INVESTIGATING THE BIOSECURITY MEASURES’ APPLICATIONS IN POULTRY FARMS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OCCURENCE OF AVIAN INFLUENZA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26873/SVR-1451-2021Keywords:
biosecurity, poultry farms, avian influenza, warning sings, motor using, changing shoesAbstract
Biosecurity application in poultry farms means measures or practices which limit or prevent the spread of many harmful pathogens onto or out of the farm. When teamed with disinfection and sanitation procedures, biosecurity practices can eradicate or reduce pathogens to noninfectious levels and this illustrate that prevention is better than cure. Such preventive measures as vaccination and serologic monitoring also help to ensure good flock health. Inadequate biosecurity can contribute to creation of wide epidemics of highly pathogenic diseases such as avian influenza virus. For data collection, a predesigned questionnaire was created, and two visits were applied for investigating the application of biosecurity measures in the selected farms. Results summarize the response of the farm workers regarding the application of biosecurity measures in 244 farms under investigation. Regarding the number of farms with footbath, it was 150 (61%) in the first visit, although only 133 (56%) were filled with disinfectant. While, in the second visit, footbath number was significantly increased to 190 (78%) (χ12 = 12.68, P > 0.01) and 169 (69%) were filled with disinfectant (χ12 = 7.39, P > 0.01). The increased cleanliness of the area between the farm gate and poultry house was significantly increased from 68% in the first visit to 85% after the second visit (χ12 = 19.1, P > 0.01). As a result of the improved biosecurity measures observed in the second visit, the occurrence of avian influenza infection has significantly reduced from 36% to 20% in the farms under investigation. This in turn highlights the important role of biosecurity measures in the prevention and control of avian influenza infection. There is a need for more consideration on biosecurity measures targeting dead birds' disposal, changing shoes before entrance to the farm, presence of clothes for visitors, disinfection of injection tools,, disinfection machines and veterinary supervision.
References
● 1. FAO 2008. Biosecurity for highly pathogenic avian influenza: Issues and options. FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy.
● 2. Tabibdi M, Mustafa E, et al. Data analysis of biosecurity measures for poultry farms registration in Khartoum state, Sudan. Int. J. Curr. Res 2014: 6, 9714–18.
● 3. Newell D, Elvers K, et al. Biosecurity based interventions and strategies to reduce Campylobacter spp. on poultry farms. Appl. and Environ. Microbiol. 2011: 77, 8605–14.
● 4. Dorea F, Berghaus R, et al. Survey of biose-curity protocols and practices adopted by growers on commercial poultry farms in Georgia, U. S. A. Avian Dis. 2010: Sep; 54 (3):1007–15.
● 5. Conan A, Goutard F. L, et al. Biosecurity measures for backyard poultry in developing coun-tries: a systematic review BMC Veterinary Research, 2012.
● 6. Abdelqader A, Wollny C, et al.. Characteriza-tion of local chicken production systems and their potential under different levels of management prac-tice in Jordan. Trop Anim. Health Prod., 2007. 39 (3):155–64.
● 7. McQuiston J, Garber L, et al. Evaluation of risk factors for the spread of low pathogenicity H7N2 avian influenza virus among commercial poul-try farms. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2005.
● 8. Neupane D, Khanal V, et al. Knowledge, atti-tudes and practices related to avian influenza among poultry workers in Nepal: a cross sectional study. BMC Infectious Diseases 2012, 12:76.
● 9. Radwana G, Wafaa Y, et al. Knowledge, atti-tudes, and practices of avian influenza among back-yard poultry breeders in Fayoum Governorate, Egypt . Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Asso-ciation 2011, 86:104–10
● 10. Abbate R, Di Giuseppe G, et al. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of avian influen-za, poultry workers, Italy. Emerging infectious dis-eases, 2006: 12(11), 1762–1765. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid12 11.060671.
● 11. Wang L, Basuno E, et al. An Eco health as-sessment of poultry production clusters (PPCs) for the livelihood and biosecurity improvement of small poultry producers in Asia. Infectious Diseases of Poverty 2015: 4:6 (1–9).
● 12. Mustafa M.E, Ismail H.M. Evaluation of Bi-osecurity Measures in Layer Farms in Khartoum State, Sudan. Journal of Applied Science And Re-search, 2017: 5 (6):23–31.
● 13. Carey J.B. 2005. Poultry Facility Biosecurity. Texas Agri Life Extension Service
● 14. Halvorson D, Karunakaran D et al. Avian influenza in caged laying chickens. Avian Dis. 1980: 24, 288–94.
● 15. Webster R, Bean W, et al. Evolution and ecology of influenza A viruses. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev 1992: 56, 152–79.
● 16. Sawabe K, Hoshino K, et al. Detection and isolation of highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza A viruses from blow flies collected in the vicinity of infected poultry farm in Tokyo, Japan, 2004. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2006: 75, 327–32.
● 17. Sievert K, Alvarez R, et al. House flies and the avian influenza threat. Int. Poult. Prod. 2006: 14, 7–9.
● 18. Ssematimba A, Hagenaars T, et al. Model-ling the wind-borne spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza virus between farms. PLoS ONE. 2012b: 7, e31114.
● 19. Uddin S, Juli S, et al. Investigation of biose-curity in commercial poultry farms of Dinajpur dis-trict. International Journal of Natural and Social Sci-ences, 2020, 7(1): 14–20.
● 20. Mohammed A , Helal H. Current situation assessment of biosecurity measures of some poultry sectors and hatcheries in Egypt. Journal of Veterinary Medical Research. 2016 : 23 (2 ): 143––54.
● 21. Röhm C, Horimoto T, et al . Do hemagglu-tinin genes of highly pathogenic avian influenza vi-ruses constitute unique phylogenetic lineages? Virol-ogy 1995: 209, 664–70.
● 22. Loeffen W, de Boer-Luijtze E, et al. Transmission of highly pathogenic avian influenza virus to swine in The Netherlands, Ani-mal produc-tion in Europe: the way forward in a changing world. In: Proc. Congress of the International Society for Animal Hygiene, 2004:11–13 October, St. Malo, France, pp. 329–30.
● 23. Belser J, Blixt O, et al. Contemporary North American influenza H7 viruses possess human re-ceptor specificity: implications for virus transmissibil-ity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2008: U.S.A. 105, 7558–63.
● 24. AL haji N and Odetokun I. Assessment of biosecurity measures against Highly Pathogenic Avi-an Influenza risks in small scale commercial farms and free-range poultry flocks in the North central Nigeria. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases 2011: 58, 2 p. 157–61.
● 25. Wakawa, A. M. Surveillance and evaluation of risk factors for the occurrence and spread of avian influenza in Kano State, Nigeria. Ph.D Dissertation, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. (2012): 95–10.
● 26. Mccrea BA, Bradley FA. Biosecurity for poultry at community farms. University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Publi-cation 2008 : 8280. ANR CS Web site, http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu.
● 27. Balish A, Davis C, et al. Antigenic and ge-netic diversity of highly pathogenic avian influenza A (H5N1) viruses isolated in Egypt. Avian dis, 2010: 54: 329–34.
● 28. Shane B. 1995. Decontamination of housing and equipment in bio-security in the poultry industry. American association of avian pathologist, University of Pennsylvania, New Boltan Center, Kennet Squre. PA.: pp: 120.
● 29. Sharma B. 2010. Poultry production man-agement and bio-security measures. J. Food Agric. and Environ, 1:122.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Heba A. Ahmed, Mohamed E.M. Mohamed, Ahmed M. Erfan, Lubna Abdelkarim, Maysa A.I. Awadallah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
