Knowledge, attitudes and practices of Cambodian swine producers in relation to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS)

Abstract

Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) was first detected in Cambodia in 2010. The disease was responsible for high morbidity and high mortality in adult pigs and the outbreak had a costly impact on those farmers affected. The aim of this study was to generate a better understanding of Cambodian swine producers' behaviour, in relation to PRRS and its control, in areas that have previously been affected by the disease. A survey of the knowledge, attitude and practices (KAPs) of pig owners with regard to PRRS was conducted in semi-commercial and backyard farms in Takeo province in southeast Cambodia. The survey was designed to assess knowledge of PRRS disease and its transmission, farmers' attitudes and practices related to preventive and control measures, knowledge on vaccination and perception towards local veterinary authority activities. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise qualitative data, while multivariate regression analyses were used to assess the association between selected outcomes and a number of hypothetical predictors. When presented with clinical signs typical of PRRS, most farmers identified an infectious disease as the most likely explanation for the listed clinical conditions. Farmers were also confident in recognising direct contact between pigs as one of the main ways of disease transmission; however, other viral transmission patterns typical of PRRS were mostly unknown or ignored. In general, male farmers and farmers with a higher level of education were more likely to have a better knowledge of transmission routes between pigs. In terms of attitude towards control measures, vaccination and disinfection were perceived as the most effective control practices. Farmers with a better knowledge of vaccine protocols were more likely to find vaccination effective. Village animal health workers (VAHWs) were generally in contact more with backyard farmers, while semi-commercial farmers were more prone to treat pigs themselves, raising the issue of easy and uncontrolled access to medication and vaccination. In general, farmers had a positive attitude towards local veterinarians, and lack of contact between farmers and the veterinary authority was associated more with logistic constraints than with farmers' mistrust towards the authority.

Are Village Animal Health Workers Able to Assist in Strengthening Transboundary Animal Disease Control in Cambodia?

“…), raising concerns of exacerbating direct household financial losses through inappropriate attempts to treat a viral disease with antibiotics and the risk of inappropriate use of antibiotics on food animals leading to residue and antimicrobial resistance issues. Further research is urgently required to understand the role of private drug and vaccine suppliers, products available, logistical aspects (such as cold chain and storage, shelf‐life) and identify whether administration is appropriate (Tornimbene et al., ).…”

“…The World Organisation of Animal Health (OIE) Terrestrial Animal Health Code does not recognize VAHWs as being part of the field Veterinary Services unless they are authorized or approved by the Veterinary Authority to undertake delegated animal health functions (OIE, ). However, there is also support for VAHW systems as being beneficial to national livestock health and rural livelihoods (Huttner et al., ; Curran and MacLehose, ; Peeling and Holden, ; Grace et al., ; Bhandari et al., ; Collinson, ; Tornimbene et al., ).…”

“…Recent studies in Cambodia indicate that VAHWs are an important resource for smallholder farmers, whereas semi‐commercial producers prefer a private veterinarian (Tornimbene et al., ). Government disease information campaigns have targeted both VAHWs and local veterinarians (Tornimbene et al., ), and VAHWs have been reported as providing a key role in information exchange between technical experts and the community in biosecurity for prevention of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) (Bhandari et al., ).…”

“…Recent studies in Cambodia indicate that VAHWs are an important resource for smallholder farmers, whereas semi‐commercial producers prefer a private veterinarian (Tornimbene et al., ). Government disease information campaigns have targeted both VAHWs and local veterinarians (Tornimbene et al., ), and VAHWs have been reported as providing a key role in information exchange between technical experts and the community in biosecurity for prevention of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) (Bhandari et al., ). In a Cambodian study of disease in pigs, over 50% of backyard producers reported calling their VAHW when their animals were sick, with 21% stating they only called the VAHW when the pigs were very sick and when medicines bought privately were not effective (Tornimbene et al., ).…”

“…Government disease information campaigns have targeted both VAHWs and local veterinarians (Tornimbene et al., ), and VAHWs have been reported as providing a key role in information exchange between technical experts and the community in biosecurity for prevention of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) (Bhandari et al., ). In a Cambodian study of disease in pigs, over 50% of backyard producers reported calling their VAHW when their animals were sick, with 21% stating they only called the VAHW when the pigs were very sick and when medicines bought privately were not effective (Tornimbene et al., ). An argument for the VAHW system in Cambodia is that achievable income levels from smallholder payments for animal treatment may not adequately support involvement of more highly skilled veterinarians or even para‐veterinarians in livestock services.…”