Skip navigation
Skip navigation

Biosecurity practices on Australian commercial layer and meat chicken farms: Performance and perceptions of farmers

Scott, Angela B; Singh, Mini; Groves, Peter; Hernandez-Jover, Marta; Barnes, Belinda; Glass, Kathryn; Moloney, Barbara; Black, Amanda; Toribio, Jenny-Ann

Description

This paper describes the level of adoption of biosecurity practices performed on Australian commercial chicken meat and layer farms and farmer-perceived importance of these practices. On-farm interviews were conducted on 25 free range layer farms, nine cage layer farms, nine barn layer farms, six free range meat chicken farms and 15 barn meat chicken farms in the Sydney basin bioregion and South East Queensland. There was a high level of treatment of drinking water across all farm types; town...[Show more]

dc.contributor.authorScott, Angela B
dc.contributor.authorSingh, Mini
dc.contributor.authorGroves, Peter
dc.contributor.authorHernandez-Jover, Marta
dc.contributor.authorBarnes, Belinda
dc.contributor.authorGlass, Kathryn
dc.contributor.authorMoloney, Barbara
dc.contributor.authorBlack, Amanda
dc.contributor.authorToribio, Jenny-Ann
dc.date.accessioned2021-10-20T22:51:45Z
dc.date.available2021-10-20T22:51:45Z
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/251097
dc.description.abstractThis paper describes the level of adoption of biosecurity practices performed on Australian commercial chicken meat and layer farms and farmer-perceived importance of these practices. On-farm interviews were conducted on 25 free range layer farms, nine cage layer farms, nine barn layer farms, six free range meat chicken farms and 15 barn meat chicken farms in the Sydney basin bioregion and South East Queensland. There was a high level of treatment of drinking water across all farm types; town water was the most common source. In general, meat chicken farms had a higher level of adoption of biosecurity practices than layer farms. Cage layer farms had the shortest median distance between sheds (7.75m) and between sheds and waterbodies (30m). Equipment sharing between sheds was performed on 43% of free range meat chicken farms compared to 92% of free range layer farms. There was little disinfection of this shared equipment across all farm types. Footbaths and visitor recording books were used by the majority of farms for all farm types except cage layer farms (25%). Wild birds in sheds were most commonly reported in free range meat chicken farms (73%). Dogs and cats were kept across all farm types, from 56% of barn layer farms to 89% of cage layer farms, and they had access to the sheds in the majority (67%) of cage layer farms and on the range in some free range layer farms (44%). Most biosecurity practices were rated on average as ‘very important’ by farmers. A logistic regression analysis revealed that for most biosecurity practices, performing a practice was significantly associated with higher perceived farmer importance of that biosecurity practice. These findings help identify farm types and certain biosecurity practices with low adoption levels. This information can aid decision-making on efforts used to improve adoption levels.
dc.description.sponsorshipThis research was conducted within the Poultry Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) (http:// www.chicken.org.au/page.php?id=26) that provided the majority of funding with support from the CRC and Woolworths Limited (https://www. woolworths.com.au/). The first author, ABS, is also a recipient of a Post-graduate Scholarship and stipend from the Poultry CRC.
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_AU
dc.publisherPublic Library of Science
dc.rights2018 Scott et al.
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.sourcePLOS ONE (Public Library of Science)
dc.titleBiosecurity practices on Australian commercial layer and meat chicken farms: Performance and perceptions of farmers
dc.typeJournal article
local.description.notesImported from ARIES
local.identifier.citationvolume13
dc.date.issued2018
local.identifier.absfor100202 - Biological Control
local.identifier.absfor090410 - Water Treatment Processes
local.identifier.ariespublicationa383154xPUB9764
local.publisher.urlhttp://www.plos.org/
local.type.statusPublished Version
local.contributor.affiliationScott, Angela B , University of Sydney
local.contributor.affiliationSingh, Mini, University of Sydney
local.contributor.affiliationGroves, Peter, University of Sydney
local.contributor.affiliationHernandez-Jover, Marta, Charles Sturt University
local.contributor.affiliationBarnes, Belinda, Department of Agriculture
local.contributor.affiliationGlass, Kathryn, College of Health and Medicine, ANU
local.contributor.affiliationMoloney, Barbara, NSW Department of Primary Industries
local.contributor.affiliationBlack , Amanda , New South Wales Department of Primary Industries
local.contributor.affiliationToribio, Jenny-Ann, University of Sydney
local.bibliographicCitation.issue4
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage1
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage17
local.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pone.0195582
dc.date.updated2020-11-23T11:34:58Z
local.identifier.scopusID2-s2.0-85045676318
dcterms.accessRightsOpen Access
dc.provenanceThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
dc.rights.licenseCreative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International)
CollectionsANU Research Publications

Download

File Description SizeFormat Image
01_Scott_Biosecurity_practices_on_2018.pdf1.29 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Updated:  17 November 2022/ Responsible Officer:  University Librarian/ Page Contact:  Library Systems & Web Coordinator