Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byErika Bethany Carpenter Modified over 9 years ago
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
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.