الفهرس 
Disease DescriptionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 149 |  |  |
| | | from | 149 | | |
Abstract
Avian Influenza is a contagious viral infection can that affect all species of birds. Freeliving birds may carry influenza viruses without becoming ill due to natural resistance.
The present study was conducted to determine the risk assessment of Avian Influenza in poultry farms in Alexandria Governorate. The study aimed to carry out an environmental assessment of poultry farms with especial emphasis to Avian influenza, an association between environmental risks and previous attack with Avian influenza and to set appropriate and adaptable recommendations for prevention and control of highly pathogenic Avian Influenza in commercial poultry farms.
The following was adopted to fulfill this aim:
1- Description of the safe and hygienic practices used in poultry farms in Alexandria and Behera.
A questionnaire was used to collect information from the farms under study, (Appendix No.1). It covered the following parameters:
1.1 Farm or house identification.
1.2 Sanitation procedures and practices.
1.3 Water sources.
1.4 Feed storage.
1.5 Hygienic facilities.
1.6 Flock health management.
1.7 Marketing and transportation.
1.8 Infrequent presence of wild birds in the surrounding.
1.9 Farms that had previous attacks with Avian Influenza.
According to the total score of the farms they were classified into
• High risk farms: Total score percentage less than or equal 50%.
• Moderate risk farms: Total score percentage ranging from 51 to 74 %.
• Low risk farms: Total score percentage more than or equal to 75%. (53)
2- Identification of all risk factors leading to Avian Influenza in the farms under study.
The following risk factors were identified:
• Farms that have gees present and sharing of scavenging areas with ducks from other farms or breeding more than one type of poultry.
• The movement or entrance of people or unauthorized personnel.
• Presence of animals as cattle or pigs.
• Contaminated clothes.
• Contaminated shoes.
• High contact between farms containing layers especially via cardboard eggs trays used for removal of eggs during the epidemic or through lending feeders or drinkers.
• Contaminated vehicles, equipments, feed and cages.
• Flocks that have received no vaccination or only one vaccination.
• The movement and frequency of live migratory birds.
3- Evaluation of Knowledge about Avian Influenza.
The questionnaire covered the following parameters:
a- Level of education of respondents.
b- Sex of respondents.
c- Methods of handling birds; through purchasing or cooking or breeding.
d- Knowledge perception.
e- Risk perception.
Respondents were classified according to their knowledge and risk perception of Avian Influenza into:
a- Poor Knowledge and risk perceptions’ respondents: score less than 50%.
b- Fair Knowledge and risk perceptions’ respondents: score 50-70%.
c- Good Knowledge and risk perceptions’ respondents: score more than 70%.
Results of the present study revealed the following:
1- Description of the safe and hygienic practices used in poultry farms in Alexandria and Behera.
1.1- Houses breeding poultry
• Breeding mixed type of birds was more frequent in houses with no mentioned address. These included layers, broilers, turkeys and ducks.
• The highest percentage of houses (50%) that were storing feed in celio.
• Behera (100%) and El Montaza (25%) shared and/or lend drinkers and/or feeders.
• El Mandara houses depended on veterinarians for flock health management more than the other houses.
• All of El Mandara and Behera houses depended mainly in handling of dead birds by throwing them in the garbage. El Montaza was the least Zone in knowledge about AI and its signs and symptoms.
• Records about mortality, morbidity rates and vaccination and medication were kept in only small percentage of houses (21.7%, 4.3% and 21.7%, respectively).
• Most of the houses were marketing their birds alive (86.9%). A 47.8% of the houses were placed more than 20 km away from the market and 30.4% of the houses transported birds in buyer’s car or using public transportation.
• Seed eaters were frequently seen around the houses of El Montaza zone (75%), while scavengers were sometimes seen in Behera houses (66.7%) and in El Mandara (60%). Also water fowl were frequently seen in Behera (100%). For game birds these were seen sometimes around houses frequently in Behera (100%).
• Mean score percentage of sanitation procedures and practices parameter was higher in Abou Kir houses (67.8±31.6%), whereas the lowest one was for Behera houses (42.8±14.3%). El Mandara houses had the highest score percentage in water sources (44.0±35.7%), no sharing or lending feeders or drinkers (100±0.0%), flock health management (46.7±9.33%) and in un frequent presence of wild birds in the surrounding (45.0±37.1%).
1.2- Small farms breeding poultry
• Breeding mixed types of birds was more frequent in Borg El Arab which includes broiler, layers and turkeys.
• Barns were protected (100%) in both High way and no mentioned address farms.
• Abou Kir, Borg El Arab and no mentioned address farms depended on celio (100%) for feed storage.
• Designed place for shower or uniforms wearing was mostly in no mentioned address farms. Clean protective uniforms were used mostly in High way farms (66.7%) and were used of smaller percentage or not used at all (Borg El Arab farms). Clean protective footwear was used in 66.7% of Borg El Arab farms but was not used at all in Abou Kir farms.
• Footbath for foot disinfection before farm entrance was practiced in no mentioned address farms (100%) and it was also used before barns entrance in all farms.
• No mentioned address and High way farms used phenol as footbath disinfectant; Behera and High way ones used Iodine or Chlorine. Hand washing basins were mostly found in Abou Kir and no mentioned address farms (100%). Moreover Abou Kir and Behera farms shared or lend drinkers or feeders in 50% of the farms.
• Borg El Arab farms (100%) used veterinarian supervision, and 50% of Abou Kir and Behera farms were supervised by the owners of the farm.
• Handling of dead birds was by burial (100%) in Behera, while 50% of no mentioned address and 25% of Abou Kir farms was by burning, 25% of Abou Kir farms throw dead birds in water extremes.
• Abou Kir farms were the highest (100%) in marketing birds alive, while High way farms were the highest (66.7%) in sending their birds to abattoir.
• The distance between farm and market was 5-10 Km in 50% of no mentioned address farms, 25% of Behera farms were more than 20 Km away from market, while the rest of the farms were either from 10-20 Km or they were selling birds from outside the farm.
• Transportation vehicle for birds only were found in no mentioned address farms (100%), and (33.3%) applying a hygienic system for vehicle sanitation before bird transportation.
• Seed eaters were observed rarely in no mentioned address farms (100%). Waterfowl were never seen in High way farms (66.7%).
• Mean score percentage of sanitation procedures and practices parameter was highest in no mentioned address farms (92.8±10.1), water source (80±0), feed storage (100±0), hygienic facilities (87.5±17.6), marketing and transportation (70.0±14.1) and infrequent wild birds in the surrounding (62.5±17.6).
1.3 Large farms breeding poultry
• Barns were protected against foreign birds and rodents by equal percentages (100 and 66.7%) in both High way and Borg El Arab farms.
• Borg el Arab farms and High way farms used water treatment disinfectant as chlorine (66.7%)
• Borg El Arab and El Ameria farms depended on celio (100%) for feed storage.
• Clean protective uniforms were used mostly in El America (100%) and was used at smaller percentage in Behera farms (40%).
• Clean protective footwear was used in 66.7% of Borg El Arab and high way farms.
• Footbath for foot disinfection before farm entrance was practiced in Borg El Arab, High way and Behera farms (100%) and it was also used before barn entrance in all farms.
• Hand washing basins were mostly found in High way farms (100%). Moreover El Ameria farms shared or lend drinkers or feeders in 50% of the farms.
• Behera farms (80%) used veterinarian supervision followed by Borg El Arab and High way farms (66.7%). For El Ameria farms, agronomists were responsible for flock health supervision (50%). In addition 50% of El Ameria and High way 33.3% of farms were supervised by the owners of the farm.
• Handling of dead birds was by burial (100%) in Borg El Arab, while 66.7% of High way and 50% of El Ameria farms was by burning, while 40% of Behera farms throw dead birds in the garbage. El Ameria and High way farms send their dead poultry to companies to make animal proteins.
• Records about mortality rate and vaccination and medication were kept by all farms (100%) and morbidity rates were kept mostly by Behera farms (80%).
• El Ameria farms and High way farms were the highest (100%) in marketing birds alive, while Borg El Arab farms were the highest (66.7%) in sending their birds to abattoir.
• High way farms were more than 20 Km away from market.
• Transportation vehicle for birds only were found in El Ameria farms (100%).
• Seed eaters were never seen in El Ameria farms (100%), while observed frequently in Behera farms (60%).
• Scavengers were never seen in Behera farms (40%) rarely (100%) in El Ameria.
• Waterfowl were never seen in 46.1% of all of the 13 farms and frequently in El Ameria (50%) followed by Behera (40%).
• Game birds were sometimes seen by Borg El Arab farms (33.3%), while were seen frequently around El Ameria farms (100%).
• Borg El Arab farm had available system for prevention of AI and notification of health authorities; however, these items were present in only one of the 2 infected Behera farms. Both Borg El Arab, El Ameria and one of Behera infected farms took action after infection. All the farms condemned infected poultry. El Ameria and one of the infected Behera farms waited from 3-6 months between handling of infection, restart of farm activity. Moreover, a sanitation program was applied by 3 of the infected farms.
• El Ameria farm had the lowest score percentage in prompt and adequate dealing with AI infection (57.1%), followed by while Behera farms (64.2±50.5%) and then by having Borg El Arab ones (71.4%).
• The mean score percentage of sanitation procedures and practices parameter was highest in both Borg El Arab and High way farms (90.4±16.5 and 90.4±8.25, respectively).
• Borg El Arab farms had the highest score percentage in water source (86.6±11.5%), and with El Ameria farms were highest in feed storage (100±0%). Hygienic facilities, on the other hand, were best in High way farms (79.1±7.21%). Flock health management was best in Behera farms (85.2±6.4%). Marketing and transportation score percentage was highest in High way farms (80.0±20.0%), while wild birds in the surrounding were infrequent in El Ameria farms (62.5±17.6%).
2- Identification of risk factors that might lead to Avian Influenza in the farms under study.
• A 34.6% of the farms under study were breeding more than one type of poultry in the same pen/barn which was mostly found in houses (47.8%).
• Also 40.3% of the farms were subjected to entrance of unauthorized personnel found to visit the farms, and 38.4% had entrance of animals to the pen/farm.
• People wearing contaminated clothes and shoes were (63.4%and 51.6%), respectively.
• Moreover 26.9% of the farms shared or lend feeders or drinkers, 82.6% of the farms had contaminated vehicles, 38.4% of them did not vaccinate including houses and small farms. Also 67.3% of the farms frequently see migratory birds.
4- Evaluation of knowledge about Avian influenza.
• Most of the respondents agreed for the knowledge perception parameters with percentages varying from 50%, regarding possibility of man to man transmission of the virus to 83.3% for virus transmission from handling infected bird.
• For risk perception parameters, the percentages of positive respondents varied from 74.2% regarding risk from smuggled bird to 90% for risk from handling infected excreta.
• Post graduate group of respondents have the higher mean score percentage in many items of knowledge perception as eating well cooked infected birds, transmission from handling infected bird, condemnation of all flock if infected birds found, well cooking kills the virus in infected eggs, as well as in all the items of risk perception.
• Females had higher perception than males in the following; man to man transmission, transmission from handling infected bird, condemnation of all flock if infected birds found, well cooking kills the virus in infected eggs, risk from handling bird excreta, risk from breeding smuggled birds, risk from eating under cooked birds and in risk from eating under cooked eggs and total.
• Somewhat small percentage of respondents (68.33%) had good knowledge and risk perceptions of Avian Influenza, while 24.16% and 7.50% of them had fair and poor perceptions respectively.
It is recommended to:
1- Avoid the contact between poultry and wild birds, in particular waterfowl.
2- Avoid entry of unauthorized persons into the farm especially those employed in other poultry farms.
3- Avoid breeding of any kind of birds at homes, or smuggled live birds.
4- Avoid visiting to poultry farms or live bird markets, or slaughter birds at homes and buy already slaughtered and frozen poultry.
5- Apply thorough washing and cooking of birds and eggs and also thorough washing of hands with soap and water after touching birds or there excreta.
6- Eat boiled birds other than roasted ones, and avoid eating food that contains raw eggs as mayonnaise.