HPAI Risk, Bio-Security & Smallholder Adversity
•
0 likes•187 views
http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/en/ This website represents a major source of information on livestock sector policies and institutions in developing countries, and contains the outputs produced by the 2001-2010 FAO Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative (PPLPI). Indeed, the importance of policies and institutions in sustaining inclusive and pro-poor growth of the livestock sector cannot be overstated, but for long the value of policies and institutions – and of livestock sector policies and institutions in particular – have been marginally appreciated, which resulted in less-than effective public and private sector investments. © FAO: http://www.fao.org
Recommended
More Related Content
More from FAO
More from FAO (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
HPAI Risk, Bio-Security & Smallholder Adversity
- 1. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative HPAI Risk, Bio-Security & Smallholder Adversity WPSA Asian Pacific Federation Symposium Bangkok, Thailand, 5-6 March 2007 J. Otte, D. Pfeiffer, T. Tiensin, L. Price & E. Silbergeld
- 2. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Fact or Fiction ? None Village or backyard Local, home consumption 4 Low Caged or free- roaming Commercial, local market 3 Moderate to high Semi-vertical, integrated Commercial2 High Industrial, integrated Commercial1 Bio-securityDescription Market Orientation Sector Source FAO, 2004
- 3. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Overview • Analysis of data of 2004 HPAI wave in Thailand • Review of literature on pathogen entry and exit in OECD poultry systems • Insights provided by 2002 ND epidemic in Denmark
- 4. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Composition of Thai Poultry Industry 22% 9% 59% 9% 1% Backyard Layers Broilers Ducks&Geese Quail 73% 1% 2% 24% 0% Backyard Layers Broilers Ducks&Geese Quail FlocksBirds Source: Tiensin et al, 2006
- 5. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Regional Breakdown 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% North Central East South Northeast Backyard Layers Broilers Ducks&Geese Quail Birds Source: Tiensin et al, 2006
- 6. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Regional Breakdown 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% North Central East South Northeast Backyard Layers Broilers Ducks&Geese Quail Flocks 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 North Central East South Northeast Backyard Layers Broilers Ducks&Geese Quail Flock Size Source: Tiensin et al, 2006
- 7. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Chicken: Outbreaks & Density Source: Gilbert et al, 2006
- 8. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Ducks: Outbreaks & Density Source: Gilbert et al, 2006
- 9. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative HPAI Outbreaks 2004 58% 5% 6% 29% 2% Backyard Layers Broilers Ducks&Geese Quail Flock Type 7% 38% 43% 9% 3% Northeast North Central East South Region Source: Tiensin et al, 2006
- 10. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative HPAI Risk 2004 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 Quail Layers Broilers Ducks&Geese Backyard Cumulative Incidence (Crude Risk, %) by Flock Type 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 Northeast North Central East South Cumulative Incidence (Crude Risk, %) by Region Source: Authors, based on Tiensin et al, 2006
- 11. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative ‘Relative’ HPAI Risk 2004 • Backyard flocks in NE region taken as reference group (lowest risk) • With the exception of the South, • quail always at significantly, and substantially higher risk than backyard poultry • layers always at higher risk than backyard poultry • In the hardest hit Central region, all flock types at higher risk than backyard poultry Northeast North Central East South Backyard Layer Broiler Duck Quail Ref + + + + ns ++ ++ + ++ + ns + ns ++ ns ++ ns + ns ++ - + ns ns nil* ++ + ++ Flock Type Region * no outbreak, so no estimate of risk Source: Authors, based on Tiensin et al, 2006
- 12. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Challenges to Bio-Security
- 13. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Challenges to Bio-Security Entry Routes • Air • 100 ml/bird/min = 60.5 million l per cycle of 10,000 broilers • Feed • 100 g/bird/day = 42,000 kg per cycle of 10,000 broilers • Water • 250 ml/bird/day = 100,000 l per cycle of 10,000 broilers • Insects & rodents • 30,000 flies per broiler cycle (Denmark, summer) • 7 / 10 Campylobacter-free broiler flocks became infected by time of slaughter (Bull et al, 2006) Exit Routes • Air • Wastes • 40 – 50 g/bird/day = 20,000 kg per cycle of 10,000 broilers • Insects & rodents
- 14. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Denmark, 2002 Newcastle Epidemic Commercial Backyard 169,497 birds; 19,000 / outbreak 5,958 birds; 47 birds / outbreak Commercial Backyard 126 outbreaks (93%) 9 outbreaks (7%) Affected Holdings Affected Birds Source:DVFA,2003
- 15. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Denmark, 2002 Newcastle Epidemic Cumulative Incidence / Risk (%) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Commercial Backyard Source:DVFA,2003 Commercial Backyard 270 holdings (1%) 23,000 holdings (99%) Holdings at Risk
- 16. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Denmark, 2002 Newcastle Epidemic 0 5 10 15 20 25 15.07.02 19.07.02 23.07.02 27.07.02 31.07.02 04.08.02 08.08.02 12.08.02 16.08.02 20.08.02 24.08.02 28.08.02 01.09.02 Commercial Backyard Outbreaks Source: DVFA, 2003 Source: DVFA, 2003
- 17. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Viet Nam: Risk Factors for HPAI Cull 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1to50 51to150 151to 2000 >2000 Culled Not culled Risk of Cull by Flock Size 0 20 40 60 80 Villager Commercial Source: GSO Survey 2004 Risk of Cull by Source of DOCs %
- 18. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Conclusions • No empirical evidence that backyard poultry (Sector 4) are at higher risk of HPAI than those kept in Sectors 1 to 3; • Empirical evidence that pathogens CAN overcome standard bio-security of ‘modern’ poultry systems; • Farm-level HPAI risk is a result of (a) risk mitigation and (b) risk propagation measures • In Sectors 1 to 3, (a) may not compensate for (b) • Who is a risk for whom???
- 19. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative References & Further Reading Bull S, Allen V, Domingue G, Jorgensen F, Frost J, Ure R, et al. (2006). Appl Env Microbiol; 72: 645-652. Danish Veterinary and Food Administration (2003). Report at www.uk.foedevarestyrelsen.dk/Forside.htm Gilbert M, Chaitaweesub P, Parakamawongsa T, Premashthira S, Tiensin T, Kalpravidh W, et al. (2006). Emerg Infect Dis; 12: 227-234. Tiensin T, Chaitaweesub P, Songserm T, Chaising A, Hoonsuwan W, Buranathai C, et al. (2005). Emerging Infectious Diseases; 11: 1664-1672. PPLPI Research Report: Evidence-based Policy for Controlling HPAI in Poultry: Bio-security Revisited For more information please visit the PPLPI website: www.fao.org/ag/pplpi.html www.fao.org/ag/againfo/projects/en/pplpi/publications.html
- 20. A Living from Livestock Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative