Biosecurity practices on Australian commercial layer and meat chicken farms: Performance and perceptions of farmers

Scott, Angela Bullanday; Singh, Mini; Groves, Peter J.; Hernández‐Jover, Marta; Barnes, Belinda; Glass, Kathryn; Moloney, Barbara; Black, Amanda; Toribio, Jenny-Ann

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0195582

Cited by 34 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These motile organisms might be vectors for C. hepaticus dissemination. A recent study that investigated biosecurity practices on Australian commercial layer farms showed that wild birds were commonly reported to be present in free-range farms (73%) and it was noted that they are potential sources of diseases that can be transmitted to laying hens (31). Flies have previously been implicated in the transmission of other Campylobacter species to chickens (32).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Campylobacter hepaticus, the Cause of Spotty Liver Disease in Chickens: Transmission and Routes of Infection

Phung

Vezina

Anwar³

et al. 2020

Front. Vet. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The epidemiology of Spotty Liver Disease (SLD) was investigated by assaying 1,840 samples collected from layer chickens and the environment in poultry farms across Australia for the presence of Campylobacter hepaticus, the agent responsible SLD in chickens. A C. hepaticus specific PCR and bacterial culture were used. Results showed that birds could be infected with C. hepaticus up to 8 weeks before clinical SLD was manifested. In addition, birds could be infected long before laying starts, as young as 12 weeks old, but the peak period for SLD outbreaks was when the birds were 26-27 weeks old. Campylobacter hepaticus DNA was detected in motile organisms such as wild birds and rats and so these organisms may be vectors for C. hepaticus dissemination. Moreover, water, soil, mites, flies, and dust samples from SLD infected farms were also found to be PCR-positive for C. hepaticus DNA. However, it still remains to be determined whether these environmental sources carry any viable C. hepaticus. The indications from this study are that environmental sources are a likely transmission source of C. hepaticus. Therefore, biosecurity practices need to be strictly followed to prevent the spread of SLD amongst and between flocks. Also, a rapid, molecular detection method such as PCR should be used as to monitor for C. hepaticus presence in flocks before clinical disease is apparent, and therefore inform the use of biosecurity and therapeutic measures to help prevent SLD outbreaks.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Campylobacter hepaticus, the Cause of Spotty Liver Disease in Chickens: Transmission and Routes of Infection

Phung

Vezina

Anwar³

et al. 2020

Front. Vet. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In relation to poultry enterprises this refers to practices, such as the use of foot baths, treatment of water, disinfection of equipment between sheds, and vermin control ( 34 ). It was found during on-farm surveys that non-free-range meat chicken farms were usually older farms with relatively poorer biosecurity compared to free-range meat chicken farms ( 12 ). This relative lack in biosecurity contributed to the highest median probability of indirect exposure occurring in non-free-range meat chicken farms compared to the rest of the farm types.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of the input values used in this model were parameterized using data collected from a survey on commercial chicken farms in Australia ( 11 , 12 ). The survey defined commercial layer farms as those with more than 1,000 birds and commercial meat chicken farms as those with more than 25,000 birds.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are substantial differences in farm design, management, and biosecurity practices among the Australian commercial chicken enterprises, i.e., cage, barn, and free-range systems of both layer and meat chicken farms which can influence wild bird presence on farm ( 11 , 12 ). In addition, previous work has identified differences in the type of wild birds present on farms of different production types and biosecurity implementation ( 13 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza Exposure Risk Assessment in Australian Commercial Chicken Farms

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the pathways of exposure to low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) virus among Australian commercial chicken farms and estimated the likelihood of this exposure occurring using scenario trees and a stochastic modeling approach following the World Organization for Animal Health methodology for risk assessment. Input values for the models were sourced from scientific literature and an on-farm survey conducted during 2015 and 2016 among Australian commercial chicken farms located in New South Wales and Queensland. Outputs from the models revealed that the probability of a first LPAI virus exposure to a chicken in an Australian commercial chicken farms from one wild bird at any point in time is extremely low. A comparative assessment revealed that across the five farm types (non-free-range meat chicken, free-range meat chicken, cage layer, barn layer, and free range layer farms), free-range layer farms had the highest probability of exposure (7.5 × 10−4; 5% and 95%, 5.7 × 10−4—0.001). The results indicate that the presence of a large number of wild birds on farm is required for exposure to occur across all farm types. The median probability of direct exposure was highest in free-range farm types (5.6 × 10−4 and 1.6 × 10−4 for free-range layer and free-range meat chicken farms, respectively) and indirect exposure was highest in non-free-range farm types (2.7 × 10−4, 2.0 × 10−4, and 1.9 × 10−4 for non-free-range meat chicken, cage layer, and barn layer farms, respectively). The probability of exposure was found to be lowest in summer for all farm types. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the proportion of waterfowl among wild birds on the farm, the presence of waterfowl in the range and feed storage areas, and the prevalence of LPAI in wild birds are the most influential parameters for the probability of Australian commercial chicken farms being exposed to avian influenza (AI) virus. These results highlight the importance of ensuring good biosecurity on farms to minimize the risk of exposure to AI virus and the importance of continuous surveillance of LPAI prevalence including subtypes in wild bird populations.

show abstract

“…border collie) have been used to scare off wild birds (Castelli & Sleggs, 2000;Holevinski, Curtis, & Malecki, 2007). In Australia, some free-range poultry farms use trained Maremma breed dogs to limit interaction between wild fauna and poultry (AGDAFF, 2009;Gibbs, ;Scott, Singh, et al, 2018b). Laser equipment is used for several years to scare off wild birds, in particular geese (Blackwell, Bernhardt, & Dolbeer, 2002;Gorenzel, Blackwell, Simmons, Salmon, & Dolbeer, 2002;Werner & Clark, 2006).…”

Section: Known Carriers Of Ai Viruses Visit the Outdoor Facility Regumentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantification of visits of wild fauna to a commercial free‐range layer farm in the Netherlands located in an avian influenza hot‐spot area assessed by video‐camera monitoring

Elbers

Gonzáles

2019

Transbound Emerg Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Free‐range poultry farms have a high risk of introduction of avian influenza viruses (AIV), and it is presumed that wild (water) birds are the source of introduction. There is very scarce quantitative data on wild fauna visiting free‐range poultry farms. We quantified visits of wild fauna to a free‐range area of a layer farm, situated in an AIV hot‐spot area, assessed by video‐camera monitoring. A total of 5,016 hr (209 days) of video recordings, covering all 12 months of a year, were analysed. A total of 16 families of wild birds and five families of mammals visited the free‐range area of the layer farm. Wild birds, except for the dabbling ducks, visited the free‐range area almost exclusively in the period between sunrise and the moment the chickens entered the free‐range area. Known carriers of AIV visited the outdoor facility regularly: species of gulls almost daily in the period January–August; dabbling ducks only in the night in the period November–May, with a distinct peak in the period December–February. Only a small fraction of visits of wild fauna had overlap with the presence of chickens at the same time in the free‐range area. No direct contact between chickens and wild birds was observed. It is hypothesized that AIV transmission to poultry on free‐range poultry farms will predominantly take place via indirect contact: taking up AIV by chickens via wild‐bird‐faeces‐contaminated water or soil in the free‐range area. The free‐range poultry farmer has several possibilities to potentially lower the attractiveness of the free‐range area for wild (bird) fauna: daily inspection of the free‐range area and removal of carcasses and eggs; prevention of forming of water pools in the free‐range facility. Furthermore, there are ways to scare‐off wild birds, for example use of laser equipment or trained dogs.

show abstract

Biosecurity practices on Australian commercial layer and meat chicken farms: Performance and perceptions of farmers

Cited by 34 publications

References 20 publications

Campylobacter hepaticus, the Cause of Spotty Liver Disease in Chickens: Transmission and Routes of Infection

Campylobacter hepaticus, the Cause of Spotty Liver Disease in Chickens: Transmission and Routes of Infection

Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza Exposure Risk Assessment in Australian Commercial Chicken Farms

Quantification of visits of wild fauna to a commercial free‐range layer farm in the Netherlands located in an avian influenza hot‐spot area assessed by video‐camera monitoring

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About