RESUMEN
Introduction: Inappropriate antimicrobial use (AMU) in livestock production is an important aspect of the global burden of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). In Ethiopia, a low-income country with a large and increasing livestock population, AMU in food animals is not properly regulated. Hence, farmers are fully free to use antimicrobials to their (perceived) benefit. Therefore, understanding farmers' mindsets is important to improve antimicrobial stewardship in the livestock sector. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted to assess livestock disease management practices and knowledge, attitude, and behavior (KAB) among livestock producers regarding AMU, residues, and resistance, as well as factors potentially explaining differences in KAB. We determined the KAB of livestock owners of three selected districts of central and western Ethiopia (n = 457), using a pretested questionnaire administered through face-to-face interviews. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between potential explanatory variables and the KAB scores of the respondents. Results: The results showed that 44% of the farmers used antimicrobials in the past few years, where antibiotics (21%) and trypanocides (11%) were most widely used to manage livestock diseases. Furthermore, most farmers showed poor knowledge about AMU, residues, and AMR (94%) and unfavorable attitudes (<50% correct answers) toward contributing factors for AMR (97%). On the contrary, 80% of the respondents had overall good behavior scores (≥50% correct answers) related to AMU. Multivariate analysis results showed that having good knowledge, keeping ≥2 animal species, and the occurrence of ≥4 livestock diseases on the farm in a year were strong predictors of bad behavior scores (p < 0.05). The findings of the current investigation also revealed that the incidence of livestock diseases on the farm and a higher level of formal education significantly contributed to better knowledge and desirable attitudes but bad AMU behavior. Conclusion: A low level of awareness about and undesirable attitudes toward AMU and AMR could potentially affect farmers' behavior toward judicious AMU, thus requiring awareness creation efforts on livestock disease management practices.
RESUMEN
A survey of livestock producers (graziers) located in north eastern NSW Australia, collected information on perceptions and management practices for liver fluke control in livestock. The total area farmed by the 161 respondents was 195,600 ha (ranging in size from 4 to 10,522 ha) with cattle and sheep being the dominant livestock enterprises. Overall, 80% of graziers relied exclusively on anthelmintics for liver fluke control and few of these graziers (9%) integrated parasite management (IPM) strategies to reduce disease prevalence. Of those relying on anthelmintic control, triclabendazole (TCBZ) was preferentially chosen by 75% of graziers. Fifty five percent of these graziers used TCBZ in combination with oxfendazole (46%), ivermectin (5%) or abamectin (4%) whilst 45% used TCBZ as a single active ingredient. Thirty eight percent of graziers drenched livestock one or more times per year for liver fluke despite claiming they had no liver fluke or confirmed knowledge of infection. Fifty one percent of graziers based anthelmintic dose on the known weight of the heaviest animal in the herd whilst 43% visually guessed livestock bodyweight to calculate anthelmintic dose. Choice of anthelmintic was predominately based on perceived efficacy (45%) despite very few graziers (2%) having conducted post-treatment fluke egg counts. The majority of graziers (76%) were unsure if they had anthelmintic resistance, 21% claimed they had no resistance whilst 3% of graziers had confirmed resistance. Most graziers (97%) also reported farms were cohabited by kangaroos highlighting additional grazing pressures on-farm. This current survey has revealed that graziers rely on anthelmintics as their primary choice for liver fluke control. Reluctance to adopt IPM strategies and a continued heavy reliance on TCBZ, whilst basing anthelmintic decisions on perception rather than measurement and testing, pose threats for the future control of liver fluke in livestock within this endemic area.
Asunto(s)
Antihelmínticos , Fasciola hepatica , Fascioliasis , Enfermedades de las Ovejas , Animales , Antihelmínticos/uso terapéutico , Australia , Bovinos , Fascioliasis/tratamiento farmacológico , Fascioliasis/epidemiología , Fascioliasis/prevención & control , Fascioliasis/veterinaria , Ganado , Ovinos , Enfermedades de las Ovejas/parasitología , Triclabendazol/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
Smallholder livestock producers are a diverse population with wide ranging motivations for keeping livestock. The biosecurity risk posed by smallholders has been the subject of much conjecture, with comparisons often made between the level of animal health and biosecurity knowledge of smallholders, versus that of commercial livestock producers. This research aimed to gain a better understanding of current knowledge of smallholder production in Australia, particularly in relation to biosecurity and emergency animal disease, and to investigate the relationships that exist between smallholders and the organisations and individuals from which they seek information, assistance and support. Engagement with stakeholders is an important component of an effective biosecurity communication strategy as the dissemination of biosecurity related information from a single source cannot be expected to satisfy the needs of such a broad ranging population. A qualitative study involving a review of literature, semi-structured interviews with government and non-government stakeholders and the development of smallholder and stakeholder influence and interest grids was undertaken. This paper forms part of a broader mixed methods research project among smallholders. Results from the stakeholder analysis showed variation in the parameters used to define smallholders and in the level of stakeholder involvement. Smallholders identified breeding consultants, other producers, private veterinarians and family, friends and colleagues as having a significant to high level of interest and potential to influence their practices. Government agencies were perceived to only have some level of interest but significant influence. Industry stakeholders and rural suppliers were positioned in the quadrant reflecting perceived low levels of interest and influence. The interest and influence grid developed from stakeholder's perspectives demonstrate a clustering around the mid points for both interest and influence, with the exception of those from industry who described low levels of interest and influence. Commonwealth and State government stakeholders reported a higher level of interest than influence. Veterinarians, both government and private, reported some to significant levels of interest and influence. In contrast to the results from the smallholder grid, rural suppliers reported relatively high levels of both interest and influence. The current study demonstrates that to maximise the effectiveness of biosecurity communication, there is a need for government and industry organisations to further engage with all stakeholders involved with smallholders.