Assessment of Cleaning and Disinfection Practices on Pig Farms across Ten European Countries.

This study delves into the assessment of cleaning and disinfection (C&D) measures within the context of European pig farming, employing the Biocheck.UGent™ tool as an effective instrument for evaluation. A comprehensive set of relevant parameters was examined to enable meaningful comparisons across farms from 10 European countries during four years (2019-2022). Findings indicate a notable increase in C&D measure implementation in select countries (Belgium, Finland, Italy, and Spain), reflecting heightened awareness and responsibility among farmers. Additionally, the overall score for the C&D subcategory highlights variation across countries, with Italy (75), Poland (74), and Belgium (72) displaying the highest scores, while Ireland (56), Slovenia (55), and Serbia (50) reported the lowest scores. However, the considerable variation in the number of participating farms necessitates cautious comparisons. The study identifies well-implemented C&D measures in the frame of external biosecurity but underscores gaps in the application of C&D measures for the material introduction practices across farms (22% of farms), which are attributed to awareness gaps and resource limitations. In the areas of internal biosecurity, strong points include C&D procedures after each production cycle (79%), implementing different stages in the C&D process (65%) and sufficient sanitary break (82%), while gaps are evident in the presence and using of hand hygiene stations (19% of farms) and boots disinfection equipment (40% of farms) between compartments/units. Notably, the study reveals a lack of evaluation of hygiene after C&D procedures (only 1% of farms), signaling critical knowledge gaps among farmers regarding proper assessment tools and methods. In conclusion, this comprehensive analysis sheds light on the implementation status of C&D measures in European pig farming, offering insights into both areas of progress and those requiring improvement. The findings emphasize the need for targeted awareness campaigns and training initiatives to bolster biosecurity practices within the industry.

The Role of Wildlife and Pests in the Transmission of Pathogenic Agents to Domestic Pigs: A Systematic Review.

Wild animals and pests are important reservoirs and vectors of pathogenic agents that can affect domestic pigs. Rapid globalization, anthropogenic factors, and increasing trends toward outdoor pig production facilitate the contact between domestic pigs and wildlife. However, knowledge on the transmission pathways between domestic pigs and the aforementioned target groups is limited. The present systematic review aims to collect and analyze information on the roles of different wild animal species and pests in the spread of pathogens to domesticated pigs. Overall, 1250 peer-reviewed manuscripts published in English between 2010 and 2022 were screened through the PRISMA framework using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. A total of 84 studies reporting possible transmission routes of different pathogenic agents were included. A majority of the studies (80%) focused on the role of wild boars in the transmission of pathogenic agents to pig farms. Studies involving the role of rodents (7%), and deer (6%) were the next most frequent, whereas the role of insects (5%), wild carnivores (5%), wild birds (4%), cats (2%), and badgers (1%) were less available. Only 3.5% of studies presented evidence-based transmission routes from wildlife to domestic pigs. Approximately 65.5% of the included studies described possible risks/risk factors for pathogens' transmission based on quantitative data, whereas 31% of the articles only presented a hypothesis or qualitative analysis of possible transmission routes or risk factors and/or contact rates. Risk factors identified include outdoor farms or extensive systems and farms with a low level of biosecurity as well as wildlife behavior; environmental conditions; human activities and movements; fomites, feed (swill feeding), water, carcasses, and bedding materials. We recommend the strengthening of farm biosecurity frameworks with special attention to wildlife-associated parameters, especially in extensive rearing systems and high-risk zones as it was repeatedly found to be an important measure to prevent pathogen transmission to domestic pigs. In addition, there is a need to focus on effective risk-based wildlife surveillance mechanisms and to raise awareness among farmers about existing wildlife-associated risk factors for disease transmission.

Can Improved Farm Biosecurity Reduce the Need for Antimicrobials in Food Animals? A Scoping Review.

Limited and judicious antimicrobial usage (AMU) is considered the key to saving the success of human and veterinary medicine in treating infections. With the limited alternatives for antimicrobials, farm biosecurity (and herd management) is considered a promising tool to mitigate the non-judicious AMU and to maintain animal health, production, and welfare. The present scoping review aims to analyse the effect of farm biosecurity on AMU in livestock systems and formulate recommendations. Peer-reviewed manuscripts published between 2001-2022 were analyzed using the PRISMA framework using PubMed, Scopus, and Science Direct databases. After applying the inclusion criteria, 27 studies were found to assess the effect of farm biosecurity (or management practices) on AMU at the herd/farm level in quantitative/semi-quantitative terms. These studies were carried out in 16 countries, of which 74.1% (20/27) were from 11 European countries. The highest number of studies were from pig farms [51.8% (14/27)], followed by poultry (chicken) farms [25.9% (7/27)], cattle farms [11.1% (3/27)], and a single study from a turkey farm. Two studies include both pig and poultry farms. Most of the studies were cross-sectional [70.4% (19/27)], seven were longitudinal, and one was a case-control study. Complex interactions were observed among factors influencing AMU, such as biosecurity measures, farm characteristics, farmers' attitudes, availability of animal health services, stewardship, etc. A positive association between farm biosecurity and reduction in AMU was observed in 51.8% (14/27) of the studies, and 18.5% (5/27) showed that improvement in farm management practices was associated with a reduction in AMU. Two studies highlighted that coaching and awareness among farmers might lead to a decrease in AMU. A single study on economic assessment concluded biosecurity practices as a cost-effective way to reduce AMU. On the other hand, five studies showed an uncertain or spurious association between farm biosecurity and AMU. We recommend the reinforcement of the concept of farm biosecurity, especially in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Further, there is a need to strengthen the evidence on the association between farm biosecurity and AMU in region- and species-specific farm settings.