BIOSECURITY IN BELGIAN CATTLE FARMS: STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, DETERMINING FACTORS AND IMPACTS

Background: According to WHO-FAO, biosecurity is “a strategic and integrated approach that encompasses the policy and regulatory frameworks (including instruments and activities) that analyse and manage risks in the sectors of food safety, public health, animal life and health, and plant life and health, including associated environmental risk”. Biosecurity is a key element of the European Union Animal Health Strategy since 2007 and is part of the recent European law on animal health in application since April 2021. Biosecurity serves the purpose of the International Health Regulation adopted in 2005 by the World Health Organization which is “to prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risks, and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade”. Biosecurity includes all measures preventing the introduction and/or spread of pathogens. As part of the One Health concept, biosecurity is particularly important as it includes the prevention of the spread to humans, to animals, to plants and to the environment. It is therefore a holistic and integrated approach, which considers also the interactions between different stakeholders and sectors. To increase the farmers’ resilience towards infectious diseases and answer the major public health challenges regarding zoonoses and antimicrobial resistance, it is important to improve the biosecurity levels in cattle farms based on cattle holders’ needs and priorities.
Methodology: The study is divided into five parts. The first section aimed at identifying the most important animal and public health issues to be addressed in Belgium and related biosecurity measures (BSM). In order to consider different perspectives this first study was done by triangulating the information from a literature review of previous prioritization exercises, the Belgian laboratory databases and a veterinary survey. The second part consisted in assessing the actual level of BSM implementation in Belgian cattle farms and in a better understanding of the different constraints and experiences of cattle farmers towards BSM (Study 2). This was performed by 100 face-to-face interviews and visits in dairy and beef farms in Belgium. Another on-line study was then developed in order to better understand the factors determining the adoption of BSM by cattle holders (Study 3). For the third part, a methodology based on herd monitoring allowed analysing the cost-benefit ratio of a vaccination campaign in goats (Study 4); it was applied to the cattle sector by assessing an eventually correlating the level of BSM implementation (extracted from the study 2), herd mortality and reproduction parameters obtained from the regional animal health and identification associations. The aim of both studies was to assess the possible economic benefits of BSM. At last, two on-line surveys were developed to determine the attitude and behaviours of rural veterinarians towards biosecurity, as actors and possible guidance counsellors (Study 6), and as a professionals at risk of contracting zoonoses (Study 7).
Results: Six diseases of interest were identified from the first study, based on previous prioritization exercises, rural veterinarians’ and laboratory databases. These six diseases gather all the possible transmission pathways of infectious diseases and can therefore not discriminate the most important BSM to be prioritized. Nevertheless, it allows the national authorities to identify the diseases of importance from the cattle farmers’ point of view, and to be targeted in their communication towards biosecurity in order to address these priority diseases in the Belgian context. Studies 2 and 3 showed an overall low implementation level of biosecurity in Belgian cattle farms and highlighted a correlation between the perceived importance of BSM and their implementation; it also listed the perceived lack of efficiency, feasibility and utility as the main reasons for their non-implementation. These findings were confirmed by the third study, which identified the perceived benefits of BSM as one of the main determining factors of implementation, as well as health motivation of cattle farmers. Both constructs seem to be correlated to the biosecurity knowledge and can therefore be influenced through continuous training and awareness-raising activities. It also demonstrates the urgent need of evidence-based studies to demonstrate the cost-efficiency of BSM. Such efficiency was illustrated by study 5: a negative correlation was found between the level of biosecurity in a farm and mortality rates. This methodology could be used to promote biosecurity and demonstrate its economic benefits. Studies 6 and 7 highlighted the risk for rural veterinarians to be responsible of a disease spread between farms and to contract an infectious zoonotic disease due to the low implementation of some key BSM. It also confirmed that, as in previous studies, rural veterinarians, are not yet fulfilling completely their role and responsibilities as biosecurity advisers; they should be empowered as key biosecurity informants.
Conclusion: Biosecurity level in cattle farming remains low and faces multiple challenges. In order to improve it, it is necessary for the different stakeholders to agree on shared goals and objectives taking into consideration the animal, public and environmental health as well as the socio-cultural factors and the sector economical context. In order to do so, they will require further studies in terms of BSM cost-efficiency in order to identify the most important and convince the stakeholders of their utility and benefits despite the eventual constraints. Appropriate communication channels should be used with rural veterinarians, as they appear to be the most trustful informants to provide technical guidance to cattle farmers. In order to do so and to effectively shift their role from curative to preventive medicine, they need a proper guidance from the authorities, a proper biosecurity training and communication, as well as an enabling environment.