Supporting control programs on African swine fever in Ukraine through a knowledge, attitudes, and practices survey targeting backyard farmers

Abstract

A Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP) questionnaire was designed to collect information on farmers’ knowledge of ASF and their practices surrounding that could impact the spread of the disease. The questionnaire was distributed, and data collected, from 233 backyard farmers from five selected Oblasts (Rivne, Kharkiv, Odessa, Zakarpattia and Kiev). Kruskal‐Wallis tests were conducted to identify factors that could influence knowledge, and Dunn tests were performed to determine differences between groups when the Kruskal‐Wallis tests were significant. Spearman tests were carried out to explore the association between knowledge and risky practices. Results show that comprehensive knowledge on ASF is not common in backyard farmers and that risky practices that influence the spread of ASF are regularly performed. Of the respondents, 47% felt well‐informed about how ASF can be transmitted and 31.8% felt confident about recognizing clinical signs of ASF. The independent variable “Oblast” was identified as a significant factor (p = 0.0015) associated with differences in knowledge on clinical signs. We demonstrated statistically significant differences of knowledge between backyard farmers from different Oblasts. Knowledge of preventive measures was positively correlated with risky handling practices related to edible pork products (p = 0.0053) and non‐edible pork products (p = 0.0417). In conclusion, our results show that backyard farmers have knowledge gaps on ASF and practice various risky behaviours that might favour the spread of the disease in Ukraine. There are regional differences in ASF knowledge and risky practices that should be taken into consideration in future evidence‐based ASF prevention and control programs, including public awareness activities.

Innovative Research Offers New Hope for Managing African Swine Fever Better in Resource-Limited Smallholder Farming Settings: A Timely Update

“…Unsafe slaughter resulting in environmental contamination, not only with blood but with butchery waste that can be accessed by scavenging pigs, has been flagged as a major risk for the spread of ASFV [ 52 , 103 ], whether from home slaughter, markets, or slaughter slabs. Home slaughter is commonly practised in many low-income settings [ 6 , 11 ]. While the meat is usually for home consumption, some of it may be sold or given to friends and relatives [ 6 ].…”

“…The global spread of African swine fever (ASF), affecting a wide variety of countries and pig production systems, has confirmed the need to develop prevention and control measures that take into account both the characteristics of the virus and the context in which it affects the host [ 1 ]. Smallholder pig holdings with low biosecurity have been over-represented in the reports of ASF from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where they often predominate and play an important part in rural agriculture [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ]. In many LMICs, pigs are kept by predominantly economically vulnerable groups, often in traditional, wholly or partially free-ranging husbandry systems.…”

“…Apart from income generation, the reasons why smallholders keep pigs vary in different regions. In Eastern Europe, they are kept mostly for home slaughter [ 2 , 8 , 9 , 10 ] and manufacture of traditional products that are consumed during the winter months and may sometimes be sold locally [ 6 , 11 ]. In some parts of the Pacific region, they are kept mainly for ceremonial or social purposes as well as an important source of income [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ], and in many parts of Africa, as well as in Haiti, mainly as a passive asset, insurance policy, or “walking bank” to be sold when a need arises [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ].…”

Genetic Diversity of Porcine Circovirus 2 Subtypes in Wild Boar and Domestic Pigs in Ukraine

“…Ukraine is a major pork producer, and harbors both large domestic swine (commercial and backyard) and wild boar populations. These swine populations have been subjected to PCV2 infection [23] and swine influenza [24] in wild boars, and porcine teschovirus 1 [25] and ASF in both wild and domestic animals [26,27]. The circulation of PCV2 subtypes in swine in Ukraine is poorly understood and suffers from the sporadic nature of surveillance.…”

Genetic Diversity of Porcine Circovirus 2 in Wild Boar and Domestic Pigs in Ukraine

“…Ukraine is a major pork producer and harbors both large domestic swine (commercial and backyard) and wild boar populations. These swine populations have been subjected to PCV2 infection [ 23 ] and swine influenza [ 24 ] in wild boar, and porcine teschovirus 1 [ 25 ] and ASF in both wild and domestic animals [ 26 , 27 ]. The circulation of PCV2 genotypes in swine in Ukraine is poorly understood and suffers from the sporadic nature of surveillance.…”