1. Towards a comprehensive HPAI control program A multi-intervention pilot trial in Cipunagara, Subang Bogor, 2 November 2011

2. Introduction

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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

6. Selection of study area Cipunagara, 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

7. – 8 Breeder farms – 6 PS – 2 GPS – 25 broiler farms – 7 Slaughterhouses / collectorhouses – 1 hatchery – ± 70 duck flocks

8. 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

9. 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

10. AI Surveillance

11. AI surveillance flocks/consignments sampled Period 1 April - June‘10 Period 2 Nov.‘10 – Jan.‘11 Nomadic ducks50 flocks PCFs/PSHs117 transports60 transport Broilers21 DOC 25 flocks at harvest Syndromic surv. Oct.’10 – June’11 PS/GPS92 flocks (5 farms) Sept.’10 – April’11

12. Surveillance results Nomadic d uck flock prevalence Period 1Period 2 PCR results (pooled tracheal and cloacal swabs) H5 positive0/50 Matrix positive21/5030/50 Serology HI positive ≥2 4 7/473/50 ELISA positive41/4750/50

13. Surveillance results PCFs/PSHs Prevalence consignments & environment swabs Period 1Period 2 PCR results poultry consignments (pooled tracheal swabs) H5 positive0/1170/60 Matrix positive1/1174/60 PCR results environment (pooled swabs) H5 positiveNot done0/180 Matrix positiveNot done5/180

14. Surveillance results Broiler flock prevalence Period 1Period 2 PCR results day-old chicks (pooled tracheal swabs) H5 positive0/21Not done Matrix positive0/21Not done PCR results broilers at slaughter (pooled tracheal swabs) H5 positive2/251/2 Matrix positive2/251/2

15. 5.7 KM 4.5 KM May 18th, 2010. Positive farm May 22nd, 2010. Positive farm January 12th, 2011. Positive farm

16. Surveillance results PS/GPS seroprevalence Breeder Farm Sampling month Number of sampled flocks Sample seroprevalence Mean HI titer ± S.D. HI ≥ 2 4 (%) 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 ± 1.42 Note: All collected tracheal swab samples were PCR negative

17. 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

18. AI surveillance Conclusions (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

19. Biosecurity improvement in sector 3

20. Biosecurity on sector 3 farms Activities  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

21. Biosecurity on sector 3 farms Biosecurity improvement (examples) Biosecurity measureStart program (% of farms) End program (% of farms) Readily adopted Stop sign at entrance40%100% Cleaning up spilled feed40%96% Hand washing facilities48%96% Foot bath20%77% Poorly adopted Safe storage and disposal of manure0% Cleaning & disinfection of vehicles0%9% Availability of farm clothing4%9% Making the poultry house wild bird proof16%41%

22. Biosecurity on sector 3 farms Performance Index

23. Biosecurity on sector 3 farms C onclusions  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

24. Contact structure of sector 3 farms

25. Contact structure of broiler farms Activities  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

26. Contact structure of broiler farms Main 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

27. Contact structure of broiler farms Conclusions  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

28. Biosecurity of village poultry

29. Village poultry biosecurity Activities  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

30. Village poultry biosecurity Uptake of socialization tools % of respondents Attended village meetings61% Saw poster72% Read poster45% Saw booklet56% Read booklet37%

31. Village poultry biosecurity Changes in biosecurity practices Practice1 st survey2 nd survey Change clothes before and after handling poultry 19%35% Wash hands before and after handling poultry 91%94% Bury dead poultry63%76% Throw dead poultry into river24%20% Report sudden death of poultry12%15%

32. Village poultry biosecurity Conclusions  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

33. Conclusions Multi-intervention pilot

34. Multi-intervention pilot Conclusions  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

35. Multi-intervention pilot Lessons 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

36. Acknowledgements  Farmers, village poultry keepers and village cadres in Cipunagara  DINAS Peternakan of Subang  Balai Pengujian Kesehatan Hewan dan Kesmavet, Cikole  Laboratory of Virology, FKH IPB  ACIAR  USDA