Date post: | 18-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | erika-bethany-carpenter |
View: | 218 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Towards a comprehensive HPAI control program
A multi-intervention pilot trial in Cipunagara, Subang
Bogor, 2 November 2011
HPAI control An effective program to control HPAI in
Indonesia should have multiple components Surveillance / Outbreak investigations Vaccination Biosecurity Culling / Movement restrictions
It should target all poultry sectors (I – IV)
Rationale for multi-intervention approach
HPAI control measures in Indonesia are often used in isolation PDSR in sector IV Vaccination in sector IV Vaccination in commercial sectors Certification of sector I farms/Compartmentalization &
zoning HPAI virus amplification and transmission occurs in all
sectors and is dependent on many risk factors Therefore multiple control measures need to be
applied simultaneously in all sectors
Objectives To implement a multiple intervention strategy for the
control of HPAI in a small, well-defined area To limit the circulation of HPAI and to reduce the
chance of new introductions of HPAI To study the feasability and sustainability of specific
intervention strategies To encourage participation of all relevant
stakeholders To liase with other donors that may assist in the
implementation of specific modules
Selection of study areaCipunagara, Subang
Based upon profiling results of Purwakarta and Subang districts
Large poultry industry with many breeder and broiler farms
Important supplier of poultry to Jabodetabek Known history of HPAI outbreaks Good collaboration with local veterinary
services Close to Provincial Laboratory
– 8 Breeder farms– 6 PS– 2 GPS
– 25 broiler farms– 7 Slaughterhouses / collectorhouses– 1 hatchery– ± 70 duck flocks
Proposed activities in Cipunagara Phase I – description of the actual situation
Surveillance (Sector I – IV) Biosecurity surveys (Sector I – IV) Poultry health surveys (Sector III – IV) Contact structure survey (Sector I – III)
Phase II - analysis of the data Phase III – design and implementation of
intervention strategies, continued surveillance
Realized activities Surveys
AI surveillance: sector I – III, nomadic ducks, poultry collecting facilities
Biosecurity: sector III & IV Poultry health: sector III & IV Contact structure: sector III
Only few interventions implemented Sector III: Biosecurity & poultry management
improvement through biosecurity advisors Sector IV: Biosecurity improvement through village
meetings, posters & booklets
AI surveillanceflocks/consignments sampled
Period 1April - June‘10
Period 2Nov.‘10 – Jan.‘11
Nomadic ducks 50 flocks 50 flocks
PCFs/PSHs 117 transports 60 transport
Broilers 21 DOC25 flocks at
harvest
Syndromic surv.Oct.’10 – June’11
PS/GPS 92 flocks (5 farms)Sept.’10 – April’11
Surveillance resultsNomadic duck flock prevalence
Period 1 Period 2
PCR results (pooled tracheal and cloacal swabs)
H5 positive 0/50 0/50
Matrix positive 21/50 30/50
Serology
HI positive ≥24 7/47 3/50
ELISA positive 41/47 50/50
Surveillance results PCFs/PSHsPrevalence consignments & environment swabs
Period 1 Period 2
PCR results poultry consignments (pooled tracheal swabs)
H5 positive 0/117 0/60
Matrix positive 1/117 4/60
PCR results environment (pooled swabs)
H5 positive Not done 0/180
Matrix positive Not done 5/180
Surveillance resultsBroiler flock prevalence
Period 1 Period 2
PCR results day-old chicks (pooled tracheal swabs)
H5 positive 0/21 Not done
Matrix positive 0/21 Not done
PCR results broilers at slaughter (pooled tracheal swabs)
H5 positive 2/25 1/2
Matrix positive 2/25 1/2
5.7 KM
4.5
KM
May 18th, 2010. Positive farm
May 22nd, 2010. Positive farm
January 12th, 2011. Positive farm
Surveillance resultsPS/GPS seroprevalence
Breeder Farm
Sampling month
Number of sampled
flocks
Sample seroprevalence Mean HI
titer ± S.D.HI ≥ 24
(%)
A September ’10 36 67% 3.56±1.92
B October ‘10 4 100% 7.07±0.84
C January ‘11 12 91% 6.37±2.27
D January ‘11 12 99% 8.00±1.33
E April ‘11 28 99% 7.58 ± 1.42Note: All collected tracheal swab samples were PCR negative
AI surveillance Conclusions (1)
No evidence that ducks play an important role in HPAI transmission No HPAI H5 virus shedding detected Positive serology?
Not determined whether this is HPAI (H5N1) Possibility of cross-reactions in HI test have not been excluded
Evidence for other Influenza A viruses Need further characterization Analysis shows the presence of H3N4 and low pathogenic
H5 virus
AI surveillanceConclusions (2)
Three outbreaks on broiler farms show that the HPAI virus is present and circulating in sector 3 in Cipunagara
No evidence for the presence of HPAI in collector- or slaughterhouses In contrast to the findings of PCF surveillance in DKI Jakarta
(Civas, 2007-2010) Limited interaction with sector I
Sampling was not under our control and non-random Validity of results is therefore limited
Biosecurity on sector 3 farmsActivities
Baseline survey on biosecurity and production 25 farms were assessed for the level of biosecurity present
on the farm Production parameters (mortality, slaughter weight, FCR)
were collected Biosecurity advisors
Teams of trained DINAS staff visited farms weekly Advised farmers on biosecurity, poultry health &
management Supervised syndromic surveillance
Changes in biosecurity uptake and production parameters were monitored
Biosecurity on sector 3 farmsBiosecurity improvement (examples)
Biosecurity measure Start program (% of farms)
End program (% of farms)
Readily adoptedStop sign at entrance 40% 100%Cleaning up spilled feed 40% 96%Hand washing facilities 48% 96%Foot bath 20% 77%
Poorly adoptedSafe storage and disposal of manure 0% 0%
Cleaning & disinfection of vehicles 0% 9%Availability of farm clothing 4% 9%Making the poultry house wild bird proof 16% 41%
Biosecurity on sector 3 farmsPerformance Index
I (n=27) II (n=24) III (n=20) IV (n=18) V (n=9)0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
Production Cycle
Inde
x of
Per
form
ance
Biosecurity on sector 3 farmsConclusions
Biosecurity advisors appeared to have positive effect on farm biosecurity and production Average number of biosecurity measures adopted on the
farms increased from 14/32 to 23/32 Average performance index (IP) increased from 302 to 373
(not significant) Production parameters dependent on many factors (i.e. feed
quality, DOC quality etc), therefore impossible to say if increased IP resulted from advisor program
Farmers see poor financial returns of broiler farming as the biggest obstacle for increased implementation of biosecurity measures
Contact structure of broiler farmsActivities
Over a 53 day period all movements on and off 20 broiler farms were recorded in a logbook Involvement of vehicles & equipment Contact with poultry before, during or after the
visit Origin and destination of the visit
Visits were classified as having low, medium or high risk of HPAI transmission
Contact structure of broiler farmsMain results
A total of 2966 visits were recorded on 20 farms over a 53 day period Average of 143 visits per farm or 2.8 visits/farm/day 21% of visits were for social reasons 52% of visits involved a vehicle; 18% of visits involved
equipment 76% of visits originated from the same village 55% of visits had contact with poultry on the farm 6% of visits were considered high risk for HPAI transmission,
associated with movement of live poultry or poultry manure Farms received an average of 7 visits to collect poultry
Contact structure of broiler farmsConclusions
Relatively high proportion of social visits which can and should be restricted
Majority of contacts take place over relatively short distances → implications for disease spread
Although a relatively low proportion of visits are “high risk”, these are mainly associated with poultry collection Poultry collection for slaughter takes place over many visits
(average 7/farm) with increased risk for disease transmission
Farmers should be encouraged to use all-in all-out
Village poultry biosecurityActivities
Baseline survey to assess Biosecurity measures which are present Importance of village poultry keeping
Socializations on biosecurity through village meetings, posters and booklets
Follow-up survey to measure changes in knowledge, attitudes and practices
Village poultry biosecurityUptake of socialization tools
% of respondentsAttended village meetings 61%Saw poster 72%
Read poster 45%
Saw booklet 56%Read booklet 37%
Village poultry biosecurityChanges in biosecurity practices
Practice 1st survey 2nd survey
Change clothes before and after handling poultry
19% 35%
Wash hands before and after handling poultry
91% 94%
Bury dead poultry 63% 76%
Throw dead poultry into river 24% 20%
Report sudden death of poultry 12% 15%
Village poultry biosecurityConclusions
Use of posters and booklets as socialization tools should be re-evaluated Socializations by spoken word are probably more
effective than using written socialization tools Effectiveness of the socialization campaign
with regard to changed practices seems to have been limited
Multi-intervention pilotConclusions
In this study there is no evidence for ducks as a spreader of H5N1 HPAI virus
3 outbreaks in broiler farms were observed from at least two different sources
Farmers were willing to introduce low cost biosecurity measures
Village socialization appears to have limited effect
Multi-intervention pilotLessons learned
• Multi intervention strategies can only be developed with the involvement of all stakeholders
• Incentives for Sector 1 need to be developed to participate in developing intervention strategies
• Clear mandates for Dinas Peternakan for disease control in commercial poultry are lacking