背景:意大利和国际高致病性禽流感(HPAI)爆发,特别是在家禽密集地区(DPPAs),在过去的几十年里有所增加。这些新出现的风险,危害人类和动物健康以及整个家禽业,可以通过在人-动物食物链界面实施的生物安全措施来有效地限制。一些问题,然而,坚持家禽养殖户实施这些措施,促使有必要探索限制其实施的那些方面和原因。
方法:选择了定性方法进行研究,并采用了半结构化访谈技术来收集在意大利东北部工作的土耳其农民(n=29)的数据。这项技术的目的是收集有关农场的数据,以了解所采用的生物安全措施以及农民实施的原因和障碍。或缺乏。本文介绍并讨论了收集的主要数据。
结果:研究表明,农民熟悉控制禽流感(AI)和其他家禽疾病所必需的生物安全措施;个人消毒和动物隔离做法尤其突出。根据报告的程序,管理,经济,和社会心理因素是未能实施生物安全措施的障碍之一。这些障碍以各种方式交织在一起,并与不同的行动设置相关联。特别是管理因素,如缺乏时间来应用规则和困难取决于农场的结构特征,调解生物安全措施的应用。在沟通渠道方面,公司,特别是它的技术人员,被证明是紧急情况下农民的主要信息来源,以及生物安全措施应用的主要信息来源。然而,指出了其他信息来源,例如农民或其他非机构人物(亲戚和熟人)之间的口口相传。
结论:出现了什么,不仅需要提高生物安全管理技能,而且还实施家禽行业各主要利益攸关方之间的合作形式。本试点研究中提供的信息需要在主管当局之间进行讨论,公众和公司兽医,公司技术人员,和农民。此外,这些信息将有助于参与式共同规划风险预防和沟通战略,以实施长期,可持续,应对未来流行病紧急情况的有效方法。
BACKGROUND: Italian and international outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), particularly in densely populated poultry areas (DPPAs), have increased over the past few decades. These emerging risks, which endanger both human and animal health and the entire poultry industry, can be effectively limited by biosecurity measures implemented at human-animal food chain interfaces. Some problems, however, persist in the application of these measures on the part of poultry farmers, prompting the need to explore those aspects and causes that limit their implementation.
METHODS: A qualitative approach was selected for the study and a semi-structured interview technique was applied to collect data among turkey farmers (n = 29) working in the north-east of Italy. The aim of this technique was to gather data on farms in order to understand the biosecurity practices adopted and the reasons for and impediments to farmer implementation, or lack thereof. This article presents and discusses the main data collected.
RESULTS: The study revealed that farmers were familiar with the biosecurity measures necessary to contain avian influenza (AI) and other poultry diseases; personal disinfection and animal isolation practices were particularly prominent. Based on the reported procedures, managerial, economic, and psychosocial factors were among the barriers behind the failure to implement biosecurity measures. These obstacles were variously intertwined and associated with the different action settings. In particular management factors, such as lack of time to apply the rules and difficulties contingent on the farm\'s structural characteristics, mediate the application of biosecurity measures. In terms of communication channels, the company, particularly its technicians, proved to be the primary source of information for farmers in case of emergencies, as well as the primary source of information on the application of biosecurity measures. However, other sources of information were indicated, such as word of mouth among farmers or other non-institutional figures (relatives and acquaintances).
CONCLUSIONS: What emerged, was the need to improve not only the biosecurity management skills, but also to implement forms of cooperation among the various key stakeholders in the poultry sector. The information presented in this pilot study needs to be discussed among competent authorities, public and company veterinarians, company technicians, and farmers. Furthermore, this information will help in participatory co-planning of risk prevention and communication strategies to implement a long-term, sustainable, effective approach to address future epidemic emergencies.