FINAL REPORT INVENTARIZATION SURVEY ON EXISTING BIOSECURITY MEASURES, HEALTH AND PRODUCTIVITY ON SECTOR THREE FARMS IN SUBANG

FFAACCUULLTTYY OOFF VVEETTEERRIINNAARRYY MMEEDDIICCIINNEE BBOOGGOORR AAGGRRIICCUULLTTUURRAALL UUNNIIVVEERRSSIITTYY

LLIIVVEESSTTOOCCKK SSEERRVVIICCEESS OOFF SSUUBBAANNGG DDIISSTTRRIICCTT IINNDDOONNEESSIIAANN--DDUUTTCCHH PPAARRTTNNEERRSSHHIIPP FFOORR HHIIGGHHLLYY PPAATTTTHHOOGGEENNIICC AAVVIIAANN IINNFFLLUUEENNZZAA CCOONNTTRROOLL ((IIDDPP--HHPPAAII))

22001100

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figure ..………………………………………………………… iii

List of Table ……………………………………………………………… iv

Introduction ...…..……………………………………………………………. 1

Background ..………………………………………………………………. 1

Objectives …………………………………………………………………... 2

Methodology .....….....………………………………………………………… 3

Time and Location .……………………………………………………… 3

Target Population ….……………………………………………………… 3

Data Collection …………..…….………………………………………… 3

Data Analysis ..…..………………………………………………………… 4

Results ..……………………….…...…………………………………………... 6

Respondents …...……………………………………………………………. 6

Farm Characteristics …..…………………………………………………... 6

Shed Characteristics …...………………………………………………….. 6

Biosecurity ….….…………………………………………………………… 7

Poultry Production .......................…..……………………………………. 14

Attitudes and Knowledge on Biosecurity and Disease Control ……...…... 17

Discussion …..……………..………………………………………………… 21

Conclusions …..………..……..……………………………………………....... 27

References ...…..…….………..……………………………………………....... 29

Appendix A …………………………………………………………………….

Questionnaire .……….….………………………………….

Appendix B …………………………………………………………………….

List of the 15 statements related to knowledges and attitudes in

questionnaire ………………………………………………………...……

Appendix C …………………………………………………………………….

Photos of Activities

ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Traffic control measures of broiler farms in Cipunagara, Subang 7

Figure 2 Personal hygiene facilities on broiler farms in Cipunagara, Subang 8

Figure 3 Sources and chlorination of drinking water for poultry on broiler farms in Cipunagara, Subang

9

Figure 4 Methods to deal with areas of open water on broiler farms in Cipunagara, Subang

11

Figure 5 Methods of insect control utilized by broiler farms in Cipunagara, Subang

12

Figure 6 Management of sick chickens on broiler farms in Cipunagara, Subang

17

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Scoring of biosecurity measure 4

Table 2

The number and proportion (%) of biosecurity practices applied on broiler farms in sector 3 in Cipunagara, Subang, out of the total number of biosecurity measures addressed by the questionnaire (n=37)

13

Table 3 Sources of Day-Old Chick DOC flocks and associated health documentation supplied to broiler farms in Cipunagara, Subang

15

Table 4 Production parameters of 25 broiler farms during three production cycles in Cipunagara, Subang

15

Table 5 Vaccinations against Newcastle Disease, Infectious Bursal Disease (IBD) and Avian Influenza (AI) on 25 broiler farms during three production cycles in Cipunagara, Subang

16

Table 6 Opinions of broiler farmers in Cipunagara, Subang regarding the potential effect of biosecurity measures to reduce the risk of disease introductions

18

Table 7 Opinions of broiler farmers in CIpunagara, Subang regarding the ease of implementation of biosecurity measures

20

SUMMARY

Poultry farms can be categorized into four sectors according to a classification

system developed by the FAO (FAO, 2004). Sector 3 and 4 farms, by definition,

have lower levels of biosecurity than farms belonging to sector 1 and 2.

Therefore, poultry farms in sector 3 and 4 have a higher potential risk for

acquiring and transmitting disease, including Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza

(HPAI). As part of a larger collaborative multi-intervention pilot project in

Cipunagara Sub-district of Subang District, the Bogor Agricultural University, the

Livestock Services of Subang and the Indonesian-Dutch Partnership on HPAI

control are designing interventions to raise biosecurity levels of sector 3 farms in

this sub-district. However, relatively little is known about the present biosecurity

levels on these farms. The aim of this study therefore was to provide information

on the present biosecurity measures, farm infrastructure, poultry health, poultry

management and productivity which are in place on sector 3 farms in Cipunagara

and to measure farmers’ attitudes and opinions towards biosecurity

improvements.

A cross-sectional survey was carried out from January 18th until January 24th,

2010. The target population was sector 3 poultry farms in Cipunagara

Subdistrict, Subang District, West Java. There were 25 sector 3 poultry farms in

Cipunagara at the time of the survey which were all broiler farms. It was decided

to sample the entire target population of 25 farms. Data were collected by

means of a questionnaire which was modified from an existing questionnaire

developed by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research

(ACIAR). Respondents were farm owners or farm managers. The questionnaire

was administered during a face-to-face interview and contained questions about

existing biosecurity measures, farm infrastructure, farm management, poultry

health and productivity as well as farmer’s knowledge of biosecurity and their

opinion about the ease of implementation of biosecurity measures. Farmers’

opinions about the ease of implementation of biosecurity measures was scored

on a scale of 1 to 3 with 1 being not very easy and 3 being very easy to

implement. Farmers’ knowledge and attitude was scored on a scale of 0 to 4

with 0 being most incorrect and 4 being most correct.

Most of the sector 3 broiler farm (68%) in Cipinagara are independent farms with

average capacity of 2728 chicken (range 200-15000 chicken). Most of the cages

are shaped stage and use bamboo as floor and wall.

The implementation of biosecurity in the poultry sector 3 is still low. From 37

biosecurity items contained in the questionnaire, on average, only 16.8 items

(45.5%) were imposed by farmers. Most farmers have a “medium” level of

biosecurity (n = 15, 60%), 10 (40%) farmers have a “bad“ level of biosecurity

"bad", and no one has a good level of biosecurity. Most farms do not do traffic

control. Only seven (28%) farms which have a fence, and only 1 farm, always lock

the fence.

Most of the farms have not applied proper sanitation. Although most farms have

a place to wash hands in front of the cage, but in general they do not have special

clothes and shoes. Only five (20%) farmers have a foot bath which is filled with

disinfectant and replaced regularly every day. All farmers always clean and

disinfect the cage, although further observation whether the disinfection process

has been carried out with the correct dose and procedure should be done.

Twenty (80%) farmers have chlorinated the drinking water for poultry, 23 (92%)

farmers buried or burned dead birds, but 16 (64%) farmers used animal manure

(manure) as fertilizer without first composting process.

Twenty-one farms (84%) were located within a one kilometer radius of another

sector 3 farm. Mean distances to other poultry establishments were 3177 meters

to live bird markets, 2000 meters to poultry slaughterhouses and 557 meters to

poultry collecting facilities.

The majority of farms did not practice any methods of rodent control and wild

birds. Nineteen (76%) applied some form of insect control. Measures to keep

unauthorized people out of the poultry shed were employed by 18 farms (72%),

by keeping the sheds locked at all times (n =17) or by using signs prohibiting the

entry of unauthorized people and keeping the sheds locked (n=1). Seventeen

farms (68%) had all-in all-out management system in place.

The mean number of DOCs was 2565 birds. Broilers were raised during a

relatively short production period (mean 28 days, range 20 – 42 days) and the

mean body weight at harvest was 1253 grams (range 700 – 1800 grams). The

mean feed conversion ratio (FCR) was 1.51 and the mean mortality rate was

5.4% (range 1 – 15%). The mean empty period after the production cycle was 12

days ranging from 10 to 13 days.

All farms vaccinated their poltry against ND and 18 (54%) farms vaccinated their

poltry against IBD. Although the morbidity rate is high, but only few diseases

were diagnosed.

Thirteen (52%) farmers obtained attitudes and knowledge scores of “moderate”,

eight (32%) farmers were “good”, and only a relatively small proportion were

classified “poor” (n=4, 16%).

In generally, the farmers argue that almost all biosecurity practices (biosecurity

measures) can be implemented easily, except making a fence, building the cage far

from settlement, making a shower stall at the entrance, and providing special

clothes and shoes for inside of the cage. But in the reality, the implementations

of biosecurity practices in the farms are still low. Therefore, a well programmed

guidance for the farmers to do good farming managements, biosecurity and

animal health is needed to increase their farm productivity and their concern for

animal, human and environment health.

11

I. INTRODUCTION

Background

Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) is a zoonotic disease which in Indonesia is

usually caused by the H5N1 subtype of the AI virus. Outbreaks of HPAI were

reported in poultry populations in South-East Asia starting from 2003. The first

cases in Indonesia were reported in poultry in December 2003. The virus spread

very rapidly and now 31 out of 33 provinces in Indonesia are considered to be

HPAI endemic. Transmission to humans was first identified in 2005, causing fatalities

in Tangerang District. By October 2010, The Indonesia Ministry of Health had

confirmed 170 human cases resulting in 141 deaths. This case fatality rate (83%) is

the highest in the world (WHO 2010). The majority of human cases appear to be

the result of direct contact with infected poultry or contaminated environments.

Therefore, disease surveillance and control of HPAI in poultry flocks remains of

utmost importance, not only because of the public health implications but also

because of the adverse effects of HPAI on poultry production.

The Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of Indonesia has issued a national

decree for the control and prevention of HPAI based on nine strategies. One of

these strategies is the implementation of increased biosecurity practices. Poultry

farms can be categorized into four sectors according to a classification system

developed by the FAO (FAO, 2004), which is primarily based on farm size and

management level. Poultry farms in sector 3, by definition, have lower levels of

biosecurity than farms in sector 1 and 2. Therefore, the potential risk for HPAI

transmission to and from poultry farms in sector 3 is greater than that for farms in

sector 1 and 2. Improved biosecurity measures on sector 3 farms are an important

first step to reduce the disease risks on these types of farms and to diminish their

role in HPAI transmission.

The Indonesia-Dutch Partnership on HPAI Control in collaboration with the

Livestock Services of Subang District and West Java Province (Dinas) and the

Veterinary Faculty of the Agricultural University of Bogor (IPB) are conducting a

multi-intervention pilot project aimed at the control and prevention of HPAI in

22

Cipunagara Subdistrict, Subang District. An important intervention will be improving

biosecurity in all sectors of poultry production, but especially so on sector 3 farms.

In order to assess the impact of this intervention with regard to decreased disease

occurrence and increased poultry production, information is needed on the present

status of biosecurity, current levels of production and frequency of disease

occurrence on sector 3 farms in Cipunagara. The present study therefore, was a

survey conducted on all sector 3 farms in Cipunagara, designed to obtain the above

information.

Objectives

The survey conducted on sector 3 poultry farms in Cipunagara had the following

objectives:

1. Inventarization of existing biosecurity measures

2. Inventarization of farm infrastructure, poultry health, poultry management and

productivity

3. Investigate the attitudes of farmers towards biosecurity improvement and assess

their knowledge of the different biosecurity measures

33

II. METHODOLOGY

1. Time and Location

The study was conducted in Cipunagara from 18-24 January 2010. Cipunagara is

a sub-district of Subang District, West Java.

2. Target Population

The target population was all sector 3 poultry farms in Cipunagara. At the time

of the survey there were 25 sector 3 farms in operation in the sub-district

which were all broiler farms. A meeting was held with all farmers in order to

explain the aims and the methods of the study and to obtain maximum

participation.

3. Data Collection

Data was collected via a questionnaire administered through face-to-face

interviews by trained enumerators. A copy of the questionnaire can be found in

Appendix A. The questionnaire was developed from an existing questionnaire

designed and used by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural

Research (ACIAR). It consisted of questions addressing farm infrastructure,

poultry management, biosecurity issues, poultry production parameters and

disease occurrence. Information on poultry management, poultry production

and disease occurrence was collected from the last three production cycles

prior to the time of the survey. In addition, respondents were assessed on their

attitudes towards the effectiveness and feasibility of several biosecurity

measures and their knowledge of biosecurity was tested. The questionnaire was

developed into the English language, translated into Indonesian and back-

translated into English to check for translation mistakes. The questionnaire was

pre-tested in Bogor District (Sinarsari village) and revised. The final

questionnaire contained 47 open-ended questions, 134 close-ended questions,

and 2 fill-in tables. Enumerators were trained to validate certain questions by

observing the situation on the farms.

44

4. Data Analysis

Calculation of Percentage of Implementation of Biosecurity Measures

by the Farmers

The questionnaire which was administered to the broiler farmers in

Cipunagara addressed a total of 37 biosecurity items which can be grouped

into the three principles of biosecurity, namely traffic control (5 items),

sanitation (15 items) and isolation (17 items). The proportion of biosecurity

measures which were applied on each farm out of the total number of

biosecurity measures addressed by the questionnaire was calculated and

expressed as a percentage.

Level of Biosecurity Measures

The level of biosecurity measures applied by farmers were determine through

scoring of every applied biosecurity measure in the farm. The sum of the

scores of biosecurity measures on each farm were counted to calculate level

of biosecurity measures. Biosecurity measures get a different score based on

the potential of the measure in reducing the risk of disease transmission. The

scores were between 1 to 3 from low to high impact. The score of each

biosecurity measure is presented in Table 1.

Tabel 1. Scoring of biosecurity measure

Number Question Score

1 Sign instructing visitors to report 1 2 Fence around the farm is available 3 3 Logbook was available 1 4 Gate is available 2 5 Gate kept locked 3 6 Hand washing facility is available 3 7 Separate farm clothing is available 3 8 Special foot wear is available 3 9 Footbath at the entrance is available 3 10 Washing area for disinfection of vehicles is available 2 11 Take measure to prevent area of open water 2 12 Source of water: tap water 3 13 Footbath in front of sheds is available 3 14 Disinfectant in the footbath is available 3 15 Buried or compost the manure 3 16 Cleaning the poultry shed 3 17 Disinfecting the poultry shed 3 18 Feed store fully sealed against birds and rodent 3

55

Number Question Score

19 No spilt feed 3 20 No other poultry on the farm 3 21 No domestic animals on the farm 2 22 No poultry in the worker's house 1 23 All in all out 3 24 Lock on the shed 3 25 Warning sign at the door of shed is available 1 26 Take measure to prevent birds from entering 3 27 Take measures to prevent rodents from entering 3 28 No kampong chicken and ducks around the shed 3 29 Barrier hygiene at entrance was available 3 30 Applied insect control 3 31 Not sell or give the sick bird 3 32 Burial or burning the dead birds 3

33 Poultry unsold at the market not allowed to return to the farm 3

Total score = 87

Level of biosecurity were categorized as “good” if the total score is > 70,

“moderate” with a total score of > 40 - ≤ 70, and “poor” if the total score is ≤ 50.

Knowledge about biosecurity measures and the potential effect to decrease disease risks

In the questionnaire, farmers were asked to give their opinion on 15

statements related to biosecurity and disease control. They were asked if they

strongly agreed, agreed, disagreed, strongly disagreed or were not sure.

Answers to the statements were scored on a scale from 0 to 4, with 0 being

most incorrect and 4 being most correct. For the positif statement (the

correct answer is ‘strongly agree’), the scores were strongly agree = 4, agree

= 3, not sure = 2, disagree = 1, strongly disagree = 0. Otherwise for the

negatif statement (the correct answer is ‘strongly disagree’), the scores were

strongly agree = 0, agree = 1, not sure = 2, disagree = 3, strongly disagree = 4.

The total score of every farmer was the sum of 15 statement scores with a

minimum score of 0 and a maximum score of 60. Total scores were grouped

in 3 categories, namely poor (≤ 30), moderate (>30 - ≤45) and good (score

>45). A list of the 15 statements can be found in Appendix B.

Data were entered in a Microsoft Access 2007 data base and analysed

descriptively using SPSS 13.0.

66

III. RESULTS

1. Respondents

A total of 25 broiler farms were interviewed. Respondents included owners

(n=1; 4%), owner-managers (n=19; 76%), managers (n=4; 16%) and workers

(n=1; 4%).

2. Farm Characteristics

Broiler farms in Cipunagara were operating on a mean land area of 977 m2

(range 16 – 10000 m2) and the majority of farms consisted of only one shed

(n=19; 76%). Five farms (20%) were raising broilers in two sheds and one farm

(4%) had three sheds. Mean capacity of the broiler farms was 2728 birds (range

200 – 15000 birds).

In general, farms were located fairly close to public or private infrastructures;

the mean distance from the nearest residential house was 100 m (1-500 m),

from the nearest road was 40 m (10-500 m), from the nearest paddy field was

48 m (0-500 m) and from the nearest chicken holding (including village chickens)

was 95 m (5-500 m).

3. Shed Characteristics

The 25 broiler farms had a combined total of 32 sheds. All sheds were of a half

open construction. The majority of sheds were raised off the ground (n=21;

67%), whereas the remainder of the sheds (n=11; 34%) were built directly on

the ground). Eighty-one percent (n = 26) of sheds had one level and 19% (n = 6)

of farms had two levels on which they raised poultry. The mean area of the

sheds was 172 m2 and the mean maximum capacity of the sheds was 2116 birds

(range 200-15000 birds).

The majority of the sheds used bamboo for the floors (n=30; 94%) and for the

walls (n=31; 97%). In addition to bamboo, floors were constructed of soil (n=5;

16%), concrete (n=3; 9%) or timber (n=2; 6%) and additional wall materials

were concrete (n=2; 6%), timber (n=2; 6%) or wire (n=1; 3%). Most sheds had

77

roofs made of tiles (n=29; 91%) although two sheds (6%) used asbestos as roof

material and one shed (3%) had a roof consisting of concrete.

4. Biosecurity

Biosecurity measures can be categorized into three types:

1. Traffic control: controlling the movement of humans, animals, equipment and

vehicles entering and exiting the farm.

2. Sanitation: cleaning and disinfection of sheds, equipment and vehicles,

including personal hygiene of farm workers and visitors.

3. Isolation: creating an environment where poultry are protected from disease

carriers such as people, other animals including poultry, rodents, insects

feed, and water.

Traffic Control

In general, traffic control was poorly implemented on broiler farms in

Cipunagara. This was reflected by the fact that only seven farms (28%) had a

fence surrounding the farm, only five farms (20%) had a gate in the fence

restricting access through it and just one farm (4%) kept that gate locked

(Figure 1). None of the farms provided visitor log books, and only one farm

(4%) had a sign instructing visitors to report before entering.

Figure 1. Traffic control measures of broiler farms in Cipunagara, Subang.

88

Sanitation

1. Personal Hygiene

The questionnaire inquired about the presence of personal hygiene

measures but could not confirm the uptake of these measures.

Figure 2. Personal hygiene facilities on broiler farms in Cipunagara, Subang.

Twenty-one farms (84%) indicated that they had hand washing facilities on

the premises but only three farms (12%) had a changing room and not one

farm provided shower facilities. Seven farms (28%) had special footwear

available for visitors and/or employees and one farm (4%) provided farm

clothing. No farms had footbaths for boot disinfection at the farm entrance

but respondents on 14 farms (64%) indicated that there were footbaths in

front of the shed(s). However, this could only be confirmed by the

enumerators on nine farms (36%). Thirteen farms (52%) responded that

there was always disinfectant in the footbaths but only on eight farms (32%)

could this be confirmed. Five farms (20%) said that they changed the

disinfectant daily whereas nine farms (36%) indicated that this happened

several times a week. Hygiene barriers (i.e. step-over partitions) were non-

existent on broiler farms in Cipunagara.

99

2. Cleaning and Disinfection

a. Cleaning and disinfection of the sheds

Twenty-four farms (96%) indicated that they cleaned and disinfected the

shed(s) after every production cycle; one farm indicated that it would

disinfect the shed without prior cleaning. Out of the 24 farms that

cleaned, 17 farms (71%) cleaned with water and soap, five farms (21%)

used water only and two farms (8%) only swept the shed.

b. Cleaning and disinfection of vehicles

None of the farms had designated areas or facilities to clean and disinfect

vehicles

3. Sources of Drinking Water

Most farmers obtained drinking water from wells and was chlorinated (n=14;

56%), 24% (n=6) obtained water from taps and was chlorinated, and 20%

(n=5) farmers obtained drinking water from well and was not chlorinated.

(Figure 3).

Figure 3. Sources and chlorination of drinking water for poultry on broiler farms in Cipunagara, Subang.

4. Disposal of Manure

Most of the farmers were using the manure as fertilizer by spreading it on

the field (n=16; 64%). A minority would sell the manure (n=8; 32%), or give it

away (n=1; 4%).

1100

5. Dead Bird Disposal

The majority of farms would bury the dead chickens (n=17; 68%) whereas

six farms (24%) would burn them and two farms (8%) used the dead

chickens as catfish feed.

Isolation

1. Other poultry establishments

Twenty-one farms (84%) were located within a one kilometer radius of

another sector 3 farm (mean distance 566m, range 10 – 800m) and two

farms (8%) were within a one kilometer radius from a breeder farm, although

22 farms were unsure how far away the nearest breeding farm was located.

Mean distances to other poultry establishments were 3177 meters (range

500 – 5000m) to live bird markets, 2000 meters (range 1000 – 3000m) to

poultry slaughterhouses and 557 meters (range 200 – 800m) to poultry

collecting facilities.

2. Other animals

a. Domestic animals kept on the farm

Six farms (24%) kept poultry species other than broilers on their farm

(Figure 4). Poultry which were most frequently kept were muscovy ducks

(n=3; 12%), ducks (n=2; 8%). One farm (4%) kept an unspecified other

species of poultry.

Four farms (16%) kept other domestic animals on their farm such as cats

(n=2; 8%), dogs (n=1; 4%) or fish (n=1; 4%).

Fourteen farms (56%) indicated that there were kampong chickens and

ducks wandering around or underneath the broiler sheds and 5 farms

(20%) stated that these birds were permanently present.

b. Wild birds, rodents and insects

Sixteen farms (64%) stated that rodents had access to one or more of

their sheds and this was the case for 8 farms (32%) in relation to wild

birds. The majority of farms (n=22; 88%) did not practice any methods of

rodent control; the remaining farms tried to keep rodents out by

1111

increasing the height of the raised shed (n=1, by using rodent traps (n=1;

4%) or by building rodent-proof fences (n=1; 4%). Cutting vegetation was

not an applied method by farmers in Cipunagara to deter wild birds or

rodents.

Similarly, efforts to control wild birds were rarely employed. Only two

farms (8%) used bird netting to prevent wild birds entering the shed.

One form of wild bird and rodent control is to avoid attracting them by

preventing access to feed, bodies of water or dense vegetation. On the

majority of farms (n=19; 76%) feed stores were not protected against the

entry of wild birds or rodents.

Spilt feed was observed on 11 farms (44%). Farmers indicated they dealt

with spilt feed by sweeping it up (n=5, 45.5%) farms or collecting the spilt

feed to be reused (n=2, 18.2 %) farms. The rest of the farms (n=4; 36%)

would do nothing about spilt feed.

Just over half of the farms (n=13, 52%) responded that there were pools

of water present on their farm, perhaps resulting from rain run-off or tap

overflows. Most common methods of dealing with these water pools was

by levelling the land (n=5; 20%), monitoring the water taps (n=3; 12%),

covering the drains (n=1; 4%) or an unspecified other treatment (n=1;

4%) (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Methods to deal with areas of open water on broiler farms in

Cipunagara, Subang.

1122

About three-quarters of the farms (n=19; 76%) indicated that they applied

some form of insect control. The most frequently used method was

spraying with insecticide (n=14; 56%), while three farms (12%) used insect

traps, one farm (4%) would regularly remove manure from the sheds, and

one farm (4%) would deter insects by using smoke (Figure 5). Of the 14

farms that sprayed insecticide, 12 farms did this several times a week and

two farms several times a month.

Figure 5. Methods of insect control utilized by broiler farms in Cipunagara, Subang.

c. Farms with areas of open water

The mean distance of the farms to the open water like ponds, creeks and

lakes 181 m (range 1-1000 m).

3. People

a. Employees

Sixty-eight percent (n=17) of the broiler farms in our study had one or

more employees; two farms employed one person, 14 farms two and one

farm had three people working for them. On nine farms the employees had

a family relationship with the owner and on seven farms the employees

were living on the farm. Ten farms (40%) had employees (workers and/or

owners) who stayed at a dwelling away from the poultry shed while on

1133

seven farms (28%) the employees stayed in a room attached to the shed. Six

farms (24%) had employees that kept poultry at their home.

b. Visitors

Measures to keep unauthorized people out of the poultry shed were

employed by 18 farms (72%), by keeping the sheds locked at all times (n

=17) or by both using signs prohibiting the entry of unauthorized people and

by keeping the sheds locked (n=1).

4. All-In All-Out

Seventeen farms (68%) had a strict all-in all-out management system in place.

None of the broiler farms in Cipunagara would allow poultry unsold at the

market to return to the farm.

Percentage of Implementation of Biosecurity Measures by the Farmers

The number and proportion (%) of biosecurity practices applied on broiler

farms in sector 3 in Cipunagara is showed in Table 2.

Table 2. The number and proportion (%) of biosecurity practices applied on broiler farms in sector 3 in Cipunagara, Subang, out of the total number of biosecurity measures addressed by the questionnaire (n=37)

Principles of biosecurity

Total number

of items

Minimum Average Maximum

Traffic Control 5 0 (0.0%) 0.6 (11.2%) 3 (60.0%)

Sanitation 15 5 (33.3%) 6.8 (45.1%) 9 (60.0%)

Isolation 17 5 (29.4%) 9.5 (56.0%) 13 (76.5%)

Overall 37 10 (27.0%) 16.8 (45.5%) 21 (56.8%)

Table 2 shows that the implementation of biosecurity on poultry farms in

sector 3 is still far from optimal. Out of the total of 37 biosecurity items

which were addressed in the questionnaire, a maximum of 21 (56.8%) items

were present on one farm. An average of 16.8 (45.5%) biosecurity items were

present on the surveyed farms. The least number of biosecurity measures

which were present on the farms were related to traffic control. There were

1144

17 (68%) farms that have not applied the traffic control measures yet. The

highest number of biosecurity measures which were present on the farms

were related to isolation (segregation) with an average of 9.5 (56.0%) items

and a maximum of 13 (76.5%) items being present.

Level of Biosecurity Measures

We want to look about the score of bioscurity level in broiler farm sector 3

in Subang. Most obtained scores of moderate (n=15, 60%), whereas 10

farmers (40%) were classified as having a poor biosecurity level.

5. Poultry Production

Data to assess the different aspects of poultry management and production of

the broiler farms in Cipunagara were collected from the three last production

cycles of the farms prior to the time of the survey. A total of 66 production

cycles were available for analysis, of which 20 farms provided three cycles, one

farm provided two cycles and four farms provided only one cycle.

There were two types of broiler farms in Cipunagara, namely independent

broiler farms (n=18; 72 %) and broiler farms under contract with a company

(n=7;28%). Without exception, during all production cycles for which they

supplied information (n=17), contract farms received day-old chicks (DOCs)

from the contract company. During the 49 production cycles for which

information from the independent farms was collected, DOCs were supplied by

poultry shops (n=36; 73%), direct from the breeder farm (n=12; 24%) or from

neighbours or friends (n=1; 2%). Seventeen of the DOC flocks (26%) came with

a health certificate, either issued by the supplier (n=16) or issued by the

government (n=1) (Table 3).

1155

Table 3. Sources of Day-Old Chick DOC flocks and associated health documentation supplied to broiler farms in Cipunagara, Subang

Production cycle 1

Production cycle 2

Production cycle 3

No. of farms

(%) No. of

farms (%) No. of

farms (%)

Total (%)

Source of DOC

Contract company 7 (28) 5 (24) 5 (25) 17 (26)

Poultry shop 13 (52) 12 (57) 11 (55) 36 (54)

Breeder farm 4 (16) 4 (19) 4 (20) 12 (18)

Neighbour/friend 1 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (2)

Total 25 (100) 21 (100) 20 (100) 66 (100)

How do you know these DOC were healthy

Government health certificate

1 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (2)

Supplier health certificate

6 (24) 5 (24) 5 (25) 16 (24)

Trust in supplier 6 (24) 5 (24) 5 (25) 16 (24)

Own knowledge 12 (48) 11 (52) 10 (50) 33 (50)

Total 25 (100) 21 (100) 20 (100) 66 (100)

The mean number of DOCs that were started by the broiler farmers during the

66 production cycles was 2565 birds (range 200 – 15000 birds). Broilers were

raised during a relatively short production period (mean 28 days, range 20 – 42

days) and the mean body weight at harvest was 1253 grams (range 700 – 1800

grams). The mean feed conversion ratio (FCR) which was achieved by the 25

broiler farms during the 66 production cycles was 1.51 and the mean mortality

rate was 5.4% (range 1 – 15%). The mean empty period after the production

cycle was 12 days ranging from 10 to 13 days (Table 4).

Table 4. Production parameters of 25 broiler farms during three production cycles in Cipunagara, Subang.

Production cycle 1

Production cycle 2

Production cycle 3

Total for 3 cycles Variables

Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD

DOC placed (head) 2408 ± 578 2675 ± 709 2647 ± 673 2565 ± 2996

Production period (days) 28.8 ± 0.9 28.4 ± 1.1 28.1 ± 1.3 28 ± 5

Empty period (days) 12.9 ± 1.4 10.5 ± 1.0 10.9 ± 1.1 12 ± 6

Mortality (%) 6.4 ± 4.5 3.3± 2.7 2.7 ± 1.5 5.4 ± 3.9

Slaughter weight (gram) 1254 ± 61 1255 ± 73 1248 ± 75 1253 ± 318

FCR 1.46 ± 0.62 1.57 ± 0.73 1.54 ± 0.51 1.51 ± 0.52

1166

Disease Occurrence & Prevention

All broiler farms under contract (n=7) received poultry health services from the

contract company. In contrast, independent farms (n=18) received poulty health

advice and assistance from a variety of sources, including from a poultry shop

(n=10), from the animal health divison of Livestock Services (Dinas) (n=4), from a

private veterinarian (n=1), from a nearby breeding farm (n=1) or from a

farmaceutical company (n=2).

Disease was reported on 19 of the farms (76%) during 50 of the 66 production

cycles (76%). In 37 of these cycles (74%), the nature of the disease was not

diagnosed. In the 13 production cycles in which a disease diagnosis was made, this

was carried out by the poultry company (n=3), by the District Livestock Services

(n=3), by personnel from the poultry shop (n=3) or by the farmer himself (n=4).

Infectious Bursal Disease (IBD, Gumboro Disease) was diagnosed in 4 productions

cycles (2 different farms), colibacillosis in 6 production cycles (2 different farms) and

Chronic Respiratory Diseases (CRD) in 3 production cycles (1 farm).

During all the production cycles for which data were collected, the broilers were

vaccinated against Newcastle Disease (ND), whereas vaccinations against IBD

occurred on 18 farms (72%) in 54 production cycles (82%) and vaccination against

Avian Influenza occurred on 1 farms (4%) during 3 production cycles (5%) (Table

5).

Table 5. Vaccinations against Newcastle Disease, Infectious Bursal Disease (IBD) and Avian Influenza (AI) on 25 broiler farms during three production cycles in Cipunagara, Subang.

Production cycle 1

Production cycle 2

Production cycle 3

Total cycles

No. of farms

(%) No. of farms

(%) No. of farms

(%) No. cycles

(%)

ND vaccination

Yes 25 (100) 21 (100) 20 (100) 66 (100)

IBD vaccination

Yes 18 (72) 18 (86) 18 (90) 54 (82)

No 6 (24) 3 (14) 2(10) 11 (17 %)

Don’t know 1(4) 1 (1 %)

AI vaccination

Yes 1(4) 1(5) 1(90) 3 (5%)

No 23 (92) 20 (95) 19(10) 62 (94%)

Don’t know 1(4) 1 (1%)

1177

Management of sick chickens

When asked how they dealt with sick chickens, 10 respondents (40%) indicated

they killed and dispose of their sick birds, nine farmers (36%) treated and isolated

sick birds, 5 farmes (20%) would treat sick birds without isolating them and one

farmer (4%) responded that he sold sick birds (Figure 6). Treatments also

consisted of commercially available medicines.

Figure 6. Management of sick chickens on broiler farms in Cipunagara, Subang.

6. Attitudes and knowledge on biosecurity and disease control

a. Knowledge about biosecurity measures and the potential effect to decrease disease risks

Most farmers obtained attistudes and knowledge scores of moderate (n=13,

52%) to good (n=8, 32%) whereas only a relatively small proportion were

classified as having a poor knowledge of biosecurity and disease control

(n=4, 16%).

b. Farmer’s Opinion regarding potential effect in reducing risk and ease of implementation of biosecurity measures

Respondents were asked to rate several biosecurity measures on a scale of

1 to 3 with respect to their potential effect on reducing risk of disease

introduction (Table 6). Biosecurity measures which were considered to

have a high potential effect on risk reduction (score 3) by the majority of

respondents (>50%) included removing manure from the shed after each

cycle (n=25), burning of dead chickens (n=24), burying dead chickens

1188

(n=24), storing manure in bags (n=24), composting manure (n=23),

presence of a water sanitation system (n=23), washing hands at the farm

entrance (n=21). having a footbath at the shed entrance (n=19), restricting

the numbers of visitors (n=18), keeping only commercial poultry on the

farm (n=17), having farm boots available (n=17), showering at the farm

entrance (n=14), having farm clothing available (n=14), and having a hygiene

barrier in front of the shed (n=13). Biosecurity measures which were

thought to have a low potential effect on reducing the disease risk (score 1)

by a majority of farmers (>50%) were rodent control (n=17), cutting

vegetation (n=17), insect control (n=14), and cleaning up spilled feed (n=13).

Table 6. Opinions of broiler farmers in Cipunagara, Subang regarding the potential effect of biosecurity measures to reduce the risk of disease introductions

Potential effect in reducing risk

Low Moderate High Biosecurity Measures No. of

farms (%) No. of

farms (%) No. of

farms (%)

Median

Rodent control 17 (68) 2 (8) 6 (24) 1 (low)

Fly control 14 (56) 1 (4) 10 (40) 1 (low)

Fence 9 (36) 4 (16) 12 (48) 2 (moderate)

Fence trespass signs 10 (40) 3 (12) 12 (48) 2 (moderate)

Main entrance gate 11 (44) 3 (12) 11 (44) 2 (moderate)

Entrance stop signs 11 (44) 4 (16) 10 (40) 2 (moderate)

Off-site parking area 10 (40) 5 (20) 10 (40) 2 (moderate)

Locks on poultry shed doors

5 (20) 7 (28) 13 (52) 3 (high)

Hygiene barrier in front of shed

7 (28) 6 (24) 12 (48) 2 (moderate)

Separation poultry shed from residence

8 (32) 8 (32) 9 (36) 2 (moderate)

Wild bird proof house 10 (40) 3 (12) 12 (48) 2 (moderate)

All-in All-out system 12(48) 4 (16) 9 (36) 2 (moderate)

Only commercial poultry/no pet birds

6 (24) 2 (8) 17 (68) 3 (high)

Cleaning spilled feed 13 (52) 3 (12) 9 (36) 1 (low)

Cutting grass, bushes, trees

17 (68) 5 (20) 3 (12) 1 (low)

Footbath at the shed entrance

3 (12) 3 (12) 19 (76) 3 (high)

Water sanitation system present

2 (8) 23 (92) 3 (high)

Burning of dead chickens 1 (4) 24 (96) 3 (high)

Burying of dead chickens 1 (4) 24 (96) 3 (high)

1199

Potential effect in reducing risk

Low Moderate High Biosecurity Measures No. of

farms (%) No. of

farms (%) No. of

farms (%)

Median

Restricting the number of visitors

4 (16) 3 (12) 18 (72) 3 (high)

Showering at main entrance

3 (12) 8 (32) 14 (56) 3 (high)

Washing hands at main entrance

2 (8) 2 (8) 21 (84) 3 (high)

Farm clothing 6 (24) 5 (20) 14 (56) 3 (high)

Farm boots 4 (16) 4 (16) 17 (68) 3 (high)

Removing manure from house

25 (100) 3 (high)

Storing manure in bags 1 (4) 24 (96) 3 (high)

Composting manure 1 (4) 1 (4) 23 (92) 3 (high)

Similarly, respondents were asked to rate the same biosecurity measures

with respect to their ease of implementation (Table 7). Biosecurity

measures which were considered to be easiest to implement (score 3) by the

majority of farmers were burning or burying dead chickens (n=25), removing

manure from the house (n=25), washing hands at the farm entrance (n=23),

having a hygiene barrier in front of the shed (n=23), storing manure in bags

(n=23), having an all-in all-out management system (n=21), sanitizing the

drinking water (n=21), having stop signs at the farm entrance (n=21),

controlling rodents (n=20), cutting vegetation (n=20), having a bird proof

house (n=20), cleaning up spilled feed (n=19), controlling insects (n=18),

keeping only commercial poultry (n=18), having signs warning about

trespassing (n=17), having a gate at the main farm entrance (n=16), having a

foot-bath at the entrance to the shed (n=16), having a designated vehicle

parking area away from the sheds (n=15), having locks on the shed doors

(n=15), composting manure (n=15), and restricting the number of visitors

(n=14). In contrast, there was only one biosecurity measure which was

considered to be difficult to be implemented by the majority of farmers and

this was showering at the farm entrance (n=21).

2200

Table 7. Opinions of broiler farmers in CIpunagara, Subang regarding the ease of implementation of biosecurity measures

The Ease of Implementation

Not Easy Moderate Very Easy Biosecurity Measures

No. of farms (%)

No. of farms (%)

No. of farms (%)

Median

Rodent control 3 (12) 2 (8) 20 (80) 3 (very easy)

Fly control 4 (16) 3 (12) 18 (72) 3 (very easy)

Fence 9 (36) 4 (16) 12 (48) 2 (moderate)

Fence trespass signs 3 (12) 5 (20) 17 (68) 3 (very easy)

Main entrance gate 8 (32) 1 (4) 16 (64) 3 (very easy)

Entrance stop signs 1 (4) 3 (12) 21 (84) 3 (very easy)

Off-site parking area 3 (12) 7 (28) 15 (60) 3 (very easy)

Locks on poultry shed doors

5 (20) 5 (20) 15 (60) 3 (very easy)

Hygiene barrier in front of shed

2 (8) 23 (92) 3 (very easy)

Separation poultry shed from residence

8 (32) 5 (20) 12 (48) 2 (moderate)

Wild bird proof house 5 (20) 20 (80) 3 (very easy)

All-in All-out system 2 (8) 2 (8) 21 (84) 3 (very easy)

Only commercial poultry/no pet birds

4 (16) 3 (12) 18 (72) 3 (very easy)

Cleaning spilled feed 2 (8) 4 (16) 19 (76) 3 (very easy)

Cutting grass, bushes, trees 2 (8) 3 (12) 20 (80) 3 (very easy)

Footbath at the shed entrance

5 (20) 4 (16) 16 (64) 3 (very easy)

Water sanitation system present

1 (4) 3 (12) 21 (84) 3 (very easy)

Burning of dead chickens 25 (100) 3 (very easy)

Burying of dead chickens 25 (100) 3 (very easy)

Restricting the number of visitors

7 (28) 4 (16) 14 (56) 3 (very easy)

Showering at main entrance

21 (84) 1 (4) 3 (12) 1 (not easy)

Washing hands at main entrance

2 (8) 23 (92) 3 (very easy)

Farm clothing 8 (32) 10 (40) 7 (28) 2 (moderate)

Farm boots 7 (28) 9 (36) 9 (36) 2 (moderate)

Removing manure from house

25 (100) 3 (very easy)

Storing manure in bags 2 (8) 23 (92) 3 (very easy)

Composting manure 10 (40) 15 (60) 3 (very easy)

2211

IV. DISCUSSION

The result of the survey showed that broiler sector three farms are generally

independent farms with small number of birds (average less than 3000 birds) which

lack of veterinary services. This has as consequence that annual income will be

relatively low and that probably little money available to spend on biosecurity as

seen in the result of the survey that majority of farms have moderate level of

biosecurity.

The farmers have good knowledge of biosecurity measures and biosecurity effects

on reducing the risk of diseases, and most of the farmers said that the easeness of

biosecurity implementation is very easy. However only small number of farmers

apply the biosecurity measures comprising 0.6 items (11.2%) of traffic control, 6.8

items (45.1%) of sanitation, and 9.5 items (56.0%) of isolation. This is probably

because of the low income of farmers that is not enough to finance the

implementation of biosecurity. It is a need to encourage the improvement of

awareness, attitude and behaviours of the farmers in Subang on the implementation

of biosecurity through continuous communication, information and education,

specifically the independent farmers (72%) which have no contracts with the poultry

company. According to FAO (2008), biosecurity requires the adoption of a set of

attitudes and behaviours by people to reduce risk in all activities. The Dinas

Peternakan should take an important part in supervision of those independent

farmers.

The presence of other poultry establishments could indicate the level of risk for

virus entry into the farm. Data on the study results in Cipunagara sub-district

showed that the distance between the sector 3 farms was mostly less than 1000 m,

even some of them were close to the poultry breeder. According to FAO (2008),

the minimum distance between poultry farms should be kept 400-1000 m. For

farms with the low biosecurity conditions, the minimum distance between those

farms should be kept at least 1000 m.

Some farms are also close to the poultry collecting facilities (PCF), where the

chickens come from different areas which have different status of animal health.

2222

Furthermore, the movement activities of poultry and non-poultry stuffs are very

high inside or outside the farm or the PCF which could be carriers of AI virus to

the farms. This is also supported by studies conducted by CIVAS (2007) in chicken

shelters in Jakarta by using sentinel which indicated the existence of AI virus

circulation in 84.2% of PCFs of surveyed chicken (Basri et al. 2008).

Most of poultry farms kept other poultry besides chickens. Mixing chickens with

other poultry, especially water fowl can increase the risk of AI infection. The study

conducted by FKH IPB in West Java (2006) showed that chicken farms which were

mixed with water fowl had 4 times greater risk of AI virus-infection compared to

ones kept only chicken. The study of Henning et al. (2009) demonstrated that the

risk of an outbreak of HPAI H5N1 in small holder duck and chicken farms in the

Mekong Delta of Viet Nam was increased in flock that had other types of poultry,

i.e., geese (OR=11.95,: 95% CI: +infinity). Furthermore, Katz et al. (2009) stated

that the traditional farming practices in Asia allow for the close association of wild

and domestic water fowl, swine, and humans, which may provide an environment

for viral gene exchange among influenza viruses from these different hosts.

The study results showed that most of the farms in Cipunegara is accessible to wild

birds, rodents and insects. While most of the farms does not have a control

program of those animals. This indicates that the farms in this region are at risk to

be infected by avian influenza virus. AI survey conducted by the US NAMRU-2 at 5

locations on the island of Java, i.e., Muara Gembong (Bekasi), Eretan, Kandang Haur

(Indramayu), Sayung (Demak), Wonorejo, Rungkut (Surabaya), Trisik, Galur

(Kulonprogo) from October 2006 until September 2007 showed that there was

serological evidence of H5N1 infection in domestic birds, and infection in resident

wild birds and migratory wild birds. The study also found H5 in 3 of the 84 (3.6%)

samples of pigeon (Columba spp) and 2 of 97 (2.1%) samples of Kuntul kerbau

(Bubulcus ibis), which were positive results of ELISA. The prevalence of H5N1

serologically in this survey were 5.3% (Stoops et al. 2009).

The presence of open water within the farm could become an attraction for wild

waterfowl and wild birds to enter the farm area. This wild water birds can be

carriers of the virus from the outside into the farm. A survey on waterfowl in 4

2233

districts in West Java conducted by FKH IPB (2006) mentioned that 2% of duck

samples, 3.6% of muscovy duck samples, and 5% of geese samples were

demonstrated antibody titer against H5 virus, although they have never been

vaccinated previously.

Humans are potential mechanical vectors that facilitate the transmission of HPAI

H5N1 virus from one place to another. The workers who live outside the farm or

visitors can spread the disease to the inside or outside the farms. Henning et al.

(2009) stated that Flocks on farms visited by visitors, e.g., family and friends were at

increased risk of having a HPAI H5N1 outbreak. Their study in Viet Nam found

that the risk of an outbreak of HPAI H5N1 was increased in flocks that had family

and friends visiting (OR = 8.2; 95% CI: 1.0, +infinity). Workers who enter and leave

the sheds have high likelihood to be contaminated with poultry feces on the

footwear in a large amount. DeGlanville (2010) estimated the fecal contamination

of footwear from a minimum of 30 g up to a maximum of 100 g. The concentration

of virus in the feces excreted by infected poultry is very high. According to Power

(2005), one gram of feces from infected birds may contain up to 10 billion infectious

virus.

The visitors who usually visit the farms are chicken traders and animal health

workers. Most of farmers sell their chicken to the middleman (chicken collecting

traders) who enter the farms or sheds. The study conducted in the west part of

Java showed that the traders were more often in contact with poultry than any

other person in the market chain, while their knowledge on biosecurity lacked

(FAO 2008). This condition allows the traders contaminated with virus.

If there is a case of disease, only small number of farms (26%) was diagnosed by

animal health workers, e.g. veterinarian or veterinary paraprofessional, who come

from the poultry company (for contract farms), Dinas, poultry shop or veterinary

technical service from private veterinary pharmaceutical company. Their footwear

or hands could be contaminated with virus. They will be a source of virus infection

to other poultry or farms.

Generaly the distance of farm locations to public infrastructure such as the

community residence, roads, paddy fields and other farms (including chicken farms)

2244

is relatively close, with the average closest distance of less than 200 m. This

condition is not good in terms of biosecurity. The farm location which close to the

public infrastructure can be a source of disease transmission including AI,

considering the traffic and accessibility to and from the farm has become more open

and difficult to control. Results of the research on waterfowl conducted by Siahaan

(2007) showed, the distance of farms to the community residence of less than 10 m

had a risk of exposure to AI 8.8 times greater comparing with more than 10 m.

Regarding the distance of farm location to other palces, the most fundamental in

disease control is how to prevent contamination and strictly traffic control (human,

livestock, feed,sheds/cages and equipment, etc.) (Swayne and Halvorson 2006),

therefore the disease could not spread easily to and from these farms.

Most of the main material of floors and walls sheds are made of bamboo. This

material is relatively cheap and widely available in these area. Unfortunately, these

materials are difficult to clean and disinfect, while the pathogenic microorganisms

can persist in the pores and cracks in bamboo. Since the shed construction is half-

open, it also makes easier to be entered by wild birds and rodents. Hence it can be

a source of disease transmission to and from these farms. It is necessary to find out

the ways of cleaning and disinfection more effective and in accordance with the

characteristics of bamboo cage construction (or if possible replacing the material

with a more easily cleaned and disinfected materil, such as wire or concrete).

Moreover, the knowledge of farmers should be improved, specifically the

importance of wild birds and rodents as a carrier in disease transmission chain.

Most of the farms in Cipunagara do not have fence, or open farm to the

surrounding environment, therefore traffic control around the farm area is difficult.

Fencing of the farm could be as a barrier to other areas, also may prevent the

poultry contact with humans, birds or other animals. USDA (2006) emphasized

that fencing is part of biosecurity measure in preventing of poultry diseases.

According to Martawijaya et al. (2005), the minimum high of fence should be 75 cm.

The results of research on waterfowl (Siahaan 2007) showed that the farm with a

height fence of less than 75 cm have a risk of exposure to AI almost 3 times higher

than the farms with the height of the fence more than 75 cm. Therefore, the

2255

importance of fence in the farm should be communicated to farmers, so that the

farmers are aware to apply traffic control as biosecurity measure.

Disposal of poultry manure by spreading directly to the field, that was done by most

of respondents, may have a negative impact, such as smell and contamination of

water sources (rivers, lakes, wells). Vancerholm (1997) stated that if the spread of

waste followed by the rainy season or when the waste is spread on frozen ground,

it can contaminate the surface water. Furthermore, this manure disposal method

could also serve as a medium of transmission of various diseases, including avian

influenza (AI). According to Wood (2005), AI virus can survive in manure up to 35

days at a temperature of 4oC, therefore poor handling of poultry manure can be a

risk factor for spreading of AI.

To improve this condition, farmers should be trained how to manage manure in a

simple and safe way to keep environment healthy, such as composting. This method

is easily to be applied and has several advantages, such as stabilizing the organic

materials derived from poultry manure, reducing odor, killinh pathogenic organisms,

and producing organic fertilizer which is hygienic, uniform and suitable for the soil

(Haga 1990).

Production period of broiler poultry in Cipunagara is relatively short (28 days) and

the mean body weight when they are harvested are 1253 g with a mean of feed

conversion ratio (FCR) of 1.51. Those production parameter standards were still

lower than industrial standard, i.e., 28 days of age, FCR of 1.46 and body weight of

1467 g (Purnawarman, personal communication). The optimum production of

broiler poultry is highly dependent on proper husbandry and health management

systems on the farm. Good farm management practices will reduce the risk of

disease. The farm management practices of majority farms in Cipunagara and the

biosecurity measures applied by the farmers were poor. These condition leads to

have more infection in farms as shown in the results of questionnaire that in 76 % of

production cycles had been reported the diseases with the mean of mortality rate

of 5.47%. The mean of mortality in Cipunagara farms were higher comparing with

the mortality standard (5%) (Fadilah et al. 2007).

2266

Although the occurrence of disease appears to be high, only few cases could be

diagnosed (26%). It is suggested that there is a lack of adequate veterinary services

to sector 3 farms in Cipunagara, as shown in the results due to who diagnosed the

diseases. During three production cycles, there were some farmers conducted

diagnose by themselves, while the other diagnose were carried out by various

person, i.e., from contract company, local livestock services, poultry shops. The

diagnoses included IBD, colibacillosis and chronic respiratory disease (CRD). It is

needed for further studies to observe more accurately and quantify disease

occurrence in broiler farms in Subang. According to Msoffe et al. (2010), animal

disease control programs in developing countries can be very difficult to implement.

In developing countries generally and in Africa specifically, poverty and consequent

lack of resources to apply interventions, are critical deficiencies.

2277

V. CONCLUSIONS

Based on the information obtained from the survey, in generally, the broiler farms

in sector 3 Cipunagara are small independent farms with poor production and

health management. The application of biosecurity is still limited because of the

small scale ownership and lack of guidance. This condition leads to easier spread of

diseases and decrease of productivity.

Most of the breeders have not applied good traffic control. Most of them do not

have a fence, and only one farm, always lock the gate. Beside that, most of the farms

are located near human settlements where contact between human and domestic

animals could be very high. These factors can increase the possibility of disease

spread.

In similar is it for sanitation measure. Although most of the farms have hand washing

facilities, but most do not have clothes and special shoes to enter the cage. A

minority have a footbath at the front door of his cage, but only a few breeders fill

and replace the disinfectant in the footbath every day. But most farmers use dung

(manure) as an agricultural fertilizer without composting process. The important

thing is still, more in-depth observation of the disinfection process should be done.

It should be noted whether the disinfection process has been carried out with the

correct dose, type of disinfectant and procedure.

Most of the farms are located within a radius of one kilometer from other poultry

farms, both breeding farm or other poultry sector 3. Almost every farm has a very

limited control of contacts with other animals such as ducks, free-range chicken,

wild birds, domestic animals, rodents, and insects. Not all farms implement all in all

out system. They sell their birds gradually even retail to a neighbors or buyers who

come to the farm.

Information collected through these survey shows that most of farmer stated that

biosecurity measure were easy to implemented, except for fenced, separation of

poultry shed and residence, showering at main entrance, provided special clothes

and boots for worker. Although they argued that some of biosecurity measures

were easy to be implemented, the condition of biosecurity measure in their farms

2288

were still in the poor category. The most reasons for these condition were caused

by the following two main reason, namely: 1. awareness of farmers about the impact

of biosecurity in reducing the risk of disease were still low and 2. lack of guidance

and advice to farmers regarding to the importance of biosecurity and poultry

management including husbandry and health management. Therefore they need

more veterinary services in giving extension and counseling as well as improving of

diagnosis and other veterinary services.

2299

REFERENCES

Basri C, Noor GMS, Jatikusumah A, Sunandar. 2008. Detection of H5N1 AI Virus Circulation in Poultry Collecting Facilities in DKI Jakarta Province. Proceedings of 10th National Veterinary Scientist Conference of Indonesian Veterinary Medical Association.

Fadilah R, Agustin P, Sjamsirul A, Eko P. 2007. Sukses Beternak Ayam Broiler.

Jakarta: Agromedia Pustaka [FAO] Food Agriculture Organization. 2008. Biosecurity for highly pathogenic avian

influenza: issues and options. http://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/1242/ biosecurity-for-highly-pathogenic-avian-influenza-issues-and-options [3 Desember 2010].

Haga, Kiyonori. 1990. Production of Compost from Organic Wastes. ASPAC Food

and Fertilizer Technology Center. Extension Bulletin No. 311:20-31 Henning KA, Henning J, Morton J, Long NT, Ha NT, Meers J. 2009. Farm- and flock-level

risk factors associated with highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreaks on small holder duck and chicken farms in the Mekong Delta of Viet Nam. Prev Vet Med 91:179–188.

Katz JM, Veguilla V, Belser JA,. Maines TR, Van Hoeven N, Pappas C, Hancock K, Tumpey

TM. 2009. The public health impact of avian influenza viruses. Poult Sci 88:872–879. Martawijaya EI, Martanto E, Tinaprilla N. 2005. Panduan Beternak Itik Petelur secara

Intensif. Jakarta. Agromedia Pustaka Msoffe PLM, Bunn D, Muhairwa AP,. Mtambo MMA, Mwamhehe H, Msago A,. Mlozi

MRS,. Cardona CJ. 2010. Implementing poultry vaccination and biosecurity at the village level in Tanzania: a social strategy to promote health in free-range poultry populations. Trop Anim Health Prod 42:253–263.

Power, C. 2005. The Source and Means of Spread of the Avian Influenza Virus in the

Lower Fraser Valley of British Columbia During an Outbreak in the Winter of 2004. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/avflu/2004rep/epie.shtml

Siahaan, Sinar Jaya. 2007. Pengaruh Tingkat Biosekuriti Terhadap Pemaparan Avian

Influenza pada Unggas Air. Tesis Sekolah Pascasarjana IPB Stoops AC; Barbara KA; Indrawan M; Ibrahim IN; Petrus WB; Wijaya S; Farzeli A;

Antonjaya U; Sin LW; Hidayatullah N; Kristanto I; Tampubolon AM; Purnama S; Supriatna A; Burgess TH; Williams M; Putnam SD; Tobias S; Blair PJ. 2009. H5N1 surveillance in migratory birds in Java, Indonesia. Vector Borne And Zoonotic Diseases (Larchmont, N.Y.) [Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis]. Dec; Vol. 9 (6), pp. 695-702

3300

Swayne DE, Halvorson DA, 2006. Influenza. Di dalam : Saif YM et al, editor.

Diseases of Poultry. Ed. Ke-11.New York: Blackwell. Hlm 135-155. USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2006. 6 Way to Prevent Poultry

Diseases. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/biosecurity/tips.html (20 Februari 2007).

Vanderholm, D.H. 1997. Handling of Manure from Diferent Livestock and

Managemen System. J. Anim. Sci. 48:113-120. Wibawan IWT, Ilyas AZ, Handaryani E. Sudarnika E, et al. 2006.,Study of

Characteristics of Avian Influenza Virus in Water Fowl as the Bases for AI Control : Final Report. FVM IPB and Ministry of Agriculture Indonesia.

Will de Glanville, Syafrison Idris, Solenne Costard, Fred Unger, Dirk Pfeiffer.. A

Quantitative Risk Assessment for the onward transmission of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 from an infected small-scale broiler farm in Bogor, West Java, Indonesia: Draft Report. Have not been published.

0

Appendix A. Quetionnaire

INVENTARIZATION SURVEY ON EXISTING BIOSECURITY MEASURES,

HEALTH AND PRODUCTIVITY ON SECTOR THREE FARMS IN SUBANG

INDONESIAN DUTCH PARTNERSHIP FOR HIGHLY PATHOGENIC AVIAN INFLUENZA CONTROL (IDP-HPAI)

in collaboration with

FACULTY OF VETERINARY MEDICINE – BOGOR AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY (IPB)

2009

Questionnaire Number

1

A. BASE DATA AND INFORMATION ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

B. FARM INFRASTRUCTURE...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

C. SHED INFRASTRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT............................................................................................................................................................................. 12

D. POULTRY MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18

E. BIOSECURITY SCORING TABLE ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 24

F. FARMER’S KNOWLEDGE & ATTITUDES............................................................................................................................................................................................. 0

2

1. Informed Consent

I am .............................. from Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, IPB. We are doing a survey on the existing biosecurity measures in sector three farms in

Subang. We are looking forward to the participation of you in this survey. The information that you provide will assist us and the government in efforts

to improve the biosecurity in this region. This survey will take no more than 30 minutes. The information that you provide will be kept confidential.

Your name is noted only for the interests of the respondent's identity and will not be included in the report.

Participation in this survey is voluntary, but we really hope you can participate because the information that you provide is extremely valuable.

Do you have any questions regarding this survey?

Can I start interviewing you right now?

Interviewers Signature: ____________ Date :______________

Respondent agrees to be interviewed? Yes -----> Interview continued No ------> End interview

3

A. BASE DATA AND INFORMATION

Owner (farmer) name Respondent name District Sub-district Village, Dusun, RW, RT

Telephone number HP number GPS Details:

Name of enumerator Date of interview (dd/mm/yy) Time interview started Time interview completed Name of supervisor

_____ /_____ /_____ ______ : ______ a.m./p.m. ______ : ______ a.m./p.m.

A7 : Type of poultry farm : 1. Self supported 2. Partnership with (specify)…………………………………………………………………… A8 : Animal health service is provided by: (can be more one answer)

1. Dinas Peternakan

2. Contract Company

3. Poultry shop

4. Private Veterinarian

5. Other, specify on the dotted line

4

B. FARM INFRASTRUCTURE Can you please provide information on all the poultry farms that you have some link or responsibility for?

Select the farm on which you spend most of your working time, or if there is only one farm that you have responsibility for, please answer the following questions with regard to that farm. B11. The farm I have selected is farm number from the table above

B1 Farm No.

B2. How many sheds are there on each farm?

B3. What is the total land area of each farm? (sq meter) Please cross the box if don’t know

B4. What is the total capacity of broilers if all sheds are full?

B5. What is your responsibility for these farms? 01=owner 02=owner/manager 03=manager 04=worker 05=other If owner go to B7, if not go to B6

B6.Relationship to owner 01 =relative 02 =friend 03 =employee 04 =other, …...specify

B7. Does the owner live within 1 km of the farm? 01 = yes 02 = no

B8. How long have you had this responsibility / job If owner, how long have you been the owner?

(year, months)

B9. How many commercial poultry farms are there within a 1 km radius of the farm

Please cross the box if don’t know

B10. Is the farm elevated above the surrounding area? 01 = elevated 02 = the same

level 03 = lower

Worker Owner Breeding Broiler

01

02

03

04

05

5

How far is the closest poultry shed on this farm to the following places? (please cross the box if don’t know)

B12. Nearest Road (meter)

B13. Nearest open water e.g. creek, dam, river, pond. (meter)

B14. Nearest live bird market (meter)

B15. Nearest house (meter)

B16. Nearest paddy field (meter)

B17. Neighbour’s commercial poultry shed (meter)

B18. Neighbour’s chicken kampung shed (meter)

B19. Nearest feed shed (meter)

B20. Nearest farm boundary fence (meter)

B21. Nearest poultry slaughter houses (PSH) (meter)

B22. Nearest poultry collecting facilities (PCF) (meter)

Please observe the biosecurity measure below and ask the farmer. In the observe check box, please put your observation if you are able to observe the status of the biosecurity measure.

Answer Observe

B23. Is there people who worked on the farm?

01 = Yes 02 = No

If yes go to B24, if no go to B30

B24. How many people worked on the farm?

B25. Do the workers have relationship with the owner?

01 = Yes 02 = No

If yes go to B26, if no go to B27

B26. How many workers have a family relationship with the owner?

6

Answer Observe

B27. How many workers live on the farm?

B28. How many workers live off the farm?

B29. Where do the workers stay that live on the farm?

01 = building away from the poultry shed 02 = in special room in the shed 03 = other, specify

B30. Is there a secure boundary fence that is able to stop people and animals entering?

01 = yes 02 = no

If yes go to B31, if no go to B35

B31. How many entrances are there into the farm?

B32. Do all farm entrances have gates?

01 = yes 02 = no 03 = some

If yes or some go to B33, if no go to B35

7

Answer Observe

B33. Do all farm gates have locks?

01 = yes 02 = no 03 = some

If yes or some go to B34, if no go to B35

B34. Are the gates kept locked at all times until permission is granted to enter?

01 = yes 02 = no 03 = some

B35. Are there hand washing facilities for visitors and employees?

01 = only for employees 02 = only for visitors 03 = for both 04 = yes but not used 05 = no

B36. Is there a shower room facility for visitors and employees?

01 = only for employees 02 = only for visitors 03 = for both 04 = yes but not used 05 = no

B37. Is there a change room facility for visitors and employees?

01 = only for employees 02 = only for visitors 03 = for both 04 = yes but not used 05 = no

B38. Is there separate farm clothing (i.e coverall) available for visitors and employees?

01 = only for employees 02 = only for visitors 03 = for both 04 = yes but not used 05 = no

8

Answer Observe

B39. Is there special foot wear (i.e farm boots) available for visitors and employees?

01 = only for employees 02 = only for visitor 03 = for both 04 = yes but not used 05 = no

B40. Is there a footbath at the entrance of the farm?

01 = yes 02 = no

If yes go to B41, if no go B44

B41. Is the footbath filled with disinfectant all the time?

01 = yes 02 = no

If yes go to B42, if no go to B44

B42. How often is the disinfectant changed?

01 = daily 02 = several times a week 03 = once a week 04 =less than once a week 05 = other, specify on the dotted line

WWhhaatt iiss tthhee ccoonnddiittiioonn ooff tthhee ssoolluuttiioonn iinn tthhee ffoooottbbaatthh ??

0011 == cclleeaann 0022 == ddiirrttyy

B44. How many signs are there warning visitors and employees of restricted access to certain areas of the farm?

If 1 or more go to B45, if 0 go to B46

B43.

9

Answer Observe

B45. Is there a sign instructing visitors to report to the office on arrival?

01 = yes 02 = no 03 = don’t know

B46. Are the visitors required to sign a logbook?

01 = yes 02 = no

B47. Is there a wash down area for all vehicles entering the farm?

01 = yes 02 = no 03 = yes but not used 04 = don’t know

If yes go to B48, if no or don’t know go to B50

B48. Is there a high pressure pump sprayer at the wash down area?

01 = yes 02 = no 03 = don’t know

B49. Is disinfectant available at the wash down area?

01 = yes 02 = no

B50. Are cages and other equipment returning from the market cleaned and disinfected before re-entering the farm?

01 = yes 02 = no 03 = no equipment etc comes back from the market 04 = sometimes 05 = don’t know

B51. Is your feed store fully sealed against birds and rodents?

01 = yes 02 = no 03 = don’t know

10

Answer Observe

B52. Are there any areas of open water like tap overflows, rain runoffs on the farm?

01 = yes 02 = sometimes 03 = no 04 = don’t know

If no or don’t know go to B54, otherwise go to B53

B53. What actions have you taken to reduce or stop this? (can be more than one answer)

01 = done nothing 02 = covered the drains 03 = monitor taps 04 = rainwater runoff into tanks or piped directly off farm

05 = leveled land 06 = other, specify on the dotted line

B54. Are there any areas where spilt feed is lying around on the farm?

01 = yes 02 = sometimes 03 = no 04 = don’t know

If yes or sometimes go to B55, if otherwise go to B56

B55. What actions have you taken to reduce or stop this? (can be more than one answer) 01 =

01 = done nothing 02 = ensure feed only brought in bags 03 = monitor and sweep up as required

04 = other, specify on the dotted line

B56. Are there any other poultry on the farm?

01 = yes 02 = no

If yes go to B57, if no go to B58

B57. If yes, please specify:

Poultry Number

� Duck

� Pet birds

� Pigeon

� Muscovy duck

� Other, specify

� ………………………………………….

� ………………………………………….

11

B58. Are there any other domestic animals on the farm?

01 = yes 02 = no

If yes go to B59, if no go to B60

B59. If yes, please specify:

B60. Do the owner or the worker have village chickens, fancy birds, fighting cocks or ducks in their house?

01 = yes 02 = no 03 = don’t know

Type of animal Number

� Cats

� Dogs

� Cattle

� Sheep

� Goats

� Other, specify

� …………………………………………..…

� …………………………………………….

12

C. SHED INFRASTRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT

For the farm that you selected in Section B, please answer the following questions concerning the shed construction and the farm management

Shed

No.

C1. Type of shed? 01 = Raised 02 = On The ground 03 = Over a fish pond 04 = Other, specify

C2. How many levels or floors are there in this shed?

C3. Are any of the floors at ground level? 01 = yes 02 = no

What are the building materials of the shed? 01 = concrete 02 = wire 03 = timber 04 = bamboo 05 = tin 06 = soil 07 = other, specify

C7. Shed Construction 01 = fully closed 02 = half open

C8. Shed size

C9. Shed capacity

C10. Approximately what year was the shed first built?

(year)

please cross the box if don’t know

C4. Floor

C5. Walls

C6. Roof

length (meter)

width (meter)

Max Average

01

02

03

04

05

06

13

C11. What is the source of water for the shed 01 = spring 02 = rain water 03 = pond 04 = dam/river 05 = tap water 06 = well 07 = other, specify

C12. Is the poultry drinking water chlorinated? 01 = yes 02 = sometimes 03 = no 04 = don’t know

C13. What is the source of electricity for the shed? 01 = generator 02 = electricity supply (PLN) 03 = other, specify

C14. Is the shed locked? 01 = always 02 = sometimes 03 = never 04 = don’t know

C15. Is there a footbath in front of shed entrances? 01 = yes all sheds 02 = some sheds 03 = no footbaths

If yes or some go to C16, if no go to C19

Shed No.

Answer Observe Answer Observe

01

□ yes □ no

02

□ yes □ no

03

□ yes □ no

04

□ yes □ no

05

□ yes □ no

06

□ yes □ no

14

Shed No.

C16. What is the footbath made of?

01= concrete 02=plastic 03=other, specify

C17. Is there any disinfectant in the footbath?

01 = always 02 = sometimes 03 = never If never go to C19, otherwise go to C18

C18. How often is the disinfectant changed?

01 = daily 02 = several times a week 03 = once a week 04 = less than once week 05 =other, specify

C19. Are there signs up at the doors to ensure only selected people are allowed to enter the shed?

01 = yes all doors 02 = some doors 03 = no signs at all 04 = don’t know

C20. Can scavenging birds enter the shed?

01 = yes 02 = no

C21. Can scavenging rodents enter the shed?

01 = yes 02= no

Answer Observe Answer Observe

Answer Observe Answer Observe Answer Observe

01

□ yes □ no

02

□ yes □ no

03

□ yes □ no

04

□ yes □ no

05

□ yes □ no

06

□ yes □ no

15

Shed No.

C22. What has been done to stop birds entering?

01 = do nothing 02= bird proof netting used 03= scarecrows used 04= cut vegetation 05= Other, specify

(can be more than one answer)

C23. What has been done to stop rodents entering?

01 = do nothing 02= built off ground 03= rat baits used 04= cut vegetation 05 = Other, specify

(can be more than one answer )

C24. Are there kampong chickens and ducks that wander around or underneath the shed?

01= yes 02= no 03= don’t know

If no go to C26, otherwise go to C25

C25. In general, how often do kampung chickens and ducks wander around or underneath the shed?

01 = always 02= often 03= sometimes 04= rarely 05= never 06= don’t know

C26. Is/are there (a) hygiene barrier(s) at the entrance of the shed? (for example a step-over partition)

01= yes 02= no

Answer Observe Answer Observe

Answer Observe

01

02

03

04

05

06

16

Answer Observe

C27. How do you dispose of the manure?

01 = spread on field 02 = sell 03 = given away 04 = store on farm 05= fed to fish 06 = compost 07 = other, specify on the dotted line

C28. here do you purchase poultry litter?

01 = rice processing plant 02 = contract company 03 = poultry shop

04 = other, specify on the dotted line

C29. How often do you replace the litter in the poultry shed?

01= after every cycle 02= after every two cycles 03 = after every three cycles

04 = irregular 05=don’t know 06 = other, specify on the dotted line

C30. How often is your poultry shed cleaned?

01= after every cycle 02= after every two cycles 03 = after every three cycles 04 = irregular

05= don’t know 06= never 07 = other, specify on the dotted line

If never go to C33, otherwise go toC33

C31. How is the poultry shed cleaned?

01=dry clean (sweeping or brushing) 02= with water 03= with water and soap 04=other, specify on the dotted line

17

Answer Observe

C32. Who does the cleaning of the poultry shed?

01= farm staff 02 = hired people from outside of the farm 03 = other, specify on the dotted line

C33. How often is the poultry shed disinfected?

01 = after every cycle 02= after every two cycles 03 = after every three cycles 04 = irregular

05 = don’t know 06= never 07 = other, specify on the dotted line

If never go to C35, if other go to C33b

C33b. Please specify merk disinfectant is use on the dotted line

C34. Siapa yang mendisinfeksi kandang Anda?

C34. Who does the disinfecting of the shed?

01 = farm staff 02 = hired people from outside of the farm

03 = other, specify on the dotted line

C35. Do you control insects inside and around the poultry shed?

01=yes 02=no

If yes go to C36, if no go to D

18

Answer Observe

C36. How do you control insects inside and around the poultry shed? (Can be more than one answer)

01 = spray with insecticide 02 = treat the manure with insecticide 03= use insect traps

04=cut down vegetation around the shed 05 = other, specify on the dotted line

If insects traps are used go to C37 otherwise go to C38 C37. If you use insect traps, how often are these in operation?

01= all the time 02= several times a week 03= several times a month

04= once every few months 05= other, specify on the dotted line

C38. If you apply insecticides to control insects, how often is this done?

01= several times a week 02= several times a month 03= once every few months

04= other, specify on the dotted line

19

D. POULTRY MANAGEMENT We now want to ask you questions about your broiler production over the three last production cycles which have been completed (or over the three last shed harvests which have been completed if you don’t use all in all out).

Production cycle no.

D1. Were these chickens purchased under contract and if yes from which contract company?

01 = no contract 02 = CP 03 = Japfa 04 = Leong 05=other, specify 06 = don’t know

D2. Do you use an all in all out system for your chickens?

01 = Yes 02 = No

D3. Date(s) on which DOCs entered shed

(dd/mm/yy)

(can be more than one date)

if don’t know cross the box

D4. Date(s) on which broilers were sold for slaughter

(dd/mm/yy)

(can be more than one date)

if don’t know cross the box

D5. How long chicken raised?

if don’t know cross the box

D6. Number of DOC’s placed?

D7. From where were these DOCs sourced?

01 = contractor …….company 02 = poultry shop 03 = direct from …….breeder 04 = neighbour, …….friend 05 = other, specify

D8. How do you know these DOC’s were healthy?

01 = government health …...certificate 02 = supplier health certificate 03 = trust supplier 04 = own ……knowledge 05 = don’t know

D9. What was the average weight when they were sold?

(gram)

1

2

3

20

D10. Why were they sold at this weight? 01 = don’t know 02 = in the contract 03 = that’s when the collector came 04 = had sick birds 05 = Other, specify

D11. What was the average price per kg when sold?

(Rp./kg)

if don’t know cross the box

D15. Did any birds get sick during this production? 01 = yes 02 = no 03 = don’t ……know

D16. What was the culled rate for this production (%)

if don’t know cross the box

Production cycle no.

D12. How much was FCR?

if don’t know cross the box

D13. How much feed was used? (kg)

if don’t know cross the box

D14. How many days were there between the end of the last production and the start of this production? (or the removal to slaughter of the last birds in this shed and the arrival of new DOC’s in this shed

if don’t know cross the box

D17. How many birds died in this production?

If don’t know cross the box and go to D18

D18. What was the mortality rate for this production (%)

if don’t know cross the box

1

2

3

21

Production no.

D19. Was there a diagnosis undertaken for these sick or dead birds? 01 = yes 02 = no 03 = don’t know If no or don’t know go to D22, if yes go to D20

D20. Who undertook the diagnosis 01 = contract company 02 = government 03 = poultry shop 04 = NGO 05 = private veterinarian 06 = drug company 07 = farmer 08 = other, specify

D21. What did the broilers die or get sick of? 01 = ND 02 = AI 03 = Gumboro 04 = accident in shed 05 = don’t know 06 = other, specify

D22. Were your chickens vaccinated for ND? 01 = yes 02 = no 03 = don’t know If no or don’t know go to D25

D23. If yes, who did the vaccination? 01 = yourself 02 = your worker 03 = dinas 04 = private veterinarian 05 = other, specify

D24. What was the major reason you vaccinated? 01 = was told to 02 = habit 03 = have suffered loss from ND before 04= general procedure from contract company 05= other, specify

1

2

3

22

Production no.

D25. Were your chickens vaccinated for gumboro? 01 = yes 02 = no 03 = don’t know If no or don’t know go to D28

D26. If yes, who did the vaccination? 01 = yourself 02 = your worker 03 = dinas 04 = private veterinarian 05 = other, specify

D27. What was the major reason you vaccinated? 01 = was told to 02 = habit 03 = have suffered loss from gumboro before 04= general procedure from contract company 05= other, specify

D28. Were your chickens vaccinated for HPAI? 01 = yes 02 = no 03 = don’t know If no or don’t know go to D31

D29. If yes, who did the vaccination? 01 = yourself 02 = your worker 03 = dinas 04 = private veterinarian 05 = other, specify

D30. What was the major reason you vaccinated? 01 = was told to 02 = habit 03 = have suffered loss from HPAI before 04= general procedure from contract company 05= other, specify

1

2

3

23

D31. What do you do when you have sick chickens?

01 = Kill and dispose 03 = Sell 05 = slaughter for consumption

02 = Isolated from rest of flock 04 = Treat 06 = Other, specify on the dotted line

If chickens are treated go to D32, otherwise go to D33

D32. If you treat your sick chickens, what do you treat them with?

01 = commercial medicine 02 = herbal medicine 03 = vitamins 04 = other, specify on the dotted line

D33. How do you dispose of the dead birds?

01 = burial 03 = fed to dog 05 = thrown in open hole 07 = given to collector

02 = burning 04= fed to fish 06 = thrown in river 08 =other, specify on the dotted line

D34. Are poultry unsold at the market allowed to return to the farm?

01 = yes, always, 02 = sometimes 03 = never 04 = don’t know

24

E. BIOSECURITY SCORING TABLE

Would you please give your opinion on the following biosecurity measures with regard to their potential effect to reduce the risk of disease on your

farm and the ease with which it can be implemented on your farm. Please score the biosecurity measures according to the scores in the table below.

Effect of measure Score range Weight of the score

Potential effect of the measure to reduce the risk of disease 1 – 3

1= Low potential to reduce the risk of disease

2= Median potential to reduce the risk of disease

3= High potential to reduce the risk of disease

Ease of implementation of the measure 1 – 3

1= Not easy to implement

2= Moderately easy to implement

3= Very easy to implement

No Biosecurity measure Potential effect in reducing risk

Easy of implementation

25

Score range: 1=low potential 2=median potential 3=high potential 1=not easy 2=moderately easy 3=very easy

1 Rodent control

2 Fly control

3 Fence

4 Fence trespass signs

5 Main entrance gate

6 Entrance stop signs

7 Parking area off-site

8 Hygiene barrier in front of shed

9 Lock on poultry shed doors

10 Separation poultry shed - residence

11 Bird proof house

12 All-in All-out system

13

Only commercial poultry/no pet birds

26

Biosecurity measure Potential effect in reducing risk Easy of

implementation No

Score range: 1=low potential 2=median potential 3=high potential 1=not easy 2=moderately easy 3=very easy

14 Clean spilled feed

15 Cut grass, bushes, trees

16 Footbath at the shed entrance

17 Water sanitation system present

18 Burning of dead chickens

19 Burying of dead chickens

20 Restrict the number of visitors

21 Showering at central entrance

22 Washing hands at central entrance

23 Farm clothing

24 Farm boots

25 Remove manure from house

26 Store manure in bags

27 Compost manure

27

F. FARMER’S KNOWLEDGE & ATTITUDES How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? (please tick)

Code No.

1 Strongly

agree

2

Agree

3

Not sure

4

Disagree

5 Strongly disagree

6 Don’t know

E1 If I had an outbreak of infectious diseases (AI, ND, etc.) I would report it at once to the Dinas � � � � � �

E2 There is not a lot I can do to prevent diseases entering my farm � � � � � �

E3 If I have a sick bird I think it is best to just sell it at the wet market � � � � � �

E4 If I vaccinate my chickens for HPAI I won’t get HPAI if disease comes through my desa � � � � � �

E5 If my birds get sick it is God’s will and I have to accept it � � � � � �

E6 The only way to get sick from HPAI is to eat cooked chicken that had HPAI � � � � � �

E7 I would not let anybody on my farm if they have already visited another poultry farm that day � � � � � �

E8 Fences can protect our birds from diseases � � � � � �

E9 Disinfectants are not important in protecting against diseases � � � � � �

E10 Boots don’t carry the disease’s agents � � � � � �

E11 Wild birds have a role in the transmission of diseases � � � � � �

E12 I we have a dead bird I must burn or bury it � � � � � �

E13 We dot not allow visitors to enter the farm unless they have disinfected their boots � � � � � �

E14 Putting up warning signs or instruction signs is important to protect the farm from diseases � � � � � �

E15 Biosecurity is a very important aspect in preventing, diseases from spreading � � � � � �

0

Appendix B. List of the 15 statements related to knowledges and attitudes in questionnaire

F. FARMER’S KNOWLEDGE & ATTITUDES How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? (please tick)

Code No.

1 Strongly

agree

2

Agree

3

Not sure

4

Disagree

5 Strongly disagree

6 Don’t know

E1 If I had an outbreak of infectious diseases (AI, ND, etc.) I would report it at once to the Dinas � � � � � �

E2 There is not a lot I can do to prevent diseases entering my farm � � � � � �

E3 If I have a sick bird I think it is best to just sell it at the wet market � � � � � �

E4 If I vaccinate my chickens for HPAI I won’t get HPAI if disease comes through my desa � � � � � �

E5 If my birds get sick it is God’s will and I have to accept it � � � � � �

E6 The only way to get sick from HPAI is to eat cooked chicken that had HPAI � � � � � �

E7 I would not let anybody on my farm if they have already visited another poultry farm that day � � � � � �

E8 Fences can protect our birds from diseases � � � � � �

E9 Disinfectants are not important in protecting against diseases � � � � � �

E10 Boots don’t carry the disease’s agents � � � � � �

E11 Wild birds have a role in the transmission of diseases � � � � � �

E12 I we have a dead bird I must burn or bury it � � � � � �

E13 We dot not allow visitors to enter the farm unless they have disinfected their boots � � � � � �

E14 Putting up warning signs or instruction signs is important to protect the farm from diseases � � � � � �

E15 Biosecurity is a very important aspect in preventing, diseases from spreading � � � � � �

1

Appendix C. Photos of Activities

Figure 1. Socialization on the results of the study on biosecurity measures in sector 3.

Figure 2. Ground shed type of poultry farm sector 3 in Cipunagara Sub district

2

Figure 3. Ground shed type of poultry farm sector 3 in Cipunagara Sub district

Figure 4. Foot bath in front of the shed

3

Figure 5. Foot bath in front of the shed

Figure 6. Worker house build away from the shed

4

Figure 7. Enumerator with biosecurity clothes

Figure 8. Enumerator with biosecurity clothes and disinfection

5

Figure 9. Spraying disinfection for the hands before and after entering the shed

Figure 10. Worker house built beside shed

6