Epidemiology, Health and Welfare Unit, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety, Ploufragan, France.
French Technical Institute of Poultry Farming, Rabbit Farming, and Aquaculture, Paris, France.
Prev Vet Med. 2024 Mar;224:106119. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2024.106119. Epub 2024 Jan 20.
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.
生物安全是饲养健康动物的重要工具。生物安全措施(BSMs)在家禽生产中广为人知,但很难评估农场的实际实施情况。本研究的目的是:(1)根据欧洲家禽养殖户的情况,概述生物安全措施的实施情况;(2)更好地了解未实施这些措施的原因和潜在障碍。在 7 个欧盟成员国,对从事 7 种不同家禽生产类别的 192 名养殖户(与公司签订合同的养殖户 118 名,独立养殖户 68 名)就 62 项 BSM 进行了采访,以确定实施频率和不实施的原因。关于 BSM 实施情况的大部分答复(n=7791),养殖户报告称“始终”实施(81%),种鸡和蛋鸡养殖户的统计结果更高(87%和 82%),独立养殖户的比例低于与公司签订合同的养殖户(分别为 79.5%和 82.5%)。无论家禽生产类别如何,养殖户报告实施频率最高的 BSM 是对禽类的日常监测、鼠害控制和饲料储存保护。标准卫生措施也被提及为大多数生产类别实施频率较高的措施,但存在一些不足,例如在每次收集后对处理罐进行消毒,以及在肉禽生产中,对饲料筒进行消毒,以及对房屋清洁和每次循环之间的消毒进行细菌控制。车辆和人员进入家禽养殖场,特别是在种鸡和蛋鸡收集的关键时期,以及其他动物的存在,如“全进全出”做法,特别是在蛋鸡和鸭子中,也被报告为实施频率最低的措施。未实施这些措施的主要原因(n=1683 次答复)是对生物安全预期效益的认识和了解程度低(“没有已知优势”占 14%,“没有用”占 12%)、缺乏培训(“培训不足”占 5%,“建议”占 7%)、缺乏时间(19%)和财务方面(17%)。尽管养殖户整体上提到了良好的生物安全性,但这些发现突出了某些不足之处,表明有改进的空间,并需要针对欧洲家禽养殖户提供有针对性和量身定制的支持。