Factors Affecting Poultry Producers' Attitudes towards Biosecurity.

Poultry producers' attitudes towards biosecurity practices were assessed by using the ADKAR® (Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement) behavioral change model. Conventional poultry producers (n = 155) from different production types including broilers (n = 35), layers (n = 22), breeders (n = 24), turkeys (n = 19), ducks (n = 23), free-range broilers (n = 11), free-range layers (n = 11), and hatcheries (n = 10) from seven European countries were scored for each ADKAR element (1 = total absence to 5 = perfect fulfilment). Each country performed selected interventions (e.g., coaching, participatory meetings, etc.) to improve biosecurity compliance. After the interventions, significant change was observed in three of the four attitude elements. The overall mean scores (x¯ ± SD) obtained during the initial assessment (n = 130) were 4.2 ± 0.6 for Awareness, 4.1 ± 0.7 for Desire, 3.8 ± 0.8 for Knowledge, and 4.0 ± 0.7 for Ability, whereas after intervention, the scores were A = 4.3 ± 0.6, D = 4.2 ± 0.7, K = 4.1 ± 0.7, and Ab = 4.1 ± 0.7. The Reinforcement component was only evaluated after the change and obtained a score of 3.7 ± 0.7 on average. Identifying the elements influencing poultry producers and their behavior related to farm management decisions was useful in guiding our educational interventions to effectively change their behavior.

Biosecurity implementation on large-scale poultry farms in Europe: A qualitative interview study with farmers.

Biosecurity is an essential tool for rearing healthy animals. Biosecurity measures (BMs) are well known in poultry production, but it is difficult to assess actual implementation on farms. The aims of this qualitative study were (1) to provide an overview of biosecurity implementation according to poultry farmers in Europe; and (2) to better understand the reported reasons and potential obstacles for not implementing the measures. In seven European Union Member States, 192 farmers (118 under contract with a company and 68 independents) working in seven different categories of poultry production were interviewed on 62 BMs to determine the frequency of implementation and the reasons for non-implementation. Most of the replies (n = 7791) concerning BM implementation were reported by the farmers as "always" implemented (81%), statistically higher for breeders (87%) and layers (82%) and lower for independent farms versus farms under contract with a company (79.5% and 82.5%, respectively). Regardless the poultry production category, the most frequently implemented BMs declared by the farmers were daily surveillance of birds, rodent control and feed storage protection. Standard hygiene practices were also mentioned as high-implementation measures for most production categories, with some deficiencies, such as rendering tank disinfection after each collection and, for meat poultry, disinfection of the feed silo and bacterial control of house cleaning and disinfection between each cycle. The entry of vehicles and individuals onto poultry farms, especially during critical points of eggs collection for breeders and layers, as well as the presence of other animals, such as the "all in/all out" practice, particularly in layers and ducks, were also reported as the least commonly practiced measures. The main reasons for not implementing the measures (n = 1683 replies) were low awareness and poor knowledge of the expected benefits of biosecurity ("no known advantages" 14%, and "not useful" 12%), the lack of training ("not enough training" 5% and "advice" 7%), lack of time (19%), and financial aspects (17%). Despite the good overall biosecurity mentioned by the farmers, these findings highlight certain deficiencies, suggesting room for improvement and the need for targeted and tailored support of poultry farmers in Europe.

Effect of Pig Synthetic Pheromones and Positive Handling of Pregnant Sows on the Productivity of Nursery Pigs.

Weaning is one of the most important stress events in the life of pigs, increasing the risk for health problems and reduced performance. The release of pheromones in pig stables can be considered an environmental enrichment and alleviate the negative effects of weaning stress in nursery pigs. The present study investigated the effect of synthetic pheromones on the performance of nursery pigs. The effect of positive handling of sows in the farrowing house on the performance of the offspring in the nursery was also investigated. The study was performed in a commercial pig farm and included 24 batches of weaned piglets (216 piglets per batch). Half of the batches originated from sows exposed to positive handling. This implied that music was played from 6.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. from the moment the sows entered the farrowing house until weaning and that they were subjected to backscratching from the day they entered the farrowing unit the day of farrowing. During the nursery period, half of the batches were treated, and half served as controls. Piglets of treated groups were exposed to a synthetic analog of the maternal pig appeasing pheromone (PAP) (SecurePig®, Signs, Avignon, France). The product consisted of a gel block from which the pheromones were slowly released into the room. Different performance parameters were measured during the nursery period. Neither the sow treatment nor the treatment with pheromones significantly influenced the performance of the piglets during the nursery period (p > 0.05). The median values (95% confidence interval) of average daily gain, namely 318 (282-338) vs. 305 (272-322) g/day, feed conversion ratio, namely 1.64 (1.51-1.71) vs. 1.70 (1.57-1.75), and number of antimicrobial treatment days, namely 16.9 (9.6-25.0) vs. 17.3 (9.5-25.0) days, were numerically better in the nursery pigs exposed to the pheromones compared to the control groups. Mortality however was numerically higher in the treated groups, namely 4.4 (2.8-6.8) vs. 3.2 (0.9-4.2)%. Under the conditions of the present production system, pigs exposed to the pheromone treatment during the nursery did not show a significant performance increase.

Monitoring biosecurity in poultry production: an overview of databases reporting biosecurity compliance from seven European countries.

Compliance with required on-farm biosecurity practices reduces the risk of contamination and spread of zoonotic and economically important diseases. With repeating avian influenza epidemics in the poultry industry, the need to monitor and improve the overall level of biosecurity is increasing. In practice, biosecurity compliance is assessed by various actors (e.g., academic, private and public institutions), and the results of such assessments may be recorded and gathered in databases which are seldom shared or thoroughly analyzed. This study aimed to provide an inventory of databases related to the assessment of biosecurity in poultry farms in seven major poultry-producing European countries to highlight challenges and opportunities associated with biosecurity data collection, sharing, and use. The institutions in charge of these databases were contacted and interviewed using a structured questionnaire to gather information on the main characteristics of the databases and the context of their implementation. A total of 20 databases were identified, covering the gamut of poultry species and production types. Most databases were linked to veterinary health authorities or academia, and to a lesser extent interbranch organizations. Depending on the institutions in charge, the databases serve various purposes, from providing advice to enforcing regulations. The quality of the biosecurity data collected is believed to be quite reliable, as biosecurity is mostly assessed by trained farm advisors or official veterinarians and during a farm visit. Some of the databases are difficult to analyze and/or do not offer information concerning which biosecurity measures are most or least respected. Moreover, some key biosecurity practices are sometimes absent from certain databases. Although the databases serve a variety of purposes and cover different production types, each with specific biosecurity features, their analysis should help to improve the surveillance of biosecurity in the poultry sector and provide evidence on the benefits of biosecurity.