Knowledge, attitudes and management of bovine viral diarrhoea virus among eastern Australian cattle producers: results from a 2013 cross-sectional study

Sporadic bovine encephalopathy caused by Chlamydia pecorum secondary to bovine viral diarrhoea virus infection in calves in South Australia

BACKGROUND

Despite bovine viral diarrhoea virus and Chlamydia pecorum being important endemic diseases of cattle, there are limited reports of theirco-occurrence.

CASE REPORT

Several 12-18-week-old, weaned Hereford calves presented with ill-thriftiness and neurological signs on a mixed cattle and sheep farm in South Australia in July 2021. Immune suppression resulting from transient infection with bovine viral diarrhoea virus (BVDV) is implicated in predisposing to infection with Chlamydia pecorum, the causative agent of sporadic bovine encephalopathy (SBE). Chlamydia spp. are difficult to culture in vitro or definitively identify based on current standard molecular based tests. In this case, diagnosis was confirmed by immunohistochemistry.

CONCLUSION

To the authors' knowledge, this case report is the first to document BVDV transient infection occurring in conjunction with SBE. Given the current high prevalence of BVDV on Australian farms, such co-infections may have significant future clinical relevance. This case also highlights the need for appropriate tests, such as immunohistochemistry to demonstrate the causative organism in histological lesions and thus reduce the occurrence of false negative diagnosis.

Understanding biosecurity behaviors of Australian beef cattle farmers using the ten basic human values framework

Introduction

On-farm biosecurity is an essential component of successful disease management in the beef cattle industry on an individual, regional, and national level. Participation in mandatory or voluntary assurance schemes, knowledge and trusted relationships have all been demonstrated to contribute to the development of behaviors that promote biosecurity. However, compliance with rules, socio-psychological relationships and knowledge-seeking behavior are all contingent upon the motivations and beliefs of the individual. It is widely accepted that the motivations and beliefs of all cultures can be defined by ten basic values (Self-direction, Stimulation, Hedonism, Achievement, Power, Security, Conformity, Tradition, Benevolence and Universalism). In this study, we use the ten basic values to characterize the on-farm biosecurity behaviors of Australian beef farmers to facilitate the identification of interventions that are most likely to align with producer motivations and therefore, more likely to result in wider adoption of effective on-farm biosecurity.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 Australian beef farmers to discuss the reasons behind decisions to alter or implement biosecurity practices in response to endemic diseases. Thematic analysis was used to identify the motivations, opportunities, and capability of biosecurity behaviors. The ten basic human values were used to characterize these behaviors and inform enablers and barriers to biosecurity adoption.

Results and discussion

Benevolence and Self-direction, relating to self-transcendence and an openness to change, were the principal values associated with good biosecurity behaviors. This suggests that farmers will be receptive to education strategies that communicate the actual risk of disease in their area, the impact of disease on animal welfare, and the ability for on-farm biosecurity to mitigate these impacts. Farmers also expressed values of Security which entrenched behaviors as common practice; however, in some cases the Security of trusted relationships was identified as a potential barrier to behavior change. Overall, values associated with biosecurity behaviors were found to align with values that are most important for social cohesion, suggesting that collaborative disease efforts between industry stakeholders and farmers are likely to succeed if designed with these values in mind.

The right strategy for you: Using the preferences of beef farmers to guide biosecurity recommendations for on-farm management of endemic disease

Effective on-farm biosecurity measures are crucial to the post-border protection of emerging agricultural diseases and are the foundation of endemic disease control. Implementation of on-farm biosecurity measures are contingent on the priorities of individual producers, which can often be neglected for other aspects of the farming enterprise. The on-farm approach to prevention of endemic diseases, like bovine viral diarrhoea virus (BVDV), is inconsistent between farms and it is not realistic to assume that farmers take an entirely normative approach to on-farm decision making. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been used for disease prioritisation and national disease control in human and animal health; however, it is yet to be used as a decision tool for disease control at the farm level. This study used MCDA to determine the most appropriate biosecurity combinations for management of BVDV, based on the preferences of Australian beef producers. Beef producer preferences were obtained from an online survey using indirect collection methods. Point of truth calibration was used to aggregate producer preferences and the performance scores of 23 biosecurity combinations for control of BVDV based on four main criteria: the probability of BVDV introduction, the on-farm impact of BVDV, the off-farm impact of BVDV and the annual input cost of the practice. The MCDA found that biosecurity combinations that included "double-fencing farm boundaries" used in conjunction with "vaccination against BVDV" were most appropriate for management of BVDV in an initially naïve, self-replacing seasonal single-calving beef herd over a 15-year period. Beef producers prioritised practices that preserved the on-farm health of their cattle more than any other criteria, a finding that was persistent regardless of demographic or farming type. Consequently, combinations with "vaccination against BVDV" were consistently ranked higher than those that included "strategic exposure of a persistently infected cow," which is sometimes used by Australian beef producers instead of vaccination. Findings of this study indicate that the benefits of "double-fencing farm boundaries" and "vaccination against BVDV" outweigh the relatively high cost associated with these practices based on the priorities of the Australian beef producer and may be used to demonstrate the benefits of on-farm biosecurity during discussions between livestock veterinarians and beef farmers.

One size does not fit all: Exploring the economic and non-economic outcomes of on-farm biosecurity for bovine viral diarrhoea virus in Australian beef production

Bovine viral diarrhoea virus (BVDV) is a disease of global importance, affecting the production and welfare of cattle enterprises through poor reproductive performance and calf mortality. In Australia, the prevention of BVDV introduction and spread is primarily achieved with on-farm biosecurity; however, the use of these practices can vary amongst producers. Economic utility is commonly identified as a contributor to the uptake of on-farm biosecurity, but other factors such as animal welfare, producer priorities and introduction risk also influence farmer behaviour. This study uses an individual-based, stochastic simulation model to examine the economic and non-economic value of 23 on-farm biosecurity combinations for the control of BVDV in Australian beef farms without (N0) and with (N1) a neighbouring population of persistently infected (PI) cattle. Combinations of quarantine of purchased bulls (Q), hygiene during herd health events (H), double-fencing adjacent boundaries with neighbouring farms (F) and vaccination against BVDV (V) were tested. This study is the first to simulate the use of strategic PI exposure (PI) as an alternative to V, a contentious practice performed by some Australian beef farmers. Introduction of BVDV into a naïve 300-breeder self-replacing beef herd was achieved through the purchase of PI bulls (N0 and N1 herds) and over-the-fence contact with neighbouring PI animals (N1 herds only). The predicted median cumulative loss due to BVDV over a 15-year period was AUD$172/breeder and AUD$453/breeder for an N0 and N1 herd, respectively. Early establishment of BVDV in the simulation period was found to be the primary factor contributing to economic loss. Consequently, the Q and QF combinations resulted in the highest predicted average annual cost-benefit for BVDV-free N0 and N1 herds. In the five years following establishment of BVDV, use of QP (N0 herds) and V (N1 herds) combinations were most cost-effective. Combinations that involved V and P (in conjunction with F in N1 herds) also resulted in the lowest number of PI animals sold to other farms or feedlots over the simulation period. However, in both N0 and N1 herds, P resulted in the highest number of infected cattle, which has implications for poor animal welfare and increased antimicrobial use on Australian beef farms. The outcomes reported in this study can guide decisions to prevent BVDV introduction and spread on extensive beef farms using on-farm biosecurity, based on the risk of BVDV exposure and the priorities of the individual farmer.

Modeling the Effect of Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus in Australian Beef Herds

Bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) is an economically important disease in Australian beef farming. The disease typically results in low-level production losses that can be difficult to detect for several years. Simulation modeling can be used to support the decision to control BVDV; however, current BVDV simulation models do not adequately reflect the extensive farming environment of Australian beef production. Therefore, the objective of this study was to develop a disease simulation model to explore the impact of BVDV on beef cattle production in south-east Australia. A dynamic, individual-based, stochastic, discrete-time simulation model was created to simulate within-herd transmission of BVDV in a seasonal, self-replacing beef herd. We used the model to simulate the effect of herd size and BVDV introduction time on disease transmission and assessed the short- and long-term impact of BVDV on production outputs that influence the economic performance of beef farms. We found that BVDV can become established in a herd after a single PI introduction in 60% of cases, most frequently associated with the breeding period. The initial impact of BVDV will be more severe in smaller herds, although self-elimination is more likely in small herds than in larger herds, in which there is a 23% chance that the virus can persist for >15 years following a single incursion in a herd with 800 breeders. The number and weight of steers sold was reduced in the presence of BVDV and the results demonstrated that repeat incursions exacerbate long-term production losses, even when annual losses appear marginal. This model reflects the short- and long-term production losses attributed to BVDV in beef herds in southeast Australia and provides a foundation from which the influence and economic utility of BVDV prevention in Australian beef herds can be assessed.