RESUMEN
In 2019/2020, Australia experienced a severe bushfire event, with many tens of thousands of livestock killed or euthanized. Little systematic research has occurred to understand livestock bushfire injuries, risk factors for injury, or how to make decisions about management of bushfire-injured livestock. Addressing this research gap is important as there is an increasing bushfire incidence globally. This paper presents qualitative research findings about bushfire-injured and killed livestock in the south-east of Australia after the 2019/2020 Australian bushfires. We describe observed pathology, treatments used, and risk factors for injury, then use thematic analysis to understand decision making about managing fire-injured livestock. Livestock injured by the fires showed pathology predominantly associated with the common integument (feet, hooves and skin) and signs of acute respiratory damage. It could take several days for the full extent of burns to become apparent, leaving prognostic doubt. Treatment strategies included immediate euthanasia, salvage slaughter, retention for later culling, treatment and recovery on farm, hospitalization and intensive treatment, or no intervention. Risk factors reported for livestock injury included lack of warnings about an impending fire, the type and amount of vegetation around livestock and the weather conditions on the day the fire reached livestock. Moving stock to an area with little vegetation before fire arrived was seen as protective. Decision making regarding injured livestock appeared influenced by three main themes: (1) observations on the severity of pathology, clinical signs and level of prognostic doubt, (2) pre-existing beliefs about animal welfare (responsibility to minimize unnecessary suffering) and (3) assumptions about the future. The management of livestock was largely appropriate due to the rapid provision of veterinary expertise. However, it is likely that some injured livestock were euthanized due to conservative veterinary advice driven by a lack of opportunity to re-assess stock, with impacts on farmers. In future, resourcing regular revisits of injured livestock to manage risks of gradual progression of burn pathology may facilitate more accurate prognostic assessment, provided injured animals can receive appropriate pain relief. In addition, a more comprehensive burns classification system linked to prognosis that can be rapidly applied in the field may assist assessments.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Q fever remains an important notifiable, zoonotic disease in Australia. Previous epidemiological reviews have noted increased importance of non-abattoir contact with livestock and native/feral animals. Changes to surveillance in New South Wales (NSW) have provided enhanced surveillance data with which to examine exposure pathways. METHODS: Descriptive analysis of NSW Q fever notification data for the period 2005-2015, with detailed analysis of exposures for the period 2011-2015 (after introduction of improvements to surveillance). RESULTS: Between 2005 and 2015, 1,653 confirmed cases of Q fever were notified in NSW residents who acquired the disease in this state. For the period 2011-2015, a high-risk occupation was reported in 345/660 (52.3%) of notifications with a known occupation. Of 641 cases with a known animal exposure, 345 (53.8%) had direct contact with livestock, while 62 (9.7%) had indirect contact with livestock (e.g. proximity to livestock, livestock holding areas or trucks). Direct or indirect contact with native/feral animals was reported in 111/641 (17.3%) cases. Mowing and close proximity to kangaroos/wallabies were commonly reported indirect exposure pathways, particularly in urban areas. CONCLUSIONS: Enhancements to the state based surveillance database in NSW introduced in 2010 have resulted in improved collection of surveillance data for Q fever. Further refinement of Q fever surveillance can be achieved through continuing to improve data quality, standardising data collection and better elucidating exposure pathways of cases.
