University of Sydney, Camden, Australia.
Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, Australia.
PLoS One. 2018 Apr 18;13(4):e0195582. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195582. eCollection 2018.
This paper describes the level of adoption of biosecurity practices performed on Australian commercial chicken meat and layer farms and farmer-perceived importance of these practices. On-farm interviews were conducted on 25 free range layer farms, nine cage layer farms, nine barn layer farms, six free range meat chicken farms and 15 barn meat chicken farms in the Sydney basin bioregion and South East Queensland. There was a high level of treatment of drinking water across all farm types; town water was the most common source. In general, meat chicken farms had a higher level of adoption of biosecurity practices than layer farms. Cage layer farms had the shortest median distance between sheds (7.75m) and between sheds and waterbodies (30m). Equipment sharing between sheds was performed on 43% of free range meat chicken farms compared to 92% of free range layer farms. There was little disinfection of this shared equipment across all farm types. Footbaths and visitor recording books were used by the majority of farms for all farm types except cage layer farms (25%). Wild birds in sheds were most commonly reported in free range meat chicken farms (73%). Dogs and cats were kept across all farm types, from 56% of barn layer farms to 89% of cage layer farms, and they had access to the sheds in the majority (67%) of cage layer farms and on the range in some free range layer farms (44%). Most biosecurity practices were rated on average as 'very important' by farmers. A logistic regression analysis revealed that for most biosecurity practices, performing a practice was significantly associated with higher perceived farmer importance of that biosecurity practice. These findings help identify farm types and certain biosecurity practices with low adoption levels. This information can aid decision-making on efforts used to improve adoption levels.
本文描述了澳大利亚商业鸡肉和蛋鸡养殖场采用生物安全措施的水平以及农民对这些措施的重视程度。在悉尼盆地生物区和昆士兰东南部的 25 个自由放养蛋鸡场、9 个笼养蛋鸡场、9 个谷仓蛋鸡场、6 个自由放养肉用鸡场和 15 个谷仓肉用鸡场进行了农场现场访谈。所有农场类型都对饮用水进行了高度处理;城镇用水是最常见的水源。一般来说,肉用鸡场比蛋鸡场采用了更高水平的生物安全措施。笼养蛋鸡场的棚舍之间最短距离(7.75m)和棚舍与水体之间最短距离(30m)。43%的自由放养肉用鸡场共享棚内设备,而 92%的自由放养蛋鸡场共享棚内设备。所有农场类型的共享设备都很少进行消毒。除了笼养蛋鸡场(25%)外,几乎所有农场类型都使用了洗脚池和访客记录簿。除了笼养蛋鸡场(25%)外,大多数农场都使用了洗脚池和访客记录簿。除了笼养蛋鸡场(25%)外,大多数农场都使用了洗脚池和访客记录簿。除了笼养蛋鸡场(25%)外,大多数农场都使用了洗脚池和访客记录簿。除了笼养蛋鸡场(25%)外,除了笼养蛋鸡场(25%)外,大多数农场都使用了洗脚池和访客记录簿。除了笼养蛋鸡场(25%)外,大多数农场都使用了洗脚池和访客记录簿。除了笼养蛋鸡场(25%)外,大多数农场都使用了洗脚池和访客记录簿。野生鸟类在自由放养肉用鸡场的棚舍中最为常见(73%)。狗和猫在所有农场类型中都有饲养,从 56%的谷仓蛋鸡场到 89%的笼养蛋鸡场,而且在大多数笼养蛋鸡场(67%)和一些自由放养蛋鸡场(44%)的围场内都可以接触到棚舍。大多数农民对生物安全措施的评价平均为“非常重要”。逻辑回归分析显示,对于大多数生物安全措施,实施该措施与农民对该生物安全措施的重视程度显著相关。这些发现有助于确定采用水平较低的农场类型和某些生物安全措施。这些信息可以帮助决策如何提高采用水平。