RESUMEN
The spread of infection amongst livestock depends not only on the traits of the pathogen and the livestock themselves, but also on the veterinary health behaviours of farmers and how this impacts their implementation of disease control measures. Controls that are costly may make it beneficial for individuals to rely on the protection offered by others, though that may be sub-optimal for the population. Failing to account for socio-behavioural properties may produce a substantial layer of bias in infectious disease models. We investigated the role of heterogeneity in vaccine response across a population of farmers on epidemic outbreaks amongst livestock, caused by pathogens with differential speed of spread over spatial landscapes of farms for two counties in England (Cumbria and Devon). Under different compositions of three vaccine behaviour groups (precautionary, reactionary, non-vaccination), we evaluated from population- and individual-level perspectives the optimum threshold distance to premises with notified infection that would trigger responsive vaccination by the reactionary vaccination group. We demonstrate a divergence between population and individual perspectives in the optimal scale of reactive voluntary vaccination response. In general, minimising the population-level perspective cost requires a broader reactive uptake of the intervention, whilst optimising the outcome for the average individual increased the likelihood of larger scale disease outbreaks. When the relative cost of vaccination was low and the majority of premises had undergone precautionary vaccination, then adopting a perspective that optimised the outcome for an individual gave a broader spatial extent of reactive response compared to a perspective wanting to optimise outcomes for everyone in the population. Under our assumed epidemiological context, the findings identify livestock disease intervention receptiveness and cost combinations where one would expect strong disagreement between the intervention stringency that is best from the perspective of a stakeholder responsible for supporting the livestock industry compared to a sole livestock owner. Were such discord anticipated and achieving a consensus view across perspectives desired, the findings may also inform those managing veterinary health policy the requisite reduction in intervention cost and/or the required extent of nurturing beneficial community attitudes towards interventions.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Transmisibles , Ganado , Animales , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles , Brotes de Enfermedades/prevención & control , Brotes de Enfermedades/veterinaria , Humanos , PolíticasRESUMEN
Human behaviour is critical to effective responses to livestock disease outbreaks, especially with respect to vaccination uptake. Traditionally, mathematical models used to inform this behaviour have not taken heterogeneity in farmer behaviour into account. We address this by exploring how heterogeneity in farmers vaccination behaviour can be incorporated to inform mathematical models. We developed and used a graphical user interface to elicit farmers (n = 60) vaccination decisions to an unfolding fast-spreading epidemic and linked this to their psychosocial and behavioural profiles. We identified, via cluster analysis, robust patterns of heterogeneity in vaccination behaviour. By incorporating these vaccination behavioural groupings into a mathematical model for a fast-spreading livestock infection, using computational simulation we explored how the inclusion of heterogeneity in farmer disease control behaviour may impact epidemiological and economic focused outcomes. When assuming homogeneity in farmer behaviour versus configurations informed by the psychosocial profile cluster estimates, the modelled scenarios revealed a disconnect in projected distributions and threshold statistics across outbreak size, outbreak duration and economic metrics.
Asunto(s)
Agricultores , Ganado , Humanos , Animales , Agricultores/psicología , Modelos Teóricos , Brotes de Enfermedades/prevención & control , Brotes de Enfermedades/veterinaria , Simulación por ComputadorRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Bovine viral diarrhoea virus (BVDV) causes substantial economic losses to the cattle industry; however, control and eradication can be achieved by identifying and removing persistently infected cattle from the herd. Each UK nation has separate control programmes. The English scheme, BVDFree, started in 2016 and is voluntary. METHODS: We analysed the test results submitted to BVDFree from 5847 herds between 2016 and 2020. RESULTS: In 2020, 13.5% of beef breeders and 20.0% of dairy herds that submitted tests had at least one positive (virus/antibody) test result. Although lower than in previous years, there was no clear trend in the proportion of positive tests over time. In virus testing herds, 0.4% of individual tests were positive in 2020, and 1.5% of individual tests were positive in BVDV-positive virus testing herds. Dairy herds and larger herds were more likely to join BVDFree, and dairy herds were also more likely to virus test than beef breeder herds. Larger herds, herds that used virus testing and herds that had BVDV-positive test results were more likely to continue submitting tests to BVDFree. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provide a benchmark for the status of BVDV control in England; continued analysis of test results will be important to assess progress towards eradication.
Asunto(s)
Diarrea Mucosa Bovina Viral , Enfermedades de los Bovinos , Virus de la Diarrea Viral Bovina , Animales , Anticuerpos Antivirales , Diarrea Mucosa Bovina Viral/diagnóstico , Diarrea Mucosa Bovina Viral/epidemiología , Diarrea Mucosa Bovina Viral/prevención & control , Bovinos , Diarrea/veterinaria , Inglaterra/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
AprV2 and aprB2 are variants of the apr gene of Dichelobacter nodosus, the cause of footrot in sheep. They are putative markers for severe and mild disease expression. The aim of our study was to investigate the distribution of aprV2 and aprB2 in flocks with and without footrot. Our hypotheses were that both strains are present in endemically affected flocks, with aprB2 and aprV2 associated with mild and virulent phenotypes respectively but that D. nodosus is not present in flocks without footrot. Alternatively, aprB2 persists in flocks without footrot. Despite extensive searching over 3 years only three flocks of sheep without footrot were identified. D. nodosus was not detected in these three flocks. In one further flock, only mild interdigital dermatitis was observed, and only aprB2 was detected. Twenty-four flocks with endemic footrot of all severities were sampled on three occasions and all were positive for D. nodosus and the aprV2 variant; aprB2 was detected in only 11 of these flocks. AprB2 was detected as a co-infection with aprV2 in the 22% of samples positive for aprB2 and was more likely in mild footrot phenotypes than severe. Dichelobacter nodosus serogroups were not associated with footrot phenotype. We conclude that D. nodosus, even aprB2 strains, do not persist in flocks in the absence of footrot. Our results support the hypothesis that aprB2 is associated with mild footrot phenotypes. Finally, we conclude that given the small number of flocks without footrot that were identified, footrot is highly endemic in English sheep flocks.
RESUMEN
We present the largest and most representative study of the serological diversity of Dichelobacter nodosus in England. D. nodosus causes footrot and is one of the top five globally important diseases of sheep. The commercial vaccine, containing nine serogroups, has low efficacy compared with bivalent vaccines. Our aim was to investigate the prevalence and distribution of serogroups of D. nodosus in England to elucidate whether a bivalent vaccine could protect the national flock. Farmers from 164 flocks submitted eight interdigital swabs from eight, preferably diseased, sheep. All serogroups, A-I, were detected by PCR in 687/1150 D. nodosus positive swabs, with a prevalence of 2.6-69.3% of positive swabs per serogroup. There was a median of two serogroups per flock (range 0-6). Serogroups were randomly distributed between, but clustered within, flocks, with 50 combinations of serogroups across flocks. H and B were the most prevalent serogroups, present in > 60% of flocks separately but in only 27% flocks together. Consequently, a bivalent vaccine targeting these two serogroups would protect 27% of flocks fully (if only H and B present) and partially, if more serogroups were present in the flock. We conclude that one bivalent vaccine would not protect the national flock against footrot and, with 50 combinations of serogroups in flocks, flock-specific vaccines are necessary.
Asunto(s)
Dichelobacter nodosus/genética , Panadizo Interdigital/microbiología , Serogrupo , Enfermedades de las Ovejas/microbiología , Animales , Inglaterra/epidemiología , Femenino , Panadizo Interdigital/epidemiología , Reacción en Cadena de la Polimerasa/veterinaria , Serotipificación/veterinaria , Ovinos/microbiología , Enfermedades de las Ovejas/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
Since 2006, farmers in England have received new recommendations on best practice to manage lameness in sheep through a range of knowledge exchange activities. The adoption of each recommendation varied, but in 2013 approximately 50% of farmers reported treating all lame sheep within 3 days of onset of lameness (prompt treatment), 41% did not practice routine foot trimming, 50% culled sheep that had been lame and 14% vaccinated against footrot; all recommended best practices. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of lameness in ewes in England from 2013 to 2015 and to identify changes in practice to manage lameness between 2013 and 2015 and the population attributable fraction for these managements. A longitudinal study with a cohort of 154 English sheep farmers was run for three years, farmers completed questionnaires on lameness in their flock for the previous 12 months in 2013, 2014 and 2015. The geometric mean prevalence of lameness in ewes was 4.1% in 2015, significantly higher than 3.3% and 3.2% for the same 128 farmers who provided data in both 2013 and 2014. Between 2013 and 2015 there was a significant reduction in farmers practising prompt treatment (50.6%-28.6%) but an increase in not practising routine foot trimming (40.9%-79.2%), culling sheep that had been lame (49.4%-81.8%), and vaccinating against footrot (14.3%-29.2%). Not practising prompt treatment, ≥5% of sheep feet bleeding during routine foot trimming, vaccinating ewes for <6 years or not vaccinating at all, and other flocks mixing with the flock, were associated with a significantly higher flock prevalence of lameness. Culling sheep that had been lame was not associated with prevalence of lameness. The population attributable fractions (PAFs) for not vaccinating for>5 years, not treating lame sheep promptly, ≥5% of sheep feet bleeding during routine foot trimming, and mixing of flocks were 34.5%, 25.3%, 2.9% and 2.4%. In 2013, when 50% of farmers used prompt treatment, the PAF for not using prompt treatment was only 13.3%. We conclude that the change in practice by these farmers towards flock-level managements and a reduction in individual prompt treatment of lame sheep negatively impacted the prevalence of lameness in sheep. This change occurred despite the evidence that prompt treatment of lame sheep is highly effective at reducing the prevalence of lameness in sheep flocks and is an example of cognitive dissonance.