From the Editor: January 2011
Biosecurity fatigue” was a phrase used by Dr. J.P. Vaillancourt from the
University of Montreal at the recent Poultry Industry Council (PIC)
Innovations Conference held in Niagara Falls, Ont.
Biosecurity fatigue” was a phrase used by Dr. J.P. Vaillancourt from the University of Montreal at the recent Poultry Industry Council (PIC) Innovations Conference held in Niagara Falls, Ont.
He said “biosecurity fatigue” exists within the poultry industry because producers are tired of hearing about it. One might assume that if procedures are now second nature and “fatigue” is occurring, then compliance with respect to biosecurity must be up to par. But this isn’t the case, according to Vaillancourt. Despite the strong focus on biosecurity within the poultry industry during the last decade, he said “lack of compliance is the biggest issue in veterinary medicine.”
Why does this dichotomy exist? Vaillancourt and graduate student Manon Racicot recently gathered information and are currently analyzing it, in a fascinating research study to try to determine the barriers preventing biosecurity compliance.
They used video cameras on 24 poultry farms in Quebec to evaluate and describe the application of various biosecurity measures when producers, staff, and visitors entered and exited the barns.
They divided the farms into three groups. The control group had a hidden camera in the barn entrance, and a non-functional camera elsewhere in the barn. The “camera” and “audit” groups both had a poster outlining basic biosecurity rules to be followed, such as signing a log book, and changing footwear before entering the barn. The audit group had a hidden camera at the entrance, as well as a non-functional camera elsewhere in the barn, and this group was also subjected to an audit by Racicot. The camera group had only a visible, functioning camera in the entrance.
Data were measured in the short term (two weeks of observation) and the long term (six months). Their initial results were “not encouraging,” said Vaillancourt. Not surprisingly, the camera group had the greatest compliance, yet this compliance was far from the ideal of 100 per cent. The presence of visible cameras and threat of an audit did reduce the frequency of errors, but these results were only valid for the short-term assessment.
On average, the researchers recorded three errors per farm visit, and people observed over several visits made an average of six different errors. The maximum amount was 14 errors in one visit!
This led Vallaincourt and Racicot to conclude that, obviously, more training and educational material showing how to apply biosecurity measures is needed. Although much of this material exists, is it getting to everyone employed in poultry production? High turnover rates and language barriers exist among farm workers, and these factors need to be addressed.
They noted that human behaviour is also a crucial factor that warrants further study. For example, if a red line marking off a “clean” zone existed, this was not as well perceived by growers and employees as a physical barrier, such as a bench, when it came to changing boots and putting on coveralls.
Vallaincourt’s key point? Producers must lead by example. Despite “biosecurity fatigue,” Vaillancourt said, “we are wrong to think we know it all.” Although people mean well, there are aspects of compliance and the biosecurity measures themselves that just aren’t being understood, he said.
The beginning of a new year seems a good time to conduct a checklist or audit on your farm. Are there things you could be doing better? What prevents you or your employees from complying at times? The better we get at recognizing and understanding what barriers exist, the more compliance will become just part of the daily routine.
He said “biosecurity fatigue” exists within the poultry industry because producers are tired of hearing about it. One might assume that if procedures are now second nature and “fatigue” is occurring, then compliance with respect to biosecurity must be up to par. But this isn’t the case, according to Vaillancourt. Despite the strong focus on biosecurity within the poultry industry during the last decade, he said “lack of compliance is the biggest issue in veterinary medicine.”
Why does this dichotomy exist? Vaillancourt and graduate student Manon Racicot recently gathered information and are currently analyzing it, in a fascinating research study to try to determine the barriers preventing biosecurity compliance.
They used video cameras on 24 poultry farms in Quebec to evaluate and describe the application of various biosecurity measures when producers, staff, and visitors entered and exited the barns.
They divided the farms into three groups. The control group had a hidden camera in the barn entrance, and a non-functional camera elsewhere in the barn. The “camera” and “audit” groups both had a poster outlining basic biosecurity rules to be followed, such as signing a log book, and changing footwear before entering the barn. The audit group had a hidden camera at the entrance, as well as a non-functional camera elsewhere in the barn, and this group was also subjected to an audit by Racicot. The camera group had only a visible, functioning camera in the entrance.
Data were measured in the short term (two weeks of observation) and the long term (six months). Their initial results were “not encouraging,” said Vaillancourt. Not surprisingly, the camera group had the greatest compliance, yet this compliance was far from the ideal of 100 per cent. The presence of visible cameras and threat of an audit did reduce the frequency of errors, but these results were only valid for the short-term assessment.
On average, the researchers recorded three errors per farm visit, and people observed over several visits made an average of six different errors. The maximum amount was 14 errors in one visit!
This led Vallaincourt and Racicot to conclude that, obviously, more training and educational material showing how to apply biosecurity measures is needed. Although much of this material exists, is it getting to everyone employed in poultry production? High turnover rates and language barriers exist among farm workers, and these factors need to be addressed.
They noted that human behaviour is also a crucial factor that warrants further study. For example, if a red line marking off a “clean” zone existed, this was not as well perceived by growers and employees as a physical barrier, such as a bench, when it came to changing boots and putting on coveralls.
Vallaincourt’s key point? Producers must lead by example. Despite “biosecurity fatigue,” Vaillancourt said, “we are wrong to think we know it all.” Although people mean well, there are aspects of compliance and the biosecurity measures themselves that just aren’t being understood, he said.
The beginning of a new year seems a good time to conduct a checklist or audit on your farm. Are there things you could be doing better? What prevents you or your employees from complying at times? The better we get at recognizing and understanding what barriers exist, the more compliance will become just part of the daily routine.