Biosecurity adoption in South Asian poultry systems
Abstract
Biosecurity adoption depends on whether farmers can interrupt consequential contacts within households, farms, and poultry trading networks. This critical narrative review examines evidence published before May 2022, asking what farmers know, which precautions they can implement, and who controls remaining exposures. Targeted retrieval and primary-source checks identified 27 regional empirical publications covering seven South Asian countries. Knowledge, facility availability, reported and observed practice, pathogen detection, and production outcomes were evaluated separately. Disease awareness often coexisted with limited procedural knowledge, inaccessible veterinary services, or financial barriers. Farmers sometimes controlled returning egg trays while permitting the buyer to enter. Education and bundled support were followed by some improvements in knowledge or reported practice, but uncontrolled designs and limited follow-up weakened causal interpretation. A comparison of assisted and unassisted Bangladeshi markets found no clear difference in environmental H5N1 detection despite better reported practices. Credit, labor, care seeking, and trading arrangements shaped who could change relevant contacts. Future evaluations should measure repeated performance, biological outcomes, and the distribution of costs across participants. Uneven country coverage and incompatible instruments precluded a regional adoption estimate.
References
1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Biosecurity for highly pathogenic avian influenza: Issues and options. 2008. (FAO Animal Production and Health Paper No. 165). https://www.fao.org/4/i0359e/i0359e00.htm
2. Biosecurity measures for backyard poultry in developing countries: A systematic review / A. Conan et al. BMC Veterinary Research. 2012. Vol. 8. Article 240. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-8-240
3. Baethge C., Goldbeck-Wood S., Mertens S. SANRA—A scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2019. Vol. 4. Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0064-8
4. Informing influenza pandemic preparedness using commercial poultry farmer knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) surrounding biosecurity and self-reported avian influenza outbreaks in Nepal / A. S. Lambrou et al. One Health. 2020. Vol. 11. Article 100189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2020.100189
5. Tenzin T., Wangdi C., Rai P. B. Biosecurity survey in relation to the risk of HPAI outbreaks in backyard poultry holdings in Thimphu city area, Bhutan. BMC Veterinary Research. 2017. Vol. 13, no. 1. Article 113. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-017-1033-4
6. Knowledge, attitudes and practices related to avian influenza among poultry workers in Nepal: A cross sectional study / D. Neupane et al. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2012. Vol. 12, no. 1. Article 76. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-12-76
7. Knowledge and preventive practices related to avian influenza among poultry workers of Kamalamai Municipality, Sindhuli, Nepal / R. Shrestha et al. Journal of Nepal Health Research Council. 2016. Vol. 14, no. 1. P. 7–12. https://www.jnhrc.com.np/index.php/jnhrc/article/view/3969
8. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding avian influenza (H5N1), Afghanistan / T. Leslie et al. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2008. Vol. 14, no. 9. P. 1459–1461. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1409.071382
9. Factors influencing chicken farmers’ decisions to implement prevention and control measures to reduce avian influenza virus spread under endemic conditions / S. D. Gupta et al. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 2021. Vol. 68, no. 1. P. 194–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.13757
10. Understanding the failure of a behavior change intervention to reduce risk behaviors for avian influenza transmission among backyard poultry raisers in rural Bangladesh: A focused ethnography / N. A. Rimi et al. BMC Public Health. 2016. Vol. 16, no. 1. Article 858. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3543-6
11. Knowledge, attitude, and practices on antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance among commercial poultry farmers in Bangladesh / M. M. Hassan et al. Antibiotics. 2021. Vol. 10, no. 7. Article 784. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10070784
12. Bangladeshi backyard poultry raisers’ perceptions and practices related to zoonotic transmission of avian influenza / R. Sultana et al. The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries. 2012. Vol. 6, no. 2. P. 156–165. https://doi.org/10.3855/jidc.2242
13. Biosecurity conditions in small commercial chicken farms, Bangladesh 2011–2012 / N. A. Rimi et al. EcoHealth. 2017. Vol. 14, no. 2. P. 244–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-017-1224-2
14. Assessment of poultry farm bio-security measures in southern Bhutan / T. Jamtsho et al. Bhutan Journal of Animal Science. 2020. Vol. 4, no. 1. P. 121–125. https://ojs.moal.gov.bt/index.php/bjas/article/view/308
15. Risk factors associated with avian influenza subtype H9 outbreaks in poultry farms in Kathmandu valley, Nepal / T. R. Gompo et al. PLOS ONE. 2020. Vol. 15, no. 4. Article e0223550. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223550
16. Occurrence of Campylobacter spp. in selected small scale commercial broiler farms of Bangladesh related to good farm practices / B. Alam et al. Microorganisms. 2020. Vol. 8, no. 11. Article 1778. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8111778
17. Wijesinghe W. M. J. B., De Silva P. G. J. C., Gunaratne S. P. Evaluation of biosecurity status in commercial broiler farms in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications. 2017. Vol. 7, no. 4. P. 114–119. https://www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-0417/ijsrp-p6419.pdf
18. Campylobacter in broiler chicken and broiler meat in Sri Lanka: Influence of semi-automated vs. wet market processing on Campylobacter contamination of broiler neck skin samples / K. S. A. Kottawatta et al. Foods. 2017. Vol. 6, no. 12. Article 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods6120105
19. An epidemiological study of avian influenza A (H5) virus in nomadic ducks and their raising practices in northeastern Bangladesh, 2011–2012 / S. Sarkar et al. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses. 2017. Vol. 11, no. 3. P. 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/irv.12438
20. Evaluation of egg production after adoption of biosecurity strategies by backyard poultry farmers in West Bengal / I. Samanta et al. Veterinary World. 2015. Vol. 8, no. 2. P. 177–182. https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2015.177-182
21. Controlling highly pathogenic avian influenza, Bangladesh / S. P. Mondal et al. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2012. Vol. 18, no. 12. P. 2083–2085. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1812.120635
22. Intensification of fragility: Poultry production and distribution in Bangladesh and its implications for disease risk / M. Hennessey et al. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2021. Vol. 191. Article 105367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2021.105367
23. Competing biosecurity and risk rationalities in the Chittagong poultry commodity chain, Bangladesh / E. Høg et al. BioSocieties. 2019. Vol. 14, no. 3. P. 368–392. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-018-0131-2
24. Avian influenza transmission risk along live poultry trading networks in Bangladesh / N. Moyen et al. Scientific Reports. 2021. Vol. 11, no. 1. Article 19962. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98989-4
25. A case-control study to identify risk factors associated with avian influenza subtype H9N2 on commercial poultry farms in Pakistan / M. Chaudhry et al. PLOS ONE. 2015. Vol. 10, no. 3. Article e0119019. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119019
26. Serosurvey of avian influenza viruses (H5, H7, and H9) and associated risk factors in backyard poultry flocks of Lahore District, Pakistan / M. Chaudhry et al. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2021. Vol. 8. Article 631164. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.631164
27. Biosecurity and circulation of influenza A (H5N1) virus in live-bird markets in Bangladesh, 2012 / P. K. Biswas et al. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 2017. Vol. 64, no. 3. P. 883–891. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12454
28. Where backyard poultry raisers seek care for sick poultry: Implications for avian influenza prevention in Bangladesh / N. A. Rimi et al. BMC Public Health. 2018. Vol. 18, no. 1. Article 969. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5819-5
29. A qualitative stakeholder analysis of avian influenza policy in Bangladesh / K. Chattopadhyay et al. EcoHealth. 2018. Vol. 15, no. 1. P. 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-017-1285-2
30. Raising backyard poultry in rural Bangladesh: Financial and nutritional benefits, but persistent risky practices / I. S. Shanta et al. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 2017. Vol. 64, no. 5. P. 1454–1464. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12536
31. Biocheck.UGent: A quantitative tool to measure biosecurity at broiler farms and the relationship with technical performances and antimicrobial use / P. Gelaude et al. Poultry Science. 2014. Vol. 93, no. 11. P. 2740–2751. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2014-04002