonwealth and State government stakeholders reported a higher level of interest than influence. Veterinarians, both government and private, reported some to significant levels of interest and influence. In contrast to the results from the smallholder grid, rural suppliers reported relatively high levels of both interest and influence. The current study demonstrates that to maximise the effectiveness of biosecurity communication, there is a need for government and industry organisations to further engage with all stakeholders involved with smallholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Australian dairy goat sector is an emerging animal industry undergoing rapid expansion. Limited information is available within this industry in relation to socio-demographic characteristics and biosecurity implementation. Q-Fever, caused by the bacterium Coxiella burnetii , is a zoonotic disease endemic in Australia, with a range of domestic and wild-animal reservoir species, including goats, with infected pregnant goats posing a significant public health risk. The aim of the current study was to investigate the socio-demographics of Australian dairy goat producers, their biosecurity implementation and levels of understanding, knowledge and attitudes towards Q-Fever. To achieve this aim, a cross-sectional study was conducted, using an online survey and follow-up semi-structured interviews among dairy goat producers. A total of 106 goat producers participated in the online survey (35.3% response rate) and 14 participated in the semi-structured interviews. Findings from this study suggest that most goat producers implement biosecurity practices related to direct animal husbandry, such as separating sick goats (86%), vaccinations (79%) and providing separate kidding space (75%); and, practices minimizing the risk of disease introduction, such as maintaining boundary fences (86%) and isolating incoming animals (67%). However, implementation of other biosecurity practices, such as keeping records of visitors and visitor biosecurity requirements, was inadequate. Furthermore, this study identifies a deficit of knowledge and understanding surrounding Q-Fever in the Australian dairy goat sector, and a disconnect between producers' perception of risk and implementation of known appropriate biosecurity measures. The research has identified that producers rely on 'trusted' community networks to provide advice on biosecurity implementation, due to a perceived absence of industry-specific, reputable information sources. Producers identified those outside of these networks as the 'other'. The creation of this other allows producers to deflect responsibility for individual biosecurity on to the other. A multifaceted approach is necessary to increase knowledge, understanding and perception of risk surrounding Q-fever, and promote positive uptake of biosecurity measures, for improved outcomes for animal and human health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]