Assessing the Impact of On-Farm Biosecurity Coaching on Farmer Perception and Farm Biosecurity Status in Belgian Poultry Production
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design
2.2. Farm Selection and Recruitment
2.3. Farmer Data Collection
2.3.1. Quantification of Farm Biosecurity
2.3.2. ADKAR® Profiling of Farmers
2.4. Coaching Methodology
2.5. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Farm and Farmer Characteristics
3.2. Biosecurity
3.3. ADKAR® Profiles
3.4. Uptake of Actions
3.5. Biosecurity Adoption
3.6. Attitude Change
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Dewulf, J.; Van Immerseel, F. General principles of biosecurity in animal production and veterinary medicine. In Biosecurity in Animal Production and Veterinary Medicine: From Principles to Practice; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2018; pp. 63–76. [Google Scholar]
- Vaillancourt, J.-P. Can we talk? The role of communication in regional disease control. Rev. Can. d’Aviculture 2009, 96, 16–18. [Google Scholar]
- Van Limbergen, T.; Dewulf, J.; Klinkenberg, M.; Ducatelle, R.; Gelaude, P.; Méndez, J.; Heinola, K.; Papasolomontos, S.; Szeleszczuk, P.; Maes, D. Scoring biosecurity in European conventional broiler production. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 74–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Garzon, A.; Portillo, R.; Habing, G.; Silva-Del-Rio, N.; Karle, B.M.; Pereira, R.V. Antimicrobial stewardship on the dairy: Evaluating an on-farm framework for training farmworkers. J. Dairy Sci. 2023, 106, 4171–4183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bleich, E.G.; Pagani, P.; Honhold, N. Progress towards practical options for improving biosecurity of small-scale poultry producers. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 2009, 65, 211–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lohr, J.A.; Ingram, D.L.; Dudley, S.M.; Lawton, E.L.; Donowitz, L.G. Hand washing in pediatric ambulatory settings. An inconsistent practice. Am. J. Dis. Child. 1991, 145, 1198–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wurtz, R.; Moye, G.; Jovanovic, B. Handwashing machines, handwashing compliance, and potential for cross-contamination. Am. J. Infect. Control 1994, 22, 228–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conly, J.M.; Hill, S.; Ross, J.; Lertzman, J.; Louie, T.J. Handwashing practices in an intensive care unit: The effects of an educational program and its relationship to infection rates. Am. J. Infect. Control 1989, 17, 330–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Racicot, M.; Venne, D.; Durivage, A.; Vaillancourt, J.P. Evaluation of strategies to enhance biosecurity compliance on poultry farms in Québec: Effect of audits and cameras. Prev. Vet. Med. 2012, 103, 208–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tilli, G.; Galuppo, F.; Grilli, G.; Laconi, A.; Piccirillo, A. Experiences of Coaching as Supporting Measure to Improve Biosecurity in Italian Poultry Farms. 2023. Available online: https://air.unimi.it/handle/2434/999403 (accessed on 10 December 2023).
- Tilli, G.; Laconi, A.; Galuppo, F.; Mughini-Gras, L.; Piccirillo, A. Assessing biosecurity compliance in poultry farms: A survey in a densely populated poultry area in north east Italy. Animals 2022, 12, 1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collineau, L.; Stärk, K.D.C. How to motivate farmers to implement biosecurity measures. In Biosecurity in Animal Production and Veterinary Medicine: From Principles to Practice, 1st ed.; Dewulf, J., Van Immerseel, F., Eds.; Acco Uitgeverij: Leuven, Belgium, 2018; pp. 96–113. [Google Scholar]
- Caekebeke, N.; Ringenier, M.; Jonquiere, F.J.; Tobias, T.J.; Postma, M.; van den Hoogen, A.; Houben, M.A.; Velkers, F.C.; Sleeckx, N.; Stegeman, A. Coaching belgian and dutch broiler farmers aimed at antimicrobial stewardship and disease prevention. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcdante, K.; Simpson, D. Choosing when to advise, coach, or mentor. J. Grad. Med. Educ. 2018, 10, 227–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Garforth, C. Livestock keepers’ reasons for doing and not doing things which governments, vets and scientists would like them to do. Zoonoses Public Health 2015, 62, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kristensen, E.; Jakobsen, E.B. Danish dairy farmers’ perception of biosecurity. Prev. Vet. Med. 2011, 99, 122–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Delabbio, J. How farm workers learn to use and practice biosecurity. J. Ext. 2006, 44, 6FEA1. [Google Scholar]
- Davies, R.H.; Wray, C. Observations on disinfection regimens used on Salmonella enteritidis infected poultry units. Poult. Sci. 1995, 74, 638–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jimenez, C.E.P.; Keestra, S.; Tandon, P.; Cumming, O.; Pickering, A.J.; Moodley, A.; Chandler, C.I. Biosecurity and water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions in animal agricultural settings for reducing infection burden, antibiotic use, and antibiotic resistance: A One Health systematic review. Lancet Planet. Health 2023, 7, e418–e434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Houben, M.A.M.; Caekebeke, N.; van den Hoogen, A.; Ringenier, M.; Tobias, T.J.; Jonquiere, F.J.; Sleeckx, N.; Velkers, F.C.; Stegeman, J.A.; Dewulf, J.; et al. The ADKAR® change management model for farmer profiling with regard to antimicrobial stewardship in livestock production. Vlaams Diergeneeskd. Tijdschr. 2020, 89, 309–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amalraj, A.; Van Meirhaeghe, H.; Lefort, A.-C.; Rousset, N.; Grillet, J.; Spaans, A.; Devesa, A.; Sevilla-Navarro, S.; Tilli, G.; Piccirillo, A. Factors Affecting Poultry Producers’ Attitudes towards Biosecurity. Animals 2024, 14, 1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gelaude, P.; Schlepers, M.; Verlinden, M.; Laanen, M.; Dewulf, J. Biocheck. UGent: A quantitative tool to measure biosecurity at broiler farms and the relationship with technical performances and antimicrobial use. Poult. Sci. 2014, 93, 2740–2751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alloui, N.; Sellaoui, S.; Ayachi, A.; Bennoune, O. Evaluation of biosecurity practices in a laying hens farm using Biocheck. UGent. Multidiscip. Sci. J. 2021, 3, 2021014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caekebeke, N.; Jonquiere, F.J.; Ringenier, M.; Tobias, T.J.; Postma, M.; Van den Hoogen, A.; Houben, M.A.; Velkers, F.C.; Sleeckx, N.; Stegeman, J.A. Comparing farm biosecurity and antimicrobial use in high-antimicrobial-consuming broiler and pig farms in the Belgian–Dutch border region. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 558455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cuc, N.T.K.; Dinh, N.C.; Quyen, N.T.L.; Tuan, H.M. Biosecurity level practices in pig and poultry production in Vietnam. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2020, 8, 1068–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibrahim, N.; Chantziaras, I.; Chakma, S.; Islam, S.S.; Amalraj, A.; Caekebeke, N.; Ferreira, H.d.C.; Dewulf, J. Biocheck.UGent: A Risk-Based Tool to Assess the Status of Biosecurity in Backyard Poultry in Low-and Middle-Income Countries. 2023. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4617694 (accessed on 10 December 2023).
- Ibrahim, N.; Chantziaras, I.; Mohsin, M.A.S.; Boyen, F.; Fournié, G.; Islam, S.S.; Berge, A.C.; Caekebeke, N.; Joosten, P.; Dewulf, J. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of antimicrobial usage and biosecurity on broiler and Sonali farms in Bangladesh. Prev. Vet. Med. 2023, 217, 105968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tanquilut, N.C.; Espaldon, M.V.O.; Eslava, D.F.; Ancog, R.C.; Medina, C.D.R.; Paraso, M.G.V.; Domingo, R.D. Biosecurity assessment of layer farms in Central Luzon, Philippines. Prev. Vet. Med. 2020, 175, 104865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanquilut, N.C.; Espaldon, M.V.O.; Eslava, D.F.; Ancog, R.C.; Medina, C.D.R.; Paraso, M.G.V.; Domingo, R.D.; Dewulf, J. Quantitative assessment of biosecurity in broiler farms using Biocheck.UGent in Central Luzon, Philippines. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 3047–3059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Amalraj, A.; van Meirhaeghe, H.; Caekebeke, N.; Creve, R.; Lefort, A.-C.; Rousset, N.; Spaans, A.; Devesa, A.; Tilli, G.; Piccirillo, A. Development and use of Biocheck. UGentTM scoring system to quantify biosecurity in conventional indoor (turkey, duck, breeder) and free-range (layer and broiler) poultry farms. Prev. Vet. Med. 2024, 230, 106288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hiatt, J. ADKAR: A Model for Change in Business, Government, and Our Community; Prosci: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Shepherd, M.L.; Harris, M.L.; Chung, H.; Himes, E.M. Using the Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement Model to build a shared governance culture. J. Nurs. Educ. Pract. 2014, 4, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tilli, G.; Laconi, A.; Galuppo, F.; Grilli, G.; Żbikowski, A.; Amalraj, A.; Piccirillo, A. Supporting Measures to Improve Biosecurity within Italian Poultry Production. Animals 2024, 14, 1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, L.; Irvine, L. Tasmanian dairy farmers and the pasture management learning process: Case study findings on the role of coaching in achieving practice change. Rural. Ext. Innov. Syst. J. 2017, 13, 31–40. [Google Scholar]
- Gosling, R.; Martelli, F.; Wintrip, A.; Sayers, A.; Wheeler, K.; Davies, R. Assessment of producers’ response to Salmonella biosecurity issues and uptake of advice on laying hen farms in England and Wales. Br. Poult. Sci. 2014, 55, 559–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brennan, M.L.; Christley, R.M. Cattle producers’ perceptions of biosecurity. BMC Vet. Res. 2013, 9, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ellis-Iversen, J.; Cook, A.J.; Watson, E.; Nielen, M.; Larkin, L.; Wooldridge, M.; Hogeveen, H. Perceptions, circumstances and motivators that influence implementation of zoonotic control programs on cattle farms. Prev. Vet. Med. 2010, 93, 276–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Garforth, C. Effective communication to improve udder health: Can social science help? In Udder Health and Communication; Hogeveen, H., Lam, T.J.G.M., Eds.; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 55–66. [Google Scholar]
- Garforth, C.J.; Bailey, A.P.; Tranter, R.B. Farmers’ attitudes to disease risk management in England: A comparative analysis of sheep and pig farmers. Prev. Vet. Med. 2013, 110, 456–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- van Staaveren, N.; Leishman, E.M.; Adams, S.M.; Wood, B.J.; Harlander-Matauschek, A.; Baes, C.F. Housing and Management of Turkey Flocks in Canada. Animals 2020, 10, 1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lam, T.J.; Jansen, J.; van den Borne, B.H.; Renes, R.J.; Hogeveen, H. What veterinarians need to know about communication to optimise their role as advisors on udder health in dairy herds. N. Z. Vet. J. 2011, 59, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaarst, M.; Nissen, T.B.; Østergaard, S.; Klaas, I.C.; Bennedsgaard, T.W.; Christensen, J. Danish stable schools for experiential common learning in groups of organic dairy farmers. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 2543–2554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roche, S.M.; Jones-Bitton, A.; Meehan, M.; Von Massow, M.; Kelton, D.F. Evaluating the effect of Focus Farms on Ontario dairy producers’ knowledge, attitudes, and behavior toward control of Johne’s disease. J. Dairy. Sci. 2015, 98, 5222–5240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cui, B.; Liu, Z.P. Determinants of knowledge and biosecurity preventive behaviors for highly pathogenic avian influenza risk among Chinese poultry farmers. Avian Dis. 2016, 60, 480–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Scott, A.B.; Singh, M.; Groves, P.; Hernandez-Jover, M.; Barnes, B.; Glass, K.; Moloney, B.; Black, A.; Toribio, J.A. Biosecurity practices on Australian commercial layer and meat chicken farms: Performance and perceptions of farmers. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0195582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Elliott, J.; Sneddon, J.; Lee, J.A.; Blache, D. Producers have a positive attitude toward improving lamb survival rates but may be influenced by enterprise factors and perceptions of control. Livest. Sci. 2011, 140, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Enticott, G.; Franklin, A.; Van Winden, S. Biosecurity and food security: Spatial strategies for combating bovine tuberculosis in the UK. Geogr. J. 2012, 178, 327–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jansen, J.; Wessels, R.J.; Lam, T.J.G.M. Understanding the mastitis mindset: Applying social psychology in practice. In Proceedings of the National Mastitis Council 55th Annual Meeting, Glendale, AZ, USA, 30 January–2 February 2016; pp. 5–15. [Google Scholar]
- Nespeca, R.; Vaillancourt, J.P.; Morrow, W.E. Validation of a poultry biosecurity survey. Prev. Vet. Med. 1997, 31, 73–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kristensen, E.; Jakobsen, E.B. Challenging the myth of the irrational dairy farmer; understanding decision-making related to herd health. N. Z. Vet. J. 2011, 59, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richens, I.F.; Houdmont, J.; Wapenaar, W.; Shortall, O.; Kaler, J.; O’Connor, H.; Brennan, M.L. Application of multiple behaviour change models to identify determinants of farmers’ biosecurity attitudes and behaviours. Prev. Vet. Med. 2018, 155, 61–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pike, T. Understanding Behaviours in a Farming Context: Bringing Theoretical and Applied Evidence Together from across Defra and Highlighting Policy Relevance and Implications for Future Research; Food, and Rural Affairs: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Szulanski, G. Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 1996, 17, 27–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- East, I. Adoption of biosecurity practices in the Australian poultry industries. Aust. Vet. J. 2007, 85, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pritchard, K.; Wapenaar, W.; Brennan, M.L. Cattle veterinarians’ awareness and understanding of biosecurity. Vet. Rec. 2015, 176, 546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sewell, A.; Gray, D.; Blair, H.; Kemp, P.; Kenyon, P.; Morris, S.; Wood, B. Hatching new ideas about herb pastures: Learning together in a community of New Zealand farmers and agricultural scientists. Agric. Syst. 2014, 125, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Souillard, R.; Allain, V.; Dufay-Lefort, A.C.; Rousset, N.; Amalraj, A.; Spaans, A.; Zbikowski, A.; Piccirillo, A.; Sevilla-Navarro, S.; Kovács, L. Biosecurity implementation on large-scale poultry farms in Europe: A qualitative interview study with farmers. Prev. Vet. Med. 2024, 224, 106119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olsen, S.J.; Laosiritaworn, Y.; Pattanasin, S.; Prapasiri, P.; Dowell, S.F. Poultry-handling practices during avian influenza outbreak, Thailand. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2005, 11, 1601–1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mankad, A. Psychological influences on biosecurity control and farmer decision-making. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 36, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cardwell, J.M.; Van Winden, S.; Beauvais, W.; Mastin, A.; De Glanville, W.A.; Hardstaff, J.; Booth, R.E.; Fishwick, J.; Pfeiffer, D.U. Assessing the impact of tailored biosecurity advice on farmer behaviour and pathogen presence in beef herds in England and Wales. Prev. Vet. Med. 2016, 135, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chomyn, O.; Wapenaar, W.; Richens, I.F.; Reyneke, R.A.; Shortall, O.; Kaler, J.; Brennan, M.L. Assessment of a joint farmer-veterinarian discussion about biosecurity using novel social interaction analyses. Prev. Vet. Med. 2023, 212, 105831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raasch, S.; Collineau, L.; Postma, M.; Backhans, A.; Sjölund, M.; Belloc, C.; Emanuelson, U.; Beilage, E.g.; Stärk, K.; Dewulf, J. Effectiveness of alternative measures to reduce antimicrobial usage in pig production in four European countries. Porc. Health Manag. 2020, 6, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Burns, T.; Guerin, M.; Kelton, D.; Ribble, C.; Stephen, C. On-farm Study of Human Contact Networks to Document Potential Pathways for Avian Influenza Transmission between Commercial Poultry Farms in Ontario, Canada. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2011, 58, 510–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Carvalho Ferreira, H.C.; Tilli, G.; Amalraj, A.; Van Meirhaeghe, H.; Rousset, N.; Grillet, J.; Dewulf, J.; Piccirillo, A.; Wauters, E. Costs of improving biosecurity in poultry holdings, after applying different supporting measures, in seven European countries. In Proceedings of the ISVEE 2024, Sydney, Australia, 11–15 November 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Bryk, A.S. Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform. Educ. Leadersh. 2003, 60, 40. [Google Scholar]
Demographic Variables | N= | % | Awareness Score | Desire Score | Knowledge Score | Ability Score | External Biosecurity Score | Internal Biosecurity Score | Total Biosecurity Score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
± SD | ± SD | ± SD | ± SD | ± SD | ± SD | ± SD | |||
Age group | |||||||||
<35 years old | 3 | 23.1 | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 3.7 ± 0.6 a | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 64.3 ± 4.2 a | 67.0 ± 14.0 a | 65.0 ± 2.6 a |
35–50 years old | 3 | 23.1 | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 3.7 ± 0.6 a | 64.3 ± 2.1 a | 81.3 ± 6.7 a | 69.3 ± 2.3 a |
>50 years old | 7 | 53.8 | 3.9 ± 0.4 a | 3.9 ± 0.4 a | 3.6 ± 0.8 a | 3.9 ± 0.4 a | 67.3 ± 9.4 a | 67.4 ± 8.4 a | 67.0 ± 7.5 a |
Gender | |||||||||
Male | 10 | 76.9 | 3.9 ± 0.3 a | 3.9 ± 0.3 a | 3.6 ± 0.7 a | 3.8 ± 0.4 a | 64.9 ± 7.2 a | 68.4 ± 9.8 a | 65.9 ± 6.1 a |
Female | 3 | 23.1 | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 69.3 ± 6.7 a | 77.7± 12.1 a | 71.0 ± 1.0 a |
Education | |||||||||
Primary school | 1 | 7.7 | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 56.0 ± 00 a | 58.0 ± 00 a | 57.0 ± 00 a |
Secondary school | 11 | 84.6 | 3.9 ± 0.3 a | 3.9 ± 0.3 a | 3.8 ± 0.4 b | 3.8 ± 0.4 a | 65.8 ± 6.2 a | 72.3 ± 10.6 a | 67.6 ± 5.2 a |
University | 1 | 7.7 | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 77.0 ± 00 a | 64.0 ± 00 a | 71.0 ± 00 a |
Production type | |||||||||
Enclosed broiler | 4 | 30.8 | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 3.3 ± 1.0 a | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 64.3 ± 7.0 a | 61.8 ± 7.5 a | 63.5 ± 5.3 a |
Enclosed layer | 2 | 15.4 | 3.5 ± 0.7 a | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 67.5 ± 13.4 a | 61.0 ± 4.2 a | 64.5 ± 9.2 a |
Breeder | 4 | 30.8 | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 3.8 ± 0.5 a | 3.8 ± 0.5 a | 3.5 ± 0.6 a | 67.3 ± 9.2 a | 76.3 ± 6.7 a,b | 69.8 ± 5.7 a |
Turkey | 2 | 15.4 | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 65.0 ± 0.0 a | 81.0 ± 5.7 a,b | 69.0 ± 1.4 a |
Free-range layer | 1 | 7.7 | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 4.0 ± 0.0 a | 66.0 ± 0.0 a | 87.0 ± 0.0 b | 72.0 ± 0.0 a |
No. | % | |
---|---|---|
No adoption of any AP in the farm | 1 | 7.7 |
Adoption of minimum one AP in the farm | 12 | 92.3 |
13 | 100 |
Categories for Improvement | N= | List of Action Plans * | Number of Farms (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Agreed a | Adopted b | Planning for Future | |||
Site infrastructure | 1 | Protect farm site with fences | 3 (23) | 1 (33) | |
2 | Cement floor to improve drainage | 1 (8) | 1 (100) | ||
3 | Improve rodent control | 3 (23) | 1 (33) | 1 (33) | |
4 | Avoid other livestock/pets on site | 4 (31) | 2 (50) | ||
5 | Avoid other poultry (hobby birds also) on site | 2 (15) | 1 (50) | ||
6 | Roof repair | 1 (8) | 1 (100) | ||
7 | Cover winter garden | 1 (8) | 1 (100) | ||
8 | Close ventilation outlet | 1 (8) | 0 | ||
Site entrance | 1 | Park car away from poultry house | 2 (15) | 0 | 2 (100) |
2 | Distinction between clean and dirty road | 2 (15) | 0 | ||
3 | Minimize/control visitors | 3 (23) | 1 (33) | ||
4 | No entry for drivers/suppliers into houses | 3 (23) | 1 (33) | ||
5 | Warning signs: “STOP” | 2 (15) | 1 (50) | ||
6 | Accessibility only via hygiene lock for visitors/staff | 2 (15) | 0 | ||
7 | Farm hygiene lock installation | 2 (15) | 0 | ||
8 | Disinfection bath/foot washer installation | 4 (31) | 4 (100) | ||
9 | Regular replenishment of disinfection bath | 2 (15) | 2 (100) | ||
Staff/visitors | 1 | Personnel limited to one specific farm | 5 (38) | 1 (20) | |
2 | Hand washing/hand sanitizer used | 2 (15) | 1 (50) | ||
3 | Gloves for dirty work (e.g., carcass collection) | 2 (15) | 2 (100) | ||
4 | Clean overalls and boots for visitors/staff | 3 (23) | 1 (33) | ||
Purchase policy | 1 | Buying from same supplier | 2 (15) | 2 (100) | |
2 | Reduce the chick delivery frequency | 1 (8) | 1 (100) | ||
3 | Replacement males to be tested at spiking | 1 (8) | 1 (100) | ||
Transport and depopulation | 1 | Reduce depopulation steps | 2 (15) | 0 | |
2 | Clean and disinfect crates and containers upon arrival | 5 (38) | 5 (100) | ||
3 | Clean and disinfect shared catching machine | 1 (8) | 1 (100) | ||
4 | Clean overalls and boots for catching crew | 1 (8) | 1 (100) | ||
5 | Clean and disinfect loading area | 1 (8) | 1 (100) | ||
6 | Clean and disinfect egg trucks upon arrival c | 2 (15) | 2 (100) | ||
Feed and water supplies | 1 | Clean feed spillage immediately | 1 (8) | 1 (100) | |
2 | Water analysis | 2 (15) | 1 (50) | ||
3 | Water treatment | 2 (15) | 0 | ||
Flock management | 1 | Reduce stocking density | 2 (15) | 2 (100) | |
2 | Maintain same age group in all houses | 4 (31) | 1 (25) | 1 (25) | |
3 | New vaccination | 2 (15) | 1 (50) | ||
4 | Necropsy of culled and dead birds | 1 (8) | 1 (100) | ||
Cleaning and disinfection | 1 | Design a protocol with vets | 2 (15) | 0 | |
2 | Use detergent during wet cleaning | 1 (8) | 1 (100) | ||
3 | Clean and disinfect of litter spreading machines | 1 (8) | 0 | ||
4 | Heat treatment for mite control | 3 (23) | 3 (100) | ||
5 | Disinfect egg room after every collection d | 2 (15) | 0 | 1 (50) | |
6 | Clean and disinfect silo | 3 (23) | 0 | 1 (33) | |
7 | Clean and disinfect waterlines | 1 (8) | 0 | ||
8 | Clean and disinfect materials (buckets and equipment) | 1 (8) | 1 (100) | ||
Measures between houses | 1 | Use recognizable, separate, color-coded materials | 3 (23) | 1 (33) | |
2 | House hygiene lock installation | 3 (23) | 2 (67) | ||
3 | Use clean house-specific overalls and boots | 1 (8) | 0 | ||
4 | Disinfection bath/mat installation | 1 (8) | 1 (100) | ||
TOTAL | 49 | 36 | 5 |
Farm | Production Type | Validation Phase Days (Months) | Adopted Actions n= | Total Biosecurity Score (%) before Coaching | Total Biosecurity Score (%) after Coaching | Change in Biosecurity Score (+/− Points) | Change in ADKA Score | Reinforcement Score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | EB | 152 (4.9) | 4 | 57 | 60 | +3 | No *** | 3 |
2 | EB | 223 (7.3) | 2 | 64 | 68 | +4 | No * | 4 |
3 | EB | 108 (3.5) | 3 | 70 | 75 | +5 | No * | 4 |
4 | EB | 122 (4.0) | 3 | 63 | 68 | +5 | Yes ** | 4 |
5 | EL | 191 (6.2) | 4 | 71 | 72 | +1 | No * | 4 |
6 | EL | 382 (12.5) | 8 | 58 | 65 | +7 | Yes ** | 3 |
7 | BR | 196 (6.4) | 5 | 68 | 71 | +3 | Yes ** | 4 |
8 | BR | 189 (6.2) | 2 | 68 | 73 | +5 | No * | 4 |
9 | BR | 138 (4.5) | 4 | 65 | 66 | +1 | No *** | 3 |
10 | BR | 209 (6.9) | 0 | 78 | 78 | - | No * | 4 |
11 | TU | 136 (4.7) | 6 | 70 | 72 | +2 | No * | 4 |
12 | TU | 243 (7.9) | 4 | 68 | 71 | +3 | No * | 4 |
13 | LFR | 142 (4.6) | 4 | 72 | 75 | +3 | No * | 4 |
Main Categories | Before Coaching | After Coaching | p-Value | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Median | Min | Max | Mean | SD | Median | Min | Max | ||
External biosecurity (EB) | 65.9 | 7.1 | 65 | 56 | 81 | 69.1 | 6.2 | 69 | 58 | 81 | 0.003 |
Internal biosecurity (IB) | 70.5 | 10.6 | 70 | 53 | 87 | 73.8 | 8.4 | 74 | 63 | 87 | 0.012 |
Total biosecurity (TB) | 67.1 | 5.7 | 68 | 57 | 78 | 70.3 | 5.7 | 71 | 60 | 78 | 0.002 |
Awareness | Desire | Knowledge | Ability | Reinforcement | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LOW | HIGH | LOW | HIGH | LOW | HIGH | LOW | HIGH | LOW | HIGH | ||
Poultry Farmers (n = 13) | Before coaching | 1 | 12 | 1 | 12 | 3 | 10 | 2 | 11 | - | - |
After coaching | 0 | 13 | 1 | 12 | 2 | 11 | 1 | 12 | 3 | 10 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Amalraj, A.; Van Meirhaeghe, H.; Chantziaras, I.; Dewulf, J. Assessing the Impact of On-Farm Biosecurity Coaching on Farmer Perception and Farm Biosecurity Status in Belgian Poultry Production. Animals 2024, 14, 2498. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14172498
Amalraj A, Van Meirhaeghe H, Chantziaras I, Dewulf J. Assessing the Impact of On-Farm Biosecurity Coaching on Farmer Perception and Farm Biosecurity Status in Belgian Poultry Production. Animals. 2024; 14(17):2498. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14172498
Chicago/Turabian StyleAmalraj, Arthi, Hilde Van Meirhaeghe, Ilias Chantziaras, and Jeroen Dewulf. 2024. "Assessing the Impact of On-Farm Biosecurity Coaching on Farmer Perception and Farm Biosecurity Status in Belgian Poultry Production" Animals 14, no. 17: 2498. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14172498