Towards a comprehensive HPAI control program

A multi-intervention pilot trial in Cipunagara, Subang

Bogor, 2 November 2011

Introduction

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)

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

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

Selection of study areaCipunagara, 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

– 8 Breeder farms– 6 PS– 2 GPS

– 25 broiler farms– 7 Slaughterhouses / collectorhouses– 1 hatchery– ± 70 duck flocks

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

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

AI Surveillance

AI surveillanceflocks/consignments sampled

Period 1April - June‘10

Period 2Nov.‘10 – Jan.‘11

Nomadic ducks 50 flocks 50 flocks

PCFs/PSHs 117 transports 60 transport

Broilers 21 DOC25 flocks at

harvest

Syndromic surv.Oct.’10 – June’11

PS/GPS 92 flocks (5 farms)Sept.’10 – April’11

Surveillance resultsNomadic duck flock prevalence

Period 1 Period 2

PCR results (pooled tracheal and cloacal swabs)

H5 positive 0/50 0/50

Matrix positive 21/50 30/50

Serology

HI positive ≥24 7/47 3/50

ELISA positive 41/47 50/50

Surveillance results PCFs/PSHsPrevalence consignments & environment swabs

Period 1 Period 2

PCR results poultry consignments (pooled tracheal swabs)

H5 positive 0/117 0/60

Matrix positive 1/117 4/60

PCR results environment (pooled swabs)

H5 positive Not done 0/180

Matrix positive Not done 5/180

Surveillance resultsBroiler flock prevalence

Period 1 Period 2

PCR results day-old chicks (pooled tracheal swabs)

H5 positive 0/21 Not done

Matrix positive 0/21 Not done

PCR results broilers at slaughter (pooled tracheal swabs)

H5 positive 2/25 1/2

Matrix positive 2/25 1/2

5.7 KM

4.5

KM

May 18th, 2010. Positive farm

May 22nd, 2010. Positive farm

January 12th, 2011. Positive farm

Surveillance resultsPS/GPS seroprevalence

Breeder Farm

Sampling month

Number of sampled

flocks

Sample seroprevalence Mean HI

titer ± S.D.HI ≥ 24

(%)

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 ± 1.42Note: All collected tracheal swab samples were PCR negative

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

AI surveillanceConclusions (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

Biosecurity improvement in

sector 3

Biosecurity on sector 3 farmsActivities

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

Biosecurity on sector 3 farmsBiosecurity improvement (examples)

Biosecurity measure Start program (% of farms)

End program (% of farms)

Readily adoptedStop sign at entrance 40% 100%Cleaning up spilled feed 40% 96%Hand washing facilities 48% 96%Foot bath 20% 77%

Poorly adoptedSafe storage and disposal of manure 0% 0%

Cleaning & disinfection of vehicles 0% 9%Availability of farm clothing 4% 9%Making the poultry house wild bird proof 16% 41%

Biosecurity on sector 3 farmsPerformance Index

I (n=27) II (n=24) III (n=20) IV (n=18) V (n=9)0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

400.0

Production Cycle

Inde

x of

Per

form

ance

Biosecurity on sector 3 farmsConclusions

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

Contact structure of sector 3 farms

Contact structure of broiler farmsActivities

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

Contact structure of broiler farmsMain 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

Contact structure of broiler farmsConclusions

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

Biosecurity of village poultry

Village poultry biosecurityActivities

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

Village poultry biosecurityUptake of socialization tools

% of respondentsAttended village meetings 61%Saw poster 72%

Read poster 45%

Saw booklet 56%Read booklet 37%

Village poultry biosecurityChanges in biosecurity practices

Practice 1st survey 2nd survey

Change clothes before and after handling poultry

19% 35%

Wash hands before and after handling poultry

91% 94%

Bury dead poultry 63% 76%

Throw dead poultry into river 24% 20%

Report sudden death of poultry 12% 15%

Village poultry biosecurityConclusions

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

Conclusions Multi-intervention

pilot

Multi-intervention pilotConclusions

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

Multi-intervention pilotLessons 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

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