Factors affecting the use of biosecurity measures for the protection of ruminant livestock and farm workers against infectious diseases in central South Africa
Biosecurity measures have been introduced to limit economic losses and zoonotic exposures to humans by preventing and controlling animal diseases. However, they are implemented on individual farms with varying frequency. The goal of this study was to evaluate which biosecurity measures were used by...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Transboundary and emerging diseases Vol. 69; no. 5; pp. e1899 - e1912 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Germany
John Wiley & Sons, Inc
01.09.2022
John Wiley and Sons Inc |
| Subjects: | |
| ISSN: | 1865-1674, 1865-1682, 1865-1682 |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Abstract | Biosecurity measures have been introduced to limit economic losses and zoonotic exposures to humans by preventing and controlling animal diseases. However, they are implemented on individual farms with varying frequency. The goal of this study was to evaluate which biosecurity measures were used by farmers to prevent infectious diseases in ruminant livestock and to identify factors that influenced these decisions. We conducted a survey in 264 ruminant livestock farmers in a 40,000 km2 area in the Free State and Northern Cape provinces of South Africa. We used descriptive statistics, to characterize biosecurity measures and farm attributes, then multivariable binomial regression to assess the strength of the association between the attributes and the implementation of biosecurity measures including property fencing, separate equipment use on different species, separate rearing of species, isolation of sick animals, isolation of pregnant animals, quarantine of new animals, animal transport cleaning, vaccination, tick control and insect control. Ninety‐nine percent of farmers reported using at least one of the 10 biosecurity measures investigated (median [M]: 6; range: 0–10). The most frequently used biosecurity measures were tick control (81%, 214 out of 264), vaccination (80%, 211 out of 264) and isolation of sick animals (72%, 190 out of 264). More biosecurity measures were used on farms with 65–282 animals (M: 6; odds ratio [OR]: 1.52) or farms with 283–12,030 animals (M: 7; OR: 1.87) than on farms with fewer than 65 animals (M: 4). Furthermore, farmers who kept two animal species (M: 7; OR: 1.41) or three or more species (M: 7) used more biosecurity measures than single‐species operations (M: 4). Farmers with privately owned land used more biosecurity measures (M: 6; OR: 1.51) than those grazing their animals on communal land (M: 3.5). Farms that reported previous Rift Valley fever (RVF) outbreaks used more biosecurity measures (M: 7; OR: 1.25) compared with farms without RVF reports (M: 6) and those that purchased animals in the 12 months prior to the survey (M: 7; OR: 1.19) compared with those that did not (M: 6). When introducing new animals into their herds (n = 122), most farmers used fewer biosecurity measures than they did for their existing herd: 34% (41 out of 122) used multiple biosecurity measures like those of vaccination, tick control, quarantine or antibiotic use, whereas 36% (44 out of 122) used only one and 30% (37 out of 122) used none. Certain farm features, primarily those related to size and commercialization, were associated with more frequent use of biosecurity measures. Given the variation in the application of biosecurity measures, more awareness and technical assistance are needed to support the implementation of a biosecurity management plan appropriate for the type of farm operation and available resources. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Biosecurity measures have been introduced to limit economic losses and zoonotic exposures to humans by preventing and controlling animal diseases. However, they are implemented on individual farms with varying frequency. The goal of this study was to evaluate which biosecurity measures were used by farmers to prevent infectious diseases in ruminant livestock and to identify factors that influenced these decisions. We conducted a survey in 264 ruminant livestock farmers in a 40,000 km² area in the Free State and Northern Cape provinces of South Africa. We used descriptive statistics, to characterize biosecurity measures and farm attributes, then multivariable binomial regression to assess the strength of the association between the attributes and the implementation of biosecurity measures including property fencing, separate equipment use on different species, separate rearing of species, isolation of sick animals, isolation of pregnant animals, quarantine of new animals, animal transport cleaning, vaccination, tick control and insect control. Ninety‐nine percent of farmers reported using at least one of the 10 biosecurity measures investigated (median [M]: 6; range: 0–10). The most frequently used biosecurity measures were tick control (81%, 214 out of 264), vaccination (80%, 211 out of 264) and isolation of sick animals (72%, 190 out of 264). More biosecurity measures were used on farms with 65–282 animals (M: 6; odds ratio [OR]: 1.52) or farms with 283–12,030 animals (M: 7; OR: 1.87) than on farms with fewer than 65 animals (M: 4). Furthermore, farmers who kept two animal species (M: 7; OR: 1.41) or three or more species (M: 7) used more biosecurity measures than single‐species operations (M: 4). Farmers with privately owned land used more biosecurity measures (M: 6; OR: 1.51) than those grazing their animals on communal land (M: 3.5). Farms that reported previous Rift Valley fever (RVF) outbreaks used more biosecurity measures (M: 7; OR: 1.25) compared with farms without RVF reports (M: 6) and those that purchased animals in the 12 months prior to the survey (M: 7; OR: 1.19) compared with those that did not (M: 6). When introducing new animals into their herds (n = 122), most farmers used fewer biosecurity measures than they did for their existing herd: 34% (41 out of 122) used multiple biosecurity measures like those of vaccination, tick control, quarantine or antibiotic use, whereas 36% (44 out of 122) used only one and 30% (37 out of 122) used none. Certain farm features, primarily those related to size and commercialization, were associated with more frequent use of biosecurity measures. Given the variation in the application of biosecurity measures, more awareness and technical assistance are needed to support the implementation of a biosecurity management plan appropriate for the type of farm operation and available resources. Biosecurity measures have been introduced to limit economic losses and zoonotic exposures to humans by preventing and controlling animal diseases. However, they are implemented on individual farms with varying frequency. The goal of this study was to evaluate which biosecurity measures were used by farmers to prevent infectious diseases in ruminant livestock and to identify factors that influenced these decisions. We conducted a survey in 264 ruminant livestock farmers in a 40,000 km2 area in the Free State and Northern Cape provinces of South Africa. We used descriptive statistics, to characterize biosecurity measures and farm attributes, then multivariable binomial regression to assess the strength of the association between the attributes and the implementation of biosecurity measures including property fencing, separate equipment use on different species, separate rearing of species, isolation of sick animals, isolation of pregnant animals, quarantine of new animals, animal transport cleaning, vaccination, tick control and insect control. Ninety‐nine percent of farmers reported using at least one of the 10 biosecurity measures investigated (median [M]: 6; range: 0–10). The most frequently used biosecurity measures were tick control (81%, 214 out of 264), vaccination (80%, 211 out of 264) and isolation of sick animals (72%, 190 out of 264). More biosecurity measures were used on farms with 65–282 animals (M: 6; odds ratio [OR]: 1.52) or farms with 283–12,030 animals (M: 7; OR: 1.87) than on farms with fewer than 65 animals (M: 4). Furthermore, farmers who kept two animal species (M: 7; OR: 1.41) or three or more species (M: 7) used more biosecurity measures than single‐species operations (M: 4). Farmers with privately owned land used more biosecurity measures (M: 6; OR: 1.51) than those grazing their animals on communal land (M: 3.5). Farms that reported previous Rift Valley fever (RVF) outbreaks used more biosecurity measures (M: 7; OR: 1.25) compared with farms without RVF reports (M: 6) and those that purchased animals in the 12 months prior to the survey (M: 7; OR: 1.19) compared with those that did not (M: 6). When introducing new animals into their herds (n = 122), most farmers used fewer biosecurity measures than they did for their existing herd: 34% (41 out of 122) used multiple biosecurity measures like those of vaccination, tick control, quarantine or antibiotic use, whereas 36% (44 out of 122) used only one and 30% (37 out of 122) used none. Certain farm features, primarily those related to size and commercialization, were associated with more frequent use of biosecurity measures. Given the variation in the application of biosecurity measures, more awareness and technical assistance are needed to support the implementation of a biosecurity management plan appropriate for the type of farm operation and available resources. Biosecurity measures have been introduced to limit economic losses and zoonotic exposures to humans by preventing and controlling animal diseases. However, they are implemented on individual farms with varying frequency. The goal of this study was to evaluate which biosecurity measures were used by farmers to prevent infectious diseases in ruminant livestock and to identify factors that influenced these decisions. We conducted a survey in 264 ruminant livestock farmers in a 40,000 km2 area in the Free State and Northern Cape provinces of South Africa. We used descriptive statistics, to characterize biosecurity measures and farm attributes, then multivariable binomial regression to assess the strength of the association between the attributes and the implementation of biosecurity measures including property fencing, separate equipment use on different species, separate rearing of species, isolation of sick animals, isolation of pregnant animals, quarantine of new animals, animal transport cleaning, vaccination, tick control and insect control. Ninety‐nine percent of farmers reported using at least one of the 10 biosecurity measures investigated (median [M]: 6; range: 0–10). The most frequently used biosecurity measures were tick control (81%, 214 out of 264), vaccination (80%, 211 out of 264) and isolation of sick animals (72%, 190 out of 264). More biosecurity measures were used on farms with 65–282 animals (M: 6; odds ratio [OR]: 1.52) or farms with 283–12,030 animals (M: 7; OR: 1.87) than on farms with fewer than 65 animals (M: 4). Furthermore, farmers who kept two animal species (M: 7; OR: 1.41) or three or more species (M: 7) used more biosecurity measures than single‐species operations (M: 4). Farmers with privately owned land used more biosecurity measures (M: 6; OR: 1.51) than those grazing their animals on communal land (M: 3.5). Farms that reported previous Rift Valley fever (RVF) outbreaks used more biosecurity measures (M: 7; OR: 1.25) compared with farms without RVF reports (M: 6) and those that purchased animals in the 12 months prior to the survey (M: 7; OR: 1.19) compared with those that did not (M: 6). When introducing new animals into their herds (n = 122), most farmers used fewer biosecurity measures than they did for their existing herd: 34% (41 out of 122) used multiple biosecurity measures like those of vaccination, tick control, quarantine or antibiotic use, whereas 36% (44 out of 122) used only one and 30% (37 out of 122) used none. Certain farm features, primarily those related to size and commercialization, were associated with more frequent use of biosecurity measures. Given the variation in the application of biosecurity measures, more awareness and technical assistance are needed to support the implementation of a biosecurity management plan appropriate for the type of farm operation and available resources. Biosecurity measures have been introduced to limit economic losses and zoonotic exposures to humans by preventing and controlling animal diseases. However, they are implemented on individual farms with varying frequency. The goal of this study was to evaluate which biosecurity measures were used by farmers to prevent infectious diseases in ruminant livestock and to identify factors that influenced these decisions. We conducted a survey in 264 ruminant livestock farmers in a 40,000 km area in the Free State and Northern Cape provinces of South Africa. We used descriptive statistics, to characterize biosecurity measures and farm attributes, then multivariable binomial regression to assess the strength of the association between the attributes and the implementation of biosecurity measures including property fencing, separate equipment use on different species, separate rearing of species, isolation of sick animals, isolation of pregnant animals, quarantine of new animals, animal transport cleaning, vaccination, tick control and insect control. Ninety-nine percent of farmers reported using at least one of the 10 biosecurity measures investigated (median [M]: 6; range: 0-10). The most frequently used biosecurity measures were tick control (81%, 214 out of 264), vaccination (80%, 211 out of 264) and isolation of sick animals (72%, 190 out of 264). More biosecurity measures were used on farms with 65-282 animals (M: 6; odds ratio [OR]: 1.52) or farms with 283-12,030 animals (M: 7; OR: 1.87) than on farms with fewer than 65 animals (M: 4). Furthermore, farmers who kept two animal species (M: 7; OR: 1.41) or three or more species (M: 7) used more biosecurity measures than single-species operations (M: 4). Farmers with privately owned land used more biosecurity measures (M: 6; OR: 1.51) than those grazing their animals on communal land (M: 3.5). Farms that reported previous Rift Valley fever (RVF) outbreaks used more biosecurity measures (M: 7; OR: 1.25) compared with farms without RVF reports (M: 6) and those that purchased animals in the 12 months prior to the survey (M: 7; OR: 1.19) compared with those that did not (M: 6). When introducing new animals into their herds (n = 122), most farmers used fewer biosecurity measures than they did for their existing herd: 34% (41 out of 122) used multiple biosecurity measures like those of vaccination, tick control, quarantine or antibiotic use, whereas 36% (44 out of 122) used only one and 30% (37 out of 122) used none. Certain farm features, primarily those related to size and commercialization, were associated with more frequent use of biosecurity measures. Given the variation in the application of biosecurity measures, more awareness and technical assistance are needed to support the implementation of a biosecurity management plan appropriate for the type of farm operation and available resources. Biosecurity measures have been introduced to limit economic losses and zoonotic exposures to humans by preventing and controlling animal diseases. However, they are implemented on individual farms with varying frequency. The goal of this study was to evaluate which biosecurity measures were used by farmers to prevent infectious diseases in ruminant livestock and to identify factors that influenced these decisions. We conducted a survey in 264 ruminant livestock farmers in a 40,000 km2 area in the Free State and Northern Cape provinces of South Africa. We used descriptive statistics, to characterize biosecurity measures and farm attributes, then multivariable binomial regression to assess the strength of the association between the attributes and the implementation of biosecurity measures including property fencing, separate equipment use on different species, separate rearing of species, isolation of sick animals, isolation of pregnant animals, quarantine of new animals, animal transport cleaning, vaccination, tick control and insect control. Ninety-nine percent of farmers reported using at least one of the 10 biosecurity measures investigated (median [M]: 6; range: 0-10). The most frequently used biosecurity measures were tick control (81%, 214 out of 264), vaccination (80%, 211 out of 264) and isolation of sick animals (72%, 190 out of 264). More biosecurity measures were used on farms with 65-282 animals (M: 6; odds ratio [OR]: 1.52) or farms with 283-12,030 animals (M: 7; OR: 1.87) than on farms with fewer than 65 animals (M: 4). Furthermore, farmers who kept two animal species (M: 7; OR: 1.41) or three or more species (M: 7) used more biosecurity measures than single-species operations (M: 4). Farmers with privately owned land used more biosecurity measures (M: 6; OR: 1.51) than those grazing their animals on communal land (M: 3.5). Farms that reported previous Rift Valley fever (RVF) outbreaks used more biosecurity measures (M: 7; OR: 1.25) compared with farms without RVF reports (M: 6) and those that purchased animals in the 12 months prior to the survey (M: 7; OR: 1.19) compared with those that did not (M: 6). When introducing new animals into their herds (n = 122), most farmers used fewer biosecurity measures than they did for their existing herd: 34% (41 out of 122) used multiple biosecurity measures like those of vaccination, tick control, quarantine or antibiotic use, whereas 36% (44 out of 122) used only one and 30% (37 out of 122) used none. Certain farm features, primarily those related to size and commercialization, were associated with more frequent use of biosecurity measures. Given the variation in the application of biosecurity measures, more awareness and technical assistance are needed to support the implementation of a biosecurity management plan appropriate for the type of farm operation and available resources.Biosecurity measures have been introduced to limit economic losses and zoonotic exposures to humans by preventing and controlling animal diseases. However, they are implemented on individual farms with varying frequency. The goal of this study was to evaluate which biosecurity measures were used by farmers to prevent infectious diseases in ruminant livestock and to identify factors that influenced these decisions. We conducted a survey in 264 ruminant livestock farmers in a 40,000 km2 area in the Free State and Northern Cape provinces of South Africa. We used descriptive statistics, to characterize biosecurity measures and farm attributes, then multivariable binomial regression to assess the strength of the association between the attributes and the implementation of biosecurity measures including property fencing, separate equipment use on different species, separate rearing of species, isolation of sick animals, isolation of pregnant animals, quarantine of new animals, animal transport cleaning, vaccination, tick control and insect control. Ninety-nine percent of farmers reported using at least one of the 10 biosecurity measures investigated (median [M]: 6; range: 0-10). The most frequently used biosecurity measures were tick control (81%, 214 out of 264), vaccination (80%, 211 out of 264) and isolation of sick animals (72%, 190 out of 264). More biosecurity measures were used on farms with 65-282 animals (M: 6; odds ratio [OR]: 1.52) or farms with 283-12,030 animals (M: 7; OR: 1.87) than on farms with fewer than 65 animals (M: 4). Furthermore, farmers who kept two animal species (M: 7; OR: 1.41) or three or more species (M: 7) used more biosecurity measures than single-species operations (M: 4). Farmers with privately owned land used more biosecurity measures (M: 6; OR: 1.51) than those grazing their animals on communal land (M: 3.5). Farms that reported previous Rift Valley fever (RVF) outbreaks used more biosecurity measures (M: 7; OR: 1.25) compared with farms without RVF reports (M: 6) and those that purchased animals in the 12 months prior to the survey (M: 7; OR: 1.19) compared with those that did not (M: 6). When introducing new animals into their herds (n = 122), most farmers used fewer biosecurity measures than they did for their existing herd: 34% (41 out of 122) used multiple biosecurity measures like those of vaccination, tick control, quarantine or antibiotic use, whereas 36% (44 out of 122) used only one and 30% (37 out of 122) used none. Certain farm features, primarily those related to size and commercialization, were associated with more frequent use of biosecurity measures. Given the variation in the application of biosecurity measures, more awareness and technical assistance are needed to support the implementation of a biosecurity management plan appropriate for the type of farm operation and available resources. |
| Author | Rostal, Melinda K. Tempia, Stefano Msimang, Veerle Burt, Felicity J. Cordel, Claudia Paweska, Janusz T. Machalaba, Catherine Bagge, Whitney Karesh, William B. Thompson, Peter N. |
| AuthorAffiliation | 5 ExecuVet (Pty) LTD Bloemfontein South Africa 10 Centre for Viral Zoonoses University of Pretoria Pretoria South Africa 9 Division of Virology Faculty of Health Sciences University of the Free State Bloemfontein South Africa 2 Centre for Emerging Zoonotic and Parasitic Diseases National Institute for Communicable Diseases of the National Health Laboratory Service Sandringham South Africa 3 EcoHealth Alliance, New York New York NY USA 8 Division of Virology National Health Laboratory Service Universitas Bloemfontein South Africa 1 Epidemiology Section Department of Production Animal Studies Faculty of Veterinary Science University of Pretoria Onderstepoort South Africa 7 Faculty of Health Sciences School of Public Health University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa 4 Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences University of Glasgow Glasgow UK 6 Centre for Respiratory Diseases and Meningitis National Institute fo |
| AuthorAffiliation_xml | – name: 7 Faculty of Health Sciences School of Public Health University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa – name: 9 Division of Virology Faculty of Health Sciences University of the Free State Bloemfontein South Africa – name: 3 EcoHealth Alliance, New York New York NY USA – name: 10 Centre for Viral Zoonoses University of Pretoria Pretoria South Africa – name: 2 Centre for Emerging Zoonotic and Parasitic Diseases National Institute for Communicable Diseases of the National Health Laboratory Service Sandringham South Africa – name: 4 Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences University of Glasgow Glasgow UK – name: 6 Centre for Respiratory Diseases and Meningitis National Institute for Communicable Diseases of the National Health Laboratory Services Johannesburg South Africa – name: 1 Epidemiology Section Department of Production Animal Studies Faculty of Veterinary Science University of Pretoria Onderstepoort South Africa – name: 5 ExecuVet (Pty) LTD Bloemfontein South Africa – name: 8 Division of Virology National Health Laboratory Service Universitas Bloemfontein South Africa |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Veerle surname: Msimang fullname: Msimang, Veerle email: u17400750@tuks.co.za, veerlem@nicd.ac.za organization: National Institute for Communicable Diseases of the National Health Laboratory Service – sequence: 2 givenname: Melinda K. surname: Rostal fullname: Rostal, Melinda K. organization: University of Glasgow – sequence: 3 givenname: Claudia surname: Cordel fullname: Cordel, Claudia organization: ExecuVet (Pty) LTD – sequence: 4 givenname: Catherine surname: Machalaba fullname: Machalaba, Catherine organization: EcoHealth Alliance, New York – sequence: 5 givenname: Stefano surname: Tempia fullname: Tempia, Stefano organization: University of the Witwatersrand – sequence: 6 givenname: Whitney surname: Bagge fullname: Bagge, Whitney organization: EcoHealth Alliance, New York – sequence: 7 givenname: Felicity J. surname: Burt fullname: Burt, Felicity J. organization: University of the Free State – sequence: 8 givenname: William B. surname: Karesh fullname: Karesh, William B. organization: EcoHealth Alliance, New York – sequence: 9 givenname: Janusz T. surname: Paweska fullname: Paweska, Janusz T. organization: University of Pretoria – sequence: 10 givenname: Peter N. surname: Thompson fullname: Thompson, Peter N. email: peter.thompson@up.ac.za organization: University of Pretoria |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35306739$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNqFkstu1DAUhiNURG9seABkiQ1CmmI7cS4bpLa0gFSpi7Zr68Q5nnGb2IPttJqn4VVxZoYRVAi8sSV__3-uh9medRaz7A2jJyydj7HF7oQVgosX2QGrSzFjZc33du-q2M8OQ7intKRNKV5l-7nIaVnlzUH24xJUdD4Q0BpVNHZO4gLJGJA4TVrjAqrRm7giA0IYPQainV8zS-_iJHF2Qv04GAs2kt48YohOPRCwHdHgB_Lk_ANOMeZgbIjE2HUsNwbSmZB8k6uxRKGNHnpy48a4IKfaGwXH2UsNfcDX2_sou7u8uD3_Oru6_vLt_PRqpoqaiVnFyxY1ttAwxcuKdXWuCswVRaGKijUtr1UHWBUtg4Jjy3SRA9VUQd1CBzo_yj5tfJdjO2C3TUUuvRnAr6QDI__8sWYh5-5RNlVDRdUkg_dbA---j6kDcjBBYd-DxVSo5BXPGWeU0_-jZcEEZ3XBEvruGXrvRm9TJ5Ihq0TTNGKK_fb35HdZ_xpzAj5sAOVdCB71DmFUTjskpx2S6x1KMH0GKxNhmnMq3PR_l7CN5Mn0uPqHubw9u_i80fwE5oLeGA |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1007_s11250_025_04468_7 crossref_primary_10_3390_ani14101401 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpubh_2023_1199664 crossref_primary_10_1088_1755_1315_1286_1_012004 crossref_primary_10_3390_vetsci12040334 crossref_primary_10_3389_fvets_2024_1324233 crossref_primary_10_3390_agriculture13081483 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12982_025_00489_7 crossref_primary_10_1155_japr_1443083 crossref_primary_10_3390_ani13162672 crossref_primary_10_71320_bcs_0003 crossref_primary_10_1155_2024_5524022 crossref_primary_10_3390_ani14142136 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jiph_2025_102738 crossref_primary_10_3390_app14198955 |
| Cites_doi | 10.3168/jds.2017‐12815 10.3390/pathogens9110914 10.3390/ani9040123 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.07.014 10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.08.029 10.1080/00480169.2014.928925 10.4102/ojvr.v72i3.202 10.1371/journal.pone.0136059 10.1186/s13071‐020‐04059‐5 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.07.013 10.1093/jac/dkt443 10.1111/tbed.12982 10.20506/rst.36.2.2665 10.20506/TT.2761 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.104768 10.1186/s12917‐019‐1961‐2 10.1371/journal.pone.0181911 10.1186/s13567‐018‐0560‐8 10.3390/v11020140 10.1111/tbed.13587 10.1002/vms3.211 10.1016/j.njas.2013.05.003 10.1177/003335491212700103 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2007.12.003 10.20506/TT.2934 10.4102/ojvr.v79i1.499 10.4314/sajas.v43i3.5 10.20506/rst.39.2.3106 10.1007/s10640‐016‐0102‐7 10.3168/jds.2019‐16312 10.1637/9233‐011210‐Reg.1 10.1016/j.tim.2006.01.004 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2008.05.007 10.1371/journal.pone.0169881 10.1093/biomet/78.2.446 10.1186/1751‐0147‐54‐14 10.1016/j.cll.2017.01.004 10.3201/eid1012.040707 10.1038/s41598‐020‐62453‐6 10.1016/j.tvjl.2012.07.001 10.1093/jae/ejq016 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2004.07.005 10.1080/03031853.2017.1286249 10.1186/s12917‐015‐0477‐7 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.07.110 10.3923/ajava.2013.874.884 10.1371/journal.pone.0214500 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.01.010 10.1007/s40003‐014‐0097‐7 10.1007/s41130‐016‐0022‐5 10.1016/j.eng.2019.10.004 10.1098/rstb.2007.2188 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006989 10.1145/2369220.2369236 10.1080/03031853.2021.1894190 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.104742 10.3390/su12072582 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | 2022 The Authors. published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH 2022 The Authors. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases published by Wiley-VCH GmbH. 2022. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: 2022 The Authors. published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH – notice: 2022 The Authors. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases published by Wiley-VCH GmbH. – notice: 2022. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. |
| DBID | 24P AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7QL 7T7 7U9 8FD C1K FR3 H94 M7N P64 7X8 7S9 L.6 5PM |
| DOI | 10.1111/tbed.14525 |
| DatabaseName | Wiley Online Library Open Access CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B) Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A) Virology and AIDS Abstracts Technology Research Database Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management Engineering Research Database AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C) Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts MEDLINE - Academic AGRICOLA AGRICOLA - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) Virology and AIDS Abstracts Technology Research Database Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B) Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C) AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts Engineering Research Database Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A) Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management MEDLINE - Academic AGRICOLA AGRICOLA - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | AGRICOLA Virology and AIDS Abstracts MEDLINE MEDLINE - Academic |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: 24P name: Wiley Open Access Collection url: https://authorservices.wiley.com/open-science/open-access/browse-journals.html sourceTypes: Publisher – sequence: 2 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 3 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Veterinary Medicine Agriculture |
| DocumentTitleAlternate | MSIMANG et al |
| EISSN | 1865-1682 |
| EndPage | e1912 |
| ExternalDocumentID | PMC9790579 35306739 10_1111_tbed_14525 TBED14525 |
| Genre | article Journal Article |
| GeographicLocations | South Africa |
| GeographicLocations_xml | – name: South Africa |
| GrantInformation_xml | – fundername: The content of the information does not necessarily reflect the position or the policy of the federal government, and no official endorsement should be inferred; William B. Kare funderid: HDTRA1‐14‐1‐0029 – fundername: The project depicted is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Threat Reduction Agency – fundername: The content of the information does not necessarily reflect the position or the policy of the federal government, and no official endorsement should be inferred; William B. Kare grantid: HDTRA1-14-1-0029 – fundername: The content of the information does not necessarily reflect the position or the policy of the federal government, and no official endorsement should be inferred; William B. Kare grantid: HDTRA1‐14‐1‐0029 |
| GroupedDBID | --- .3N .GA .Y3 05W 0R~ 10A 123 1OC 24P 31~ 33P 36B 3SF 4.4 50Y 50Z 51W 51X 52M 52N 52O 52P 52S 52T 52U 52W 52X 53G 5HH 5LA 5VS 66C 702 7PT 7X2 8-0 8-1 8-3 8-4 8-5 8G5 8UM 930 A03 A8Z AAESR AAEVG AAHBH AAHHS AAJEY AANHP AAONW AASGY AAXRX AAZKR ABCQN ABCUV ABDBF ABEML ABJNI ABPVW ABUWG ACAHQ ACBWZ ACCFJ ACCMX ACCZN ACGFO ACGFS ACPOU ACPRK ACRPL ACSCC ACUHS ACXBN ACXQS ACYXJ ADBBV ADEOM ADIZJ ADKYN ADMGS ADNMO ADOZA ADXAS ADZMN AEEZP AEIMD AENEX AEQDE AEUQT AEUYN AFBPY AFGKR AFKRA AFPWT AFRAH AFZJQ AIURR AIWBW AJBDE AJXKR ALAGY ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALUQN AMBMR AMYDB ATCPS ATUGU AUFTA AZBYB AZFZN AZQEC AZVAB BAFTC BBNVY BDRZF BENPR BFHJK BHBCM BHPHI BMNLL BMXJE BNHUX BROTX BRXPI BY8 C45 CAG CCPQU COF CS3 D-E D-F DCZOG DPXWK DR2 DRFUL DRSTM DWQXO EAD EAP EBC EBD EBS ECGQY EJD EMB EMK EMOBN ESX EYRJQ F00 F01 F04 F5P FEDTE G-S G.N GNUQQ GODZA GUQSH H.T H.X H13 HCIFZ HF~ HVGLF HZI HZ~ IHE IX1 J0M LATKE LC2 LC3 LEEKS LH4 LITHE LOXES LP6 LP7 LUTES LW6 LYRES M0K M2O M7P MK4 MRFUL MRSTM MSFUL MSSTM MXFUL MXSTM N04 N05 N9A NF~ O66 O9- OIG OVD P2P P2W P2X P4D PIMPY PQQKQ Q.N Q11 QB0 R.K RHX ROL RX1 SUPJJ SV3 TEORI TUS UB1 V8K W8V W99 WBKPD WIH WIK WOHZO WOIKV WPGGZ WQJ WRC XG1 ~IA ~KM ~WT AAMMB AAYXX AEFGJ AFFHD AGQPQ AGXDD AIDQK AIDYY CITATION O8X PHGZM PHGZT PQGLB RPM CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7QL 7T7 7U9 8FD C1K ESTFP FR3 H94 M7N P64 7X8 7S9 L.6 5PM |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c4815-726befeba91c2671d83c4e3c0e5c4719b28cdae74b1a42eb1f43a0f0ca8badaf3 |
| IEDL.DBID | 24P |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 19 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000778042200001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 1865-1674 1865-1682 |
| IngestDate | Tue Nov 04 02:07:10 EST 2025 Fri Oct 03 00:06:22 EDT 2025 Sun Nov 09 14:43:40 EST 2025 Sun Nov 09 07:24:43 EST 2025 Mon Jul 21 05:59:52 EDT 2025 Tue Nov 18 21:44:32 EST 2025 Sat Nov 29 03:49:04 EST 2025 Wed Jan 22 16:24:30 EST 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 5 |
| Keywords | South Africa zoonoses biosecurity ruminant production farmers |
| Language | English |
| License | Attribution 2022 The Authors. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases published by Wiley-VCH GmbH. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c4815-726befeba91c2671d83c4e3c0e5c4719b28cdae74b1a42eb1f43a0f0ca8badaf3 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111%2Ftbed.14525 |
| PMID | 35306739 |
| PQID | 2717599959 |
| PQPubID | 38285 |
| PageCount | 14 |
| ParticipantIDs | pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9790579 proquest_miscellaneous_2723121020 proquest_miscellaneous_2641521841 proquest_journals_2717599959 pubmed_primary_35306739 crossref_primary_10_1111_tbed_14525 crossref_citationtrail_10_1111_tbed_14525 wiley_primary_10_1111_tbed_14525_TBED14525 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | September 2022 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2022-09-01 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 09 year: 2022 text: September 2022 |
| PublicationDecade | 2020 |
| PublicationPlace | Germany |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: Germany – name: Berlin – name: Hoboken |
| PublicationTitle | Transboundary and emerging diseases |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Transbound Emerg Dis |
| PublicationYear | 2022 |
| Publisher | John Wiley & Sons, Inc John Wiley and Sons Inc |
| Publisher_xml | – name: John Wiley & Sons, Inc – name: John Wiley and Sons Inc |
| References | 2004; 65 2010; 54 2019; 170 2013; 66 2010; 19 2019; 11 2019; 13 2019; 56 2019; 15 2019; 14 2014; 69 2011; 99 2020; 13 2020; 12 2020; 10 2014; 62 2013; 8 2012; 127 2012; 54 2018; 49 1936 2020; 6 2014; 3 2017; 37 2017; 36 2000 2017; 35 2020; 9 2018; 70 2013; 112 1984 2010; 194 2013; 198 2005; 72 2014; 117 2019; 9 2019; 6 1991; 78 2012 2013; 43 2010 2006; 14 2015; 11 2015; 10 2020; 39 2016; 97 2008 2019; 102 2007 2003 2012; 79 2018; 65 2008; 363 2004; 10 2018; 2018 2020 2017; 56 2017; 12 2019 2018 2017 2016 2008; 87 2015 2020; 67 2013 2017; 100 2008; 84 2021; 60 2018; 11 2019; 172 e_1_2_11_70_1 Neves D. (e_1_2_11_51_1) 2020 e_1_2_11_72_1 Organisation for Economic Co‐operation Development and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (e_1_2_11_57_1) 2020 e_1_2_11_32_1 e_1_2_11_55_1 e_1_2_11_78_1 e_1_2_11_30_1 e_1_2_11_74_1 e_1_2_11_53_1 e_1_2_11_76_1 e_1_2_11_11_1 e_1_2_11_6_1 e_1_2_11_27_1 e_1_2_11_48_1 e_1_2_11_2_1 Minjauw B. (e_1_2_11_49_1) 2000 e_1_2_11_60_1 e_1_2_11_20_1 e_1_2_11_45_1 Sotsha K. (e_1_2_11_69_1) 2018; 11 e_1_2_11_47_1 e_1_2_11_68_1 e_1_2_11_24_1 e_1_2_11_41_1 e_1_2_11_62_1 e_1_2_11_8_1 e_1_2_11_22_1 e_1_2_11_64_1 e_1_2_11_17_1 e_1_2_11_59_1 e_1_2_11_38_1 e_1_2_11_19_1 e_1_2_11_50_1 e_1_2_11_71_1 Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Republic of South Africa (e_1_2_11_14_1) 2017 e_1_2_11_10_1 e_1_2_11_31_1 e_1_2_11_56_1 e_1_2_11_77_1 e_1_2_11_58_1 e_1_2_11_35_1 e_1_2_11_52_1 e_1_2_11_73_1 e_1_2_11_12_1 e_1_2_11_33_1 e_1_2_11_54_1 e_1_2_11_7_1 e_1_2_11_28_1 e_1_2_11_5_1 e_1_2_11_26_1 Wallace D. B. (e_1_2_11_75_1) 2013 Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Republic of South Africa (e_1_2_11_13_1) 1984 e_1_2_11_61_1 Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Republic of South Africa (e_1_2_11_15_1) 2019; 56 Aliber M. (e_1_2_11_3_1) 2016 Simela L. (e_1_2_11_66_1) 2012 Andrew M. (e_1_2_11_4_1) 2003 e_1_2_11_21_1 Holleman C. F. (e_1_2_11_29_1) 2003 e_1_2_11_44_1 e_1_2_11_67_1 e_1_2_11_46_1 Kriel G. (e_1_2_11_36_1) 2018; 2018 e_1_2_11_25_1 e_1_2_11_40_1 e_1_2_11_63_1 e_1_2_11_9_1 e_1_2_11_23_1 e_1_2_11_42_1 Machalaba C. (e_1_2_11_43_1) 2020 e_1_2_11_65_1 e_1_2_11_18_1 e_1_2_11_16_1 e_1_2_11_37_1 e_1_2_11_39_1 Köppen W. G. (e_1_2_11_34_1) 1936 |
| References_xml | – volume: 65 start-page: 1991 issue: 6 year: 2018 end-page: 2005 article-title: Classification of adult cattle infectious diseases: A first step towards prioritization of biosecurity measures publication-title: Transboundary and Emerging Diseases – volume: 10 start-page: 5489 issue: 1 year: 2020 article-title: Patterns of Rift Valley fever virus seropositivity in domestic ruminants in central South Africa four years after a large outbreak publication-title: Scientific Reports – start-page: 1 year: 1984 end-page: 63 – volume: 100 start-page: 8398 issue: 10 year: 2017 end-page: 8408 article-title: Associations between biosecurity practices and bovine digital dermatitis in Danish dairy herds publication-title: Journal of Dairy Science – volume: 87 start-page: 358 issue: 3‐4 year: 2008 end-page: 372 article-title: An exploration of the drivers to bio‐security collective action among a sample of UK cattle and sheep farmers publication-title: Preventive Veterinary Medicine – volume: 9 issue: 11 year: 2020 article-title: Farm‐level risk factors of increased abortion and mortality in domestic ruminants during the 2010 Rift Valley fever outbreak in central South Africa publication-title: Pathogens – volume: 8 start-page: 874 year: 2013 end-page: 884 article-title: Knowledge of biosecurity among livestock farmers along border villages of South Africa and Botswana publication-title: Asian Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances – volume: 11 start-page: 171 issue: 1 year: 2015 article-title: Risk assessment as a tool for improving external biosecurity at farm level publication-title: BMC Veterinary Research – volume: 3 start-page: 22 issue: 1 year: 2014 end-page: 31 article-title: Globalization and livestock biosecurity publication-title: Agricultural Research – volume: 60 start-page: 57 issue: 1 year: 2021 end-page: 79 article-title: Determinants of livestock keepers’ primary animal health care practices publication-title: Agrekon – volume: 198 start-page: 508 issue: 2 year: 2013 end-page: 512 article-title: Relationship between biosecurity and production/antimicrobial treatment characteristics in pig herds publication-title: Veterinary Journal (London, England: 1997) – volume: 78 start-page: 446 issue: 2 year: 1991 end-page: 450 article-title: Sample size for Poisson regression publication-title: Biometrika – volume: 14 start-page: 125 issue: 3 year: 2006 end-page: 131 article-title: Animal movements and the spread of infectious diseases publication-title: Trends in Microbiology – volume: 14 issue: 4 year: 2019 article-title: Decision‐making in livestock biosecurity practices amidst environmental and social uncertainty: Evidence from an experimental game publication-title: PLoS One – volume: 54 start-page: 1007 issue: 3 year: 2010 end-page: 1015 article-title: Survey of biosecurity protocols and practices adopted by growers on commercial poultry farms in Georgia, U. S. A publication-title: Avian Diseases – year: 2008 article-title: The costs of biosecurity at the farm level: The case of Finnish broiler – start-page: 39 year: 2013 end-page: 43 article-title: Five diseases, one vaccine: A boost for emerging livestock farmers in South Africa publication-title: Stories of change – volume: 19 start-page: iii110 year: 2010 end-page: iii165 article-title: Endemic diseases and agricultural productivity: Challenges and policy response publication-title: Journal of African Economies – volume: 84 start-page: 310 issue: 3‐4 year: 2008 end-page: 323 article-title: Measuring and comparing constraints to improved biosecurity amongst GB farmers, veterinarians and the auxiliary industries publication-title: Preventive Veterinary Medicine – volume: 13 start-page: 172 issue: 1 year: 2020 article-title: Amblyomma hebraeum is the predominant tick species on goats in the Mnisi community area of Mpumalanga province South Africa and is co‐infected with Ehrlichia ruminantium and Rickettsia africae publication-title: Parasit Vectors – volume: 12 issue: 1 year: 2017 article-title: Analysis of the spatial organization of pastures as a contact network, implications for potential disease spread and biosecurity in livestock, France, 2010 publication-title: PLoS One – volume: 2018 start-page: 34 year: 2018 end-page: 35 article-title: Biosecurity : Your first line of defence against disease: poultry focus ‐ preventing disease publication-title: Farmer's Weekly – volume: 97 start-page: 215 issue: 4 year: 2016 end-page: 223 article-title: Farm characteristics and perceptions regarding costs contribute to the adoption of biosecurity in Finnish pig and cattle farms publication-title: Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies – volume: 69 start-page: 827 issue: 3 year: 2014 end-page: 834 article-title: Correlation between veterinary antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in food‐producing animals: a report on seven countries publication-title: The Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy – volume: 363 start-page: 863 issue: 1492 year: 2008 end-page: 876 article-title: Agricultural biosecurity publication-title: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences – volume: 67 start-page: 2482 issue: 6 year: 2020 end-page: 2493 article-title: Impact of participatory training of smallholder pig farmers on knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding biosecurity for the control of African swine fever in Uganda publication-title: Transboundary and Emerging Diseases – volume: 65 start-page: 189 issue: 3‐4 year: 2004 end-page: 204 article-title: Certification of herds as free of Mycobacterium paratuberculosis infection: actual pooled faecal results versus certification model predictions publication-title: Preventive Veterinary Medicine – volume: 194 start-page: 143 year: 2010 end-page: 150 article-title: Bioexclusion from dairy and beef farms: Risks of introducing infectious agents and risk reduction strategies publication-title: The Veterinary Journal – volume: 10 issue: 8 year: 2015 article-title: Cost‐effective control of infectious disease outbreaks accounting for societal reaction publication-title: PLoS One – volume: 6 start-page: 20 issue: 1 year: 2019 end-page: 25 article-title: Disease control, prevention and on‐farm biosecurity: The role of veterinary epidemiology publication-title: Engineering – year: 2019 – year: 2015 – volume: 112 start-page: 161 issue: 3‐4 year: 2013 end-page: 173 article-title: The economic impacts of foot and mouth disease ‐ what are they, how big are they and where do they occur? publication-title: Preventive Veterinary Medicine – volume: 12 issue: 7 year: 2020 article-title: Sustainability of livestock farming in South Africa. Outlook on production constraints, climate‐related events and upshot on adaptive capacity publication-title: Sustainability – volume: 11 start-page: 73 issue: 01 year: 2018 end-page: 80 article-title: Factors influencing communal livestock farmers’ participation into the National Red Meat Development Programme (NRMDP) in South Africa: the case of the Eastern Cape Province publication-title: OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development – volume: 66 start-page: 7 year: 2013 end-page: 14 article-title: Assessing and controlling health risks from animal husbandry publication-title: NJAS ‐ Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences – volume: 54 issue: 1 year: 2012 article-title: Infection prevention and control interventions in the first outbreak of methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in an equine hospital in Sweden publication-title: Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica – volume: 35 start-page: 5967 issue: 44 year: 2017 end-page: 5973 article-title: Breaking the chain of zoonoses through biosecurity in livestock publication-title: Vaccine – volume: 99 start-page: 122 issue: 2‐4 year: 2011 end-page: 129 article-title: Danish dairy farmers' perception of biosecurity publication-title: Preventive Veterinary Medicine – volume: 117 start-page: 129 issue: 1 year: 2014 end-page: 139 article-title: A survey on biosecurity and management practices in selected Belgian cattle farms publication-title: Preventive Veterinary Medicine – year: 2003 – volume: 127 start-page: 4 issue: 1 year: 2012 end-page: 22 article-title: A review of antibiotic use in food animals: perspective, policy, and potential publication-title: Public Health Reports (Washington, D.C.: 1974) – year: 2000 – volume: 39 start-page: 551 issue: 2 year: 2020 end-page: 559 article-title: Prevention and preparedness: biosecurity, early warning and contingency planning publication-title: Revue Scientifique Et Technique (International Office of Epizootics) – volume: 15 start-page: 208 issue: 1 year: 2019 article-title: Ugandan cattle farmers’ perceived needs of disease prevention and strategies to improve biosecurity publication-title: BMC Veterinary Research – volume: 37 start-page: 285 issue: 2 year: 2017 end-page: 301 article-title: Rift Valley fever publication-title: Clinics in laboratory medicine – volume: 72 start-page: 245 issue: 3 year: 2005 end-page: 249 article-title: A survey of tick control methods used by resource‐poor farmers in the Qwa‐Qwa area of the eastern Free State Province, South Africa publication-title: The Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research – volume: 49 start-page: 64 issue: 1 year: 2018 article-title: Vaccines as alternatives to antibiotics for food producing animals. Part 1: Challenges and needs publication-title: Veterinary Research – year: 2016 – volume: 10 start-page: 2067 issue: 12 year: 2004 end-page: 2072 article-title: Wildlife as source of zoonotic infections publication-title: Emerging Infectious Diseases – year: 2010 – year: 2012 – year: 1936 – year: 2017 article-title: How to implement farm biosecurity: the role of governmental and private sector – volume: 102 start-page: 10657 issue: 11 year: 2019 end-page: 10669 article-title: Canadian dairy farmers' perception of the efficacy of biosecurity practices publication-title: Journal of Dairy Science – volume: 172 year: 2019 article-title: Biosecurity practices in Belgian veal calf farming: Level of implementation, attitudes, strengths, weaknesses and constraints publication-title: Preventive Veterinary Medicine – volume: 170 year: 2019 article-title: Dairy goat producers' understanding, knowledge and attitudes towards biosecurity and Q‐fever in Australia publication-title: Preventive Veterinary Medicine – volume: 12 year: 2017 article-title: National‐scale cropland mapping based on spectral‐temporal features and outdated land cover information publication-title: PLoS One – volume: 62 start-page: 338 issue: 6 year: 2014 end-page: 342 article-title: Analysis of individual farm investigations into bovine viral diarrhoea in beef herds in the North Island of New Zealand publication-title: New Zealand Veterinary Journal – volume: 13 issue: 2 year: 2019 article-title: Strategies to increase adoption of animal vaccines by smallholder farmers with focus on neglected diseases and marginalized populations publication-title: PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases – volume: 11 issue: 2 year: 2019 article-title: Rift Valley fever virus exposure amongst farmers, farm workers, and veterinary professionals in central South Africa publication-title: Viruses – year: 2020 – volume: 43 start-page: 282 issue: 3 year: 2013 end-page: 297 article-title: Sustainability of the South African livestock sector towards 2050 Part 1: Worth and impact of the sector publication-title: South African Journal Of Animal Science – volume: 9 issue: 4 year: 2019 article-title: The benefits of improving animal welfare from the perspective of livestock stakeholders across Asia publication-title: Animals – start-page: 1 year: 2017 end-page: 16 – volume: 79 start-page: E1 issue: 1 year: 2012 end-page: 8 article-title: Orf in South Africa: Endemic but neglected publication-title: The Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research – volume: 36 start-page: 445 issue: 2 year: 2017 end-page: 457 article-title: Linking animal diseases and social instability publication-title: Revue Scientifique Et Technique (International Office of Epizootics) – volume: 6 start-page: 82 issue: 1 year: 2020 end-page: 91 article-title: Management and biosecurity practices on pig farms in the western Highlands of Cameroon (Central Africa) publication-title: Veterinary Medicine and Science – volume: 56 start-page: 13 issue: 1 year: 2017 end-page: 27 article-title: Evaluating the demand for meat in South Africa: An econometric estimation of short term demand elasticities publication-title: Agrekon – volume: 56 start-page: 13 issue: 1 year: 2019 end-page: 27 article-title: Abstract of agricultural statistics 2019 publication-title: Agrekon – volume: 70 start-page: 617 issue: 3 year: 2018 end-page: 629 article-title: Compensation payments and animal disease: Incentivising farmers both to undertake costly on‐farm biosecurity and to comply with disease reporting requirements publication-title: Environmental and Resource Economics – year: 2007 article-title: What is phi coefficient? – year: 2018 article-title: Technical item 1 : Application of biosecurity in different production systems at individual, country and regional levels – ident: e_1_2_11_56_1 doi: 10.3168/jds.2017‐12815 – ident: e_1_2_11_61_1 doi: 10.3390/pathogens9110914 – ident: e_1_2_11_68_1 doi: 10.3390/ani9040123 – ident: e_1_2_11_62_1 doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.07.014 – volume-title: Hanbuch der klimatologie in fünf banden. Die geographische system der klimate year: 1936 ident: e_1_2_11_34_1 – volume-title: Commissioned research report for the high level panel on the assessment of key legislation and the acceleration of fundamental change year: 2016 ident: e_1_2_11_3_1 – ident: e_1_2_11_39_1 doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.08.029 – ident: e_1_2_11_71_1 – volume: 56 start-page: 13 issue: 1 year: 2019 ident: e_1_2_11_15_1 article-title: Abstract of agricultural statistics 2019 publication-title: Agrekon – volume-title: Thematic study: Agricultural value chains in South Africa and the implications for employment‐intensive land reform year: 2020 ident: e_1_2_11_51_1 – ident: e_1_2_11_9_1 doi: 10.1080/00480169.2014.928925 – ident: e_1_2_11_27_1 doi: 10.4102/ojvr.v72i3.202 – start-page: 1 volume-title: Government Gazette year: 2017 ident: e_1_2_11_14_1 – ident: e_1_2_11_19_1 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136059 – volume: 2018 start-page: 34 year: 2018 ident: e_1_2_11_36_1 article-title: Biosecurity : Your first line of defence against disease: poultry focus ‐ preventing disease publication-title: Farmer's Weekly – start-page: 39 year: 2013 ident: e_1_2_11_75_1 article-title: Five diseases, one vaccine: A boost for emerging livestock farmers in South Africa publication-title: Stories of change – ident: e_1_2_11_30_1 doi: 10.1186/s13071‐020‐04059‐5 – ident: e_1_2_11_33_1 doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.07.013 – ident: e_1_2_11_8_1 doi: 10.1093/jac/dkt443 – ident: e_1_2_11_59_1 doi: 10.1111/tbed.12982 – ident: e_1_2_11_42_1 doi: 10.20506/rst.36.2.2665 – ident: e_1_2_11_76_1 doi: 10.20506/TT.2761 – ident: e_1_2_11_10_1 doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.104768 – ident: e_1_2_11_77_1 doi: 10.1186/s12917‐019‐1961‐2 – ident: e_1_2_11_74_1 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181911 – ident: e_1_2_11_28_1 doi: 10.1186/s13567‐018‐0560‐8 – ident: e_1_2_11_50_1 doi: 10.3390/v11020140 – ident: e_1_2_11_16_1 doi: 10.1111/tbed.13587 – ident: e_1_2_11_35_1 doi: 10.1002/vms3.211 – ident: e_1_2_11_32_1 doi: 10.1016/j.njas.2013.05.003 – ident: e_1_2_11_40_1 doi: 10.1177/003335491212700103 – volume-title: Land use and rural livelihoods: Have they been enhanced through land reform? year: 2003 ident: e_1_2_11_4_1 – volume-title: Impacts of Rift Valley fever virus: A One Health approach to assess burden and inform prevention and control options year: 2020 ident: e_1_2_11_43_1 – ident: e_1_2_11_22_1 doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2007.12.003 – ident: e_1_2_11_6_1 doi: 10.20506/TT.2934 – volume-title: OECD‐FAO Agricultural Outlook 2020–2029 year: 2020 ident: e_1_2_11_57_1 – ident: e_1_2_11_63_1 doi: 10.4102/ojvr.v79i1.499 – ident: e_1_2_11_47_1 doi: 10.4314/sajas.v43i3.5 – volume: 11 start-page: 73 issue: 01 year: 2018 ident: e_1_2_11_69_1 article-title: Factors influencing communal livestock farmers’ participation into the National Red Meat Development Programme (NRMDP) in South Africa: the case of the Eastern Cape Province publication-title: OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development – ident: e_1_2_11_72_1 doi: 10.20506/rst.39.2.3106 – ident: e_1_2_11_21_1 doi: 10.1007/s10640‐016‐0102‐7 – ident: e_1_2_11_2_1 – ident: e_1_2_11_12_1 doi: 10.3168/jds.2019‐16312 – ident: e_1_2_11_18_1 doi: 10.1637/9233‐011210‐Reg.1 – ident: e_1_2_11_20_1 doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2006.01.004 – ident: e_1_2_11_26_1 doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2008.05.007 – ident: e_1_2_11_58_1 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169881 – ident: e_1_2_11_65_1 doi: 10.1093/biomet/78.2.446 – ident: e_1_2_11_7_1 doi: 10.1186/1751‐0147‐54‐14 – ident: e_1_2_11_24_1 doi: 10.1016/j.cll.2017.01.004 – ident: e_1_2_11_38_1 doi: 10.3201/eid1012.040707 – ident: e_1_2_11_52_1 doi: 10.1038/s41598‐020‐62453‐6 – ident: e_1_2_11_46_1 doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2012.07.001 – ident: e_1_2_11_5_1 doi: 10.1093/jae/ejq016 – ident: e_1_2_11_31_1 doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2004.07.005 – ident: e_1_2_11_11_1 doi: 10.1080/03031853.2017.1286249 – ident: e_1_2_11_70_1 doi: 10.1186/s12917‐015‐0477‐7 – ident: e_1_2_11_41_1 doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.07.110 – ident: e_1_2_11_55_1 doi: 10.3923/ajava.2013.874.884 – volume-title: The socio‐economic implications of the livestock ban in Somaliland year: 2003 ident: e_1_2_11_29_1 – ident: e_1_2_11_48_1 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214500 – ident: e_1_2_11_37_1 doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.01.010 – ident: e_1_2_11_44_1 doi: 10.1007/s40003‐014‐0097‐7 – ident: e_1_2_11_53_1 doi: 10.1007/s41130‐016‐0022‐5 – start-page: 1 volume-title: Government Gazette South Africa year: 1984 ident: e_1_2_11_13_1 – ident: e_1_2_11_60_1 doi: 10.1016/j.eng.2019.10.004 – ident: e_1_2_11_73_1 doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2188 – ident: e_1_2_11_64_1 – ident: e_1_2_11_17_1 doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006989 – ident: e_1_2_11_25_1 doi: 10.1145/2369220.2369236 – ident: e_1_2_11_45_1 doi: 10.1080/03031853.2021.1894190 – ident: e_1_2_11_23_1 doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.104742 – volume-title: Options for the delivery of primary animal health care for livestock farmers on communal land in South Africa : Mnisi community case study year: 2012 ident: e_1_2_11_66_1 – ident: e_1_2_11_78_1 – volume-title: Draft Country report, UF/USAID/SADC Heartwater Research Project year: 2000 ident: e_1_2_11_49_1 – ident: e_1_2_11_54_1 doi: 10.3390/su12072582 – ident: e_1_2_11_67_1 |
| SSID | ssj0060965 |
| Score | 2.410606 |
| Snippet | Biosecurity measures have been introduced to limit economic losses and zoonotic exposures to humans by preventing and controlling animal diseases. However,... |
| SourceID | pubmedcentral proquest pubmed crossref wiley |
| SourceType | Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source Publisher |
| StartPage | e1899 |
| SubjectTerms | Agriculture Animal diseases Animal health Animal Husbandry Animal species animal transport Animals Anti-Bacterial Agents Antibiotics Biosecurity Coccidioidomycosis Commercialization Communicable Diseases - veterinary descriptive statistics Economic impact Farmers Farms Farmworkers herds Humans Immunization Infectious diseases Insect control Insects Livestock Livestock farming odds ratio Original Pest outbreaks Quarantine Rift Valley Fever ruminant production Ruminants South Africa South Africa - epidemiology Species Surveys Surveys and Questionnaires tick control Vaccination Vector-borne diseases Zoonoses |
| Title | Factors affecting the use of biosecurity measures for the protection of ruminant livestock and farm workers against infectious diseases in central South Africa |
| URI | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111%2Ftbed.14525 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35306739 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2717599959 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2641521841 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2723121020 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC9790579 |
| Volume | 69 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos000778042200001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| journalDatabaseRights | – providerCode: PRVWIB databaseName: Wiley Online Library - Journals customDbUrl: eissn: 1865-1682 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0060965 issn: 1865-1674 databaseCode: DRFUL dateStart: 20080101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com providerName: Wiley-Blackwell |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1Lb9QwELZKy4ELj_JaKJURXECKFD8SOxIXoF1xgKpCLdpbZDt2WanNVpvd_h3-KjOOE7oqqoS4RFEyVhJ7xvNNPP6GkLeqYqLRuc1sFUImeSgywxqeOWWMAgcEo25jsQl1dKRns-p4i3wY9sL0_BDjDze0jDhfo4Eb210z8pX1Ddh5wYs7ZIcxobFwA5fHwzxcIq8Jhlu6LDLMtU_kpJjH86ftpju6gTFvpkpeh7DRB00f_N_bPyT3E_akH3tleUS2fLtLdn9gQkzclUu_pYX2x-TXtK_DQ03M9wD_RgEp0nXn6SJQO190qe4dveh_MnYU0G-UScwPMN4oulz3uTb0HPltVzD7UtM2NJjlBcWcMI_PODNzQKl0SAxbdzStG3VwjaZOobHaH-0LGz0hp9PDk89fslTLIXNIB5MpXlofvDUVc7xUrNHCSS9c7gsH_rGyXLvGeCUtM5KDAwlSmDzkzmhrGhPEU7LdLlr_nFAlg_BMmZJXTDKroZXnTSgF80Zq7ifk3TCktUtE51hv47weAh7s_Dp2_oS8GWUve3qPv0rtDZpRJxPvag6BcFEhXduEvB5vg3HiiotpPXRWDWgT8ZGW7BYZBRAbA-98Qp71yja-iigwohPwBLWhhqMAkoNv3mnnPyNJeIXMawpavo9qeMvX1SefDg_i2Yt_EX5J7nHcChLz7fbI9mq59q_IXXe1mnfL_WiKcFQzvU92Dr5PT7_-Bk63P-Q |
| linkProvider | Wiley-Blackwell |
| linkToHtml | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1Lb9QwELagIMGFR3ktFBgEF5AixY4TJ0ceXRXRrnpYUG-R7dhlpTaLNrv8Hf4qM44TuiqqhLhFyVhJ7BnPjP35G8beqIpnTZmaxFTeJ1L4PNG8EYlVWit0QDjqJhSbULNZeXJSHUdsDp2F6fkhxgU3sowwX5OB04L0BStfG9egoeciv85uSHQzpOZCHg8TcUHEJpRvlUWeENg-spMSkOdP221_dCnIvIyVvBjDBic0vfufn3-P3YnRJ7zv1eU-u-baXbb7jSAx4VwuHMWt9gfs17SvxAM6ID7QwwHGirDpHCw9mMWyi5Xv4LxfZuwA498gE7kfcMRJdLXp0TZwRgy3a5x_QbcNeL06B0KFOXrHqV5gnAoDNGzTQdw56vAexF6BUO8P-tJGD9nX6f7840ESqzkklghhEiUK47wzuuJWFIo3ZWaly2zqcosesjKitI12ShqupUAX4mWmU59aXRrdaJ89YjvtsnVPGCjpM8eVLkTFJTcltnKi8UXGnZalcBP2dhjT2kaqc6q4cVYPKQ91fh06f8Jej7I_eoKPv0rtDapRRyPvaoGpcF4RYduEvRofo3nSnotuHXZWjfEmRUil5FfIKAyyKfVOJ-xxr23jp2Q55XQZvkFt6eEoQPTg20_axfdAE14R95rClu-CHl7xd_X8w_6ncPX0X4RfslsH86PD-vDz7MszdlvQwZCAvttjO-vVxj1nN-3P9aJbvQh2-Ruq3EFH |
| linkToPdf | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1Lb9QwELZgixAXHuW1UMAILiBFih0ndo7ANgJRVhVqUW-R7diwUputNrv8Hf4qM44TuiqqhLhFyVhJ7BnPjP35G0Jey5JljUpNYkrvE8F9nmjW8MRKrSU4IBh1E4pNyPlcnZyUhxGbg2dhen6IccENLSPM12jg7rzxF6x8bVwDhp7z_DrZEVhFZkJ2Zl-r44NhKi6Q2gQzLlXkCcLtIz8pQnn-tN72SJfCzMtoyYtRbHBD1Z3__IG75HaMP-m7XmHukWuu3SW73xAUE07m0i9xs_0--VX1tXioDpgP8HEUokW66RxdemoWyy7WvqNn_UJjRyECDjKR_QHGHEVXmx5vQ0-R43YNMzDVbUO9Xp1RxIU5fMd3vYBIlQ7gsE1H495RB_do7BUaKv7RvrjRA3Jc7R99-JjEeg6JRUqYRPLCOO-MLpnlhWSNyqxwmU1dbsFHloYr22gnhWFacHAiXmQ69anVyuhG--whmbTL1j0mVAqfOSZ1wUsmmFHQyvHGFxlzWijupuTNMKa1jWTnWHPjtB6SHuz8OnT-lLwaZc97io-_Su0NqlFHM-9qDslwXiJl25S8HB-DgeKui24ddFYNESfGSEqwK2QkhNmYfKdT8qjXtvFTshyzugzeILf0cBRAgvDtJ-3iRyAKL5F9TULLt0EPr_i7-uj9_ixcPfkX4Rfk5uGsqg8-zT8_Jbc4ngwJ8Ls9MlmvNu4ZuWF_rhfd6nk0zN-YmEJd |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Factors+affecting+the+use+of+biosecurity+measures+for+the+protection+of+ruminant+livestock+and+farm+workers+against+infectious+diseases+in+central+South+Africa&rft.jtitle=Transboundary+and+emerging+diseases&rft.au=Msimang%2C+Veerle&rft.au=Rostal%2C+Melinda+K&rft.au=Cordel%2C+Claudia&rft.au=Machalaba%2C+Catherine&rft.date=2022-09-01&rft.issn=1865-1674&rft.volume=69&rft.issue=5+p.e1899-e1912&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Ftbed.14525&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1865-1674&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1865-1674&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1865-1674&client=summon |