Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Oct 5;11(10):475.
doi: 10.3390/vetsci11100475.

How Do Flemish Laying Hen Farmers and Private Bird Keepers Comply with and Think about Measures to Control Avian Influenza?

Femke Delanglez  1   2 , Bart Ampe  2 , Anneleen Watteyn  2 , Liesbeth G W Van Damme  2 , Frank A M Tuyttens  1   2
Affiliations

How Do Flemish Laying Hen Farmers and Private Bird Keepers Comply with and Think about Measures to Control Avian Influenza?

Femke Delanglez et al. Vet Sci. .

Abstract

Competent authorities of many countries, including Belgium, impose control measures (preventing wild bird access to feeders and water facilities, indoor confinement of captive birds, or fencing off outdoor ranges with nets) on professional and non-professional keepers of birds to prevent the spread of avian influenza (AI). Flemish laying hen farmers (FAR, n = 33) and private keepers of captive birds (PRI, n = 263) were surveyed about their opinion on and compliance with AI measures legally imposed during the most recent high-risk period before this survey in 2021. Participants answered questions on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = the worst, 3 = neutral, and 5 = the best). FAR indicated better compliance with the AI measures than PRI, except for net confinement. FAR indicated that they and other poultry farmers complied better with AI measures than PRI. Additionally, PRI indicated that they better complied than other PRI keepers. FAR regarded the AI measures as more effective than PRI. To prevent the spread of AI more effectively, national authorities could focus on information campaigns explaining to private bird keepers the need for the various control measures that they impose. If these campaigns fail, local authorities may need stricter enforcement or alternative ways to increase compliance.

Keywords: avian influenza; confinement; nets; poultry; self-evaluation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(A) Compliance scores on the general AI control measures given by the private bird keepers (PRI, N = 263) to themselves (PRI-SELF), towards colleagues (PRI-COLL), and towards laying hen farmers (FAR). (B) Compliance scores on the general AI control measures given by the FAR group (N = 33) to themselves (FAR-SELF), towards colleagues (FAR-COLL), and towards the PRI group. Scores range from 1 (no compliance) to 5 (most compliance). Numbers within bars represent the mean compliance score. Significant differences (p < 0.05) between bars in a specific measure are indicated with a,b,c scripts.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comparison of the opinions of private bird keepers (PRI, n = 263) and laying hen farmers (FAR, n = 33) about the effectiveness of the general AI control measures. Scores range from 1 (not effective) to 5 (very effective). Numbers within bars represent the mean compliance score. Significant differences between FAR and PRI are indicated with a,b superscripts.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The opinion of laying hen farmers (n = 33) on the effectiveness of specific AI control measures. Scores range from 1 (not effective) to 5 (very effective). Numbers within bars represent the mean effectiveness score. Significant differences between bars are indicated with a,b superscripts.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

  • Preparedness, prevention and control related to zoonotic avian influenza.
    EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (AHAW); ECDC; Alvarez J, Boklund A, Dippel S, Dórea F, Figuerola J, Herskin MS, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Nannoni E, Nielsen SS, Nonno R, Riber AB, Stegeman JA, Ståhl K, Thulke HH, Tuyttens F, Winckler C, Brugerolles C, Wolff T, Parys A, Lindh E, Latorre-Margalef N, Rameix Welti MA, Dürrwald R, Trebbien R, Van der Werf S, Gisslén M, Monne I, Fusaro A, Guinat C, Bortolami A, Alexakis L, Enkirch T, Svartstrom O, Willgert K, Baldinelli F, Preite L, Grant M, Broglia A, Melidou A. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (AHAW), et al. EFSA J. 2025 Jan 29;23(1):e9191. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9191. eCollection 2025 Jan. EFSA J. 2025. PMID: 39882189 Free PMC article.

References

    1. Wille M., Barr I.G. Resurgence of avian influenza virus. Science. 2022;376:459–460. doi: 10.1126/science.abo1232. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Eisfeld A.J., Biswas A., Guan L., Gu C., Maemura T., Trifkovic S., Wang T., Babujee L., Dahn R., Halfmann P.J. Pathogenicity and transmissibility of bovine H5N1 influenza virus. Nature. 2024;633:426–432. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07766-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rehman S., Effendi M.H., Witaningruma A.M., Nnabuikeb U.E., Bilal M., Abbas A., Abbas R.Z., Hussain K. Avian influenza (H5N1) virus, epidemiology and its effects on backyard poultry in Indonesia: A review. F1000Research. 2022;11:1321. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.125878.1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rijks J.M., Hesselink H., Lollinga P., Wesselman R., Prins P., Weesendorp E., Engelsma M., Heutink R., Harders F., Kik M. Highly pathogenic avian influenza A (H5N1) virus in wild red foxes, the Netherlands, 2021. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2021;27:2960. doi: 10.3201/eid2711.211281. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Plaza P.I., Gamarra-Toledo V., Euguí J.R., Rosciano N., Lambertucci S.A. Pacific and Atlantic sea lion mortality caused by highly pathogenic Avian Influenza A (H5N1) in South America. Travel Med. Infect. Dis. 2024;59:102712. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2024.102712. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources