Risk assessment as a tool for improving external biosecurity at farm level

BMC Veterinary Research

Magdalena Jacobson²  Karin Persson Waller¹  Per Wallgren¹  Madeleine Tråvén²  Claes Fellström²  Marianne Elvander¹  Stefan Alenius²  Julia Österberg¹  Susanna Sternberg Lewerin³ 

[1] National Veterinary Institute, Uppsala, 75189, Sweden;Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, 75007, Sweden;Department of Biomedical Sciences and Veterinary Public Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, 75007, Sweden

关键词: Model;    Disease introduction;    Livestock;    Infectious disease;    Risk assessment;    On-farm biosecurity;   

Others  :  1224403
DOI  :  10.1186/s12917-015-0477-7

 received in 2015-03-20, accepted in 2015-07-13,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Biosecurity routines at herd level may reduce the probability of introduction of disease into the herd, but some measures may be regarded as expensive and cumbersome for the farmers. Custom-made measures based on individual farm characteristics may aid in improving the actual application of on-farm biosecurity.

The aim of the study was to provide a tool for calculating the effects of different biosecurity measures and strategies on the individual farm level.

A simple model was developed to assess the risk of disease introduction and the need for biosecurity measures in individual farms. To illustrate the general applicability of the tool, it was applied to theoretical examples of Swedish cattle and pig farms and diseases endemic in those animal species in the EU, in two scenarios with different between-farm contact patterns.

Results

The model illustrated that the most important factors affecting the risk, and the effect of biosecurity measures such as quarantine routines and protective clothing, were the frequency of between-farm contacts and prevalence of the disease. The risk of introduction as well as the effect of biosecurity measures differed between farm types and disease transmission routes. Adapting contact patterns to mitigate a specific disease risk was as important as biosecurity measures for some farm types, but the largest effect was seen when combining biosecurity measures with more planned contact patterns.

Conclusions

The risk assessment model proved useful for illustrating the risk of introduction of endemic diseases and the mitigating effect of different biosecurity measures on farm level. Model outputs could be used to justify prioritisation of measures or adapting contact patterns. The theoretic exercise of adjusting model inputs and comparing outputs may help veterinary advisors to understand farm-specific risks and motivate farmers to improve biosecurity in their individual farm, as it can be tailored to each farmer’s needs and preferences.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Lewerin et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Mee FJ, Geraghty T, O’Neill R, More SJ. Bioexclusion from dairy and beef farms: Risks of introducing infectious agents and risk reduction strategies. Vet J. 2010; 94:143-50.
• [2]Rovid Spickler A, Roth JA, Galyon J, Lofstedt J. Emerging and exotic diseases of animals. 4th ed. Centre for Food Security and Public Health Iowa State University, Ames; 2010.
• [3]Austin CC, Weigek RM, Hungerford LL, Biehl LRG. Factors affecting the risk of infection with pseudorabies virus in Illinois swine herds. Prev Vet Med. 1993; 17:161-73.
• [4]Van Schaik G, Schukken YH, Nielen M, Dijkhuizen AA, Benedictus G. Risk factors for introduction of BHV1 into BHV1-free Dutch dairy farms: A case-control study. Vet Q. 2001; 23:71-6.
• [5]Evans CM, Medley GF, Green LE. Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) in GB pig herds: farm characteristics associated with heterogeneity of seroprevalence. BMC Vet Res. 2008; 4:48. BioMed Central Full Text
• [6]Ohlson A, Heuer C, Lockhart C, Tråven M, Emanuelson U, Alenius S. Risk factors for seropositivity to bovine coronavirus and bovine respiratory syncytial virus in dairy herds. Vet Rec. 2010; 167:201-7.
• [7]Lambert M-E, Arsenault J, Polkak Z, D’Allaire S. Epidemiological investigations in regard to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) in Quebec, Canada. Part 2:prevalence and risk factors in breeding sites. Prev Vet Med. 2012; 104:84-93.
• [8]Wallgren P. First out to ban feed additives in 1986. Veterinary challenges within Swedish pig production. Part I: Use of antimicrobials and respiratory diseases. Pig J. 2009; 62:43-51.
• [9]Wallgren P. First out to ban feed additives in 1986. Veterinary challenges within Swedish pig production. Part II: Intestinal and miscellaneous diseases. Pig J. 2009; 62:52-60.
• [10]Ortiz-Pelaez A, Pfeiffer D. Use of data mining techniques to investigate disease risk classification as a proxy for compromised biosecurity of cattle herds in Wales. BMC Vet Res. 2008; 4:24. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]SANCO. Animal Health Law. 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/animal-health-proposal-2013_en.htm. Accessed 12 Jan 2015.
• [12]Swedish Board of Agriculture. Veterinära författningshandboken, K112. 2014. http://www.jordbruksverket.se/download/18.2ae27f0513e7888ce22800010291/1369377313559/2013-014.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2015.
• [13]Kristensen E, Jakobsen EB. Danish dairy farmers’ perception of biosecurity. Prev Vet Med. 2011; 99:122-9.
• [14]Dorea FC, Berghaus R, Hofacre C, Cole DJ. Survey of biosecurity protocols and practices adopted by growers on commercial poultry farms in Georgia, U. S. A. Avian Dis. 2010; 54:1007-15.
• [15]Racicot M, Venne D, Durivage A, Vaillancourt J-P. Evaluation of strategies to enhance biosecurity compliance on poultry farms in Québec: Effects of audits and cameras. Prev Vet Med. 2012; 103:208-18.
• [16]Cook A. Implementing biosecurity on dairy farms: Rewriting the ‘cultural script’. Vet J. 2013; 197:118-9.
• [17]Nöremark M, Sternberg LS. On-farm biosecurity as perceived by professionals visiting Swedish farms. Acta Vet Scand. 2014; 56:28. BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]Beskow P, Gunnarsson A, Holmgren N, Robertsson JÅ. Treponema hyodysenteriae I svenska avels och smågrisproducernade besättningar. Sv Vet Tidn. 1991; 43:343-8.
• [19]Wallgren P, Artursson K, Fossum C, Alm GV. Incidence of infections in pigs bred for slaughter revealed by elevated serum levels of interferon and development of antibodies to Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae and Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae. J Vet Med B. 1993; 40:1-12.
• [20]Fellström C, Gunnarsson A, Wierup M. Diagnostik och bekämpning av svindysenteri I Sverige. Sv Vet Tidn. 2000; 52:865-70.
• [21]Hägglund S, Svensson C, Emanuelson U, Valarcher JF, Alenius S. Dynamics of infections involved in the bovine respiratory disease complex in Swedish dairy herds. Vet J. 2006; 172:320-8.
• [22]Klem TB, Gulliksen SM, Lie K-I, Løken T, Østerås O, Stokstad M. Bovine respiratory syncytial virus: infection dynamics within and between herds. Vet Rec. 2013; 173:476.
• [23]Vose D. Risk analysis, a quantitative guide. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester; 2000.
• [24]Ohlson A, Alenius S, Tråven M, Emanuelson U. A longitudinal study of the dynamics of bovine coronavirus and respiratory syncytial virus infections in dairy herds. Vet J. 2013; 197:395-400.
• [25]Nöremark M, Frössling J, Sternberg LS. A survey of visitors on Swedish livestock farms with reference to the spread of animal diseases. BMC Vet Res. 2013; 9:184. BioMed Central Full Text
• [26]Weinstein N. What does it mean to understand a risk? Evaluating risk comprehension. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999;25.
• [27]Racicot M, Venne D, Durivage A, Vaillancourt J-P. Evaluation of the relationship between personality traits, experience, education and biosecurity compliance on poultry farms in Québec, Canada. Prev Vet Med. 2012; 103:201-7.
• [28]Laanen M, Maes D, Hendriksen C, Gelaude P, De Vlieger S, Rosseel Y et al.. Pig, cattle and poultry farmers with a known interest in research have comparable perspectives on disease prevention and on-farm biosecurity. Prev Vet Med. 2014; 115:1-9.
• [29]Enticott G, Vanclay F. Scripts, animal health and biosecurity: the moral accountability of farmers’ talk about animal health risks. Health Risk Soc. 2011; 13:293-309.
• [30]Amass SF, Mason PW, Pacheco JM, Miller CA, Ramirez A, Clark LK et al.. Procedures for preventing transmission of foot-and-mouth disease virus (O/TAW/97) by people. Vet Microbiol. 2004; 103:143-9.
• [31]Ribbens S, Dewulf J, Koenen F, Maes D, de Kruif A. Evidence of indirect transmission of classical swine fever virus through contacts with people. Vet Rec. 2007; 160:687-90.
• [32]Elbers ARW, Stegeman JA, de Jong MCM. Factors associated with the introduction of classical swine fever virus into pig herds in the central area of the 1997/98 epidemic in the Netherlands. Vet Rec. 2012; 149:377-82.
• [33]Gunn GJ, Heffernan C, Hall M, McLeod A, Hovi M. Measuring and comparing constraints to improved biosecurity amongst GB farmers, veterinarians and the auxiliary industries. Prev Vet Med. 2008; 84:310-23.
• [34]Heffernan C, Nielsen L, Thomson K, Gunn G. An exploration of the drivers to bio-security collective action among a sample of UK cattle and sheep farmers. Prev Vet Med. 2008; 87:358-72.
• [35]Firestone S, Lewis FI, Schemann K, Ward MP, Toribio J-ALML, Taylor MR et al.. Applying Bayesian network modelling to understand the links between on-farm biosecurity practice during the 2007 equine influenza outbreak and horse managers’ perceptions of a subsequent outbreak. Prev Vet Med. 2013; 116:243-51.