Biosecurity is an essential tool for rearing healthy animals. Biosecurity measures (BMs) are well known in poultry production, but it is difficult to assess actual implementation on farms. The aims of this qualitative study were (1) to provide an overview of biosecurity implementation according to poultry farmers in Europe; and (2) to better understand the reported reasons and potential obstacles for not implementing the measures. In seven European Union Member States, 192 farmers (118 under contract with a company and 68 independents) working in seven different categories of poultry production were interviewed on 62 BMs to determine the frequency of implementation and the reasons for non-implementation. Most of the replies (n = 7791) concerning BM implementation were reported by the farmers as "always" implemented (81%), statistically higher for breeders (87%) and layers (82%) and lower for independent farms versus farms under contract with a company (79.5% and 82.5%, respectively). Regardless the poultry production category, the most frequently implemented BMs declared by the farmers were daily surveillance of birds, rodent control and feed storage protection. Standard hygiene practices were also mentioned as high-implementation measures for most production categories, with some deficiencies, such as rendering tank disinfection after each collection and, for meat poultry, disinfection of the feed silo and bacterial control of house cleaning and disinfection between each cycle. The entry of vehicles and individuals onto poultry farms, especially during critical points of eggs collection for breeders and layers, as well as the presence of other animals, such as the "all in/all out" practice, particularly in layers and ducks, were also reported as the least commonly practiced measures. The main reasons for not implementing the measures (n = 1683 replies) were low awareness and poor knowledge of the expected benefits of biosecurity ("no known advantages" 14%, and "not useful" 12%), the lack of training ("not enough training" 5% and "advice" 7%), lack of time (19%), and financial aspects (17%). Despite the good overall biosecurity mentioned by the farmers, these findings highlight certain deficiencies, suggesting room for improvement and the need for targeted and tailored support of poultry farmers in Europe.

Veterinary coaching was tested to assess its efficacy in promoting adherence to biosecurity procedures. Poultry farmers (n = 13) in Belgium were profiled using ADKAR^®, coached and audited prior to and 6 months after coaching. The ADKAR^® (Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement) profiling technique identified 5/13 participating farmers with relatively low scores (≤3) for one or more elements that block change (biosecurity compliance in this case). Education was the only demographic variable that influenced knowledge scores. Through the Biocheck.Ugent^TM methodology, farm biosecurity was assessed and benchmarked to allow for tailored guidance. The farmer, farm veterinarian, and coach defined a farm-specific action plan that covered infrastructure, site access, staff/visitors, purchase policies, transport and depopulation, feed and water supplies, flock management, cleaning and disinfection between flocks, and measures between houses. From a total of 49 proposed actions, 36 were adopted. Purchasing policy had the highest (100%) and cleaning and disinfection had the lowest compliance (38%). Time, cost, and feasibility (e.g., inadequate farm layout) were the main reasons cited for not implementing action points. Overall, biosecurity improved significantly (p = 0.002) from 67.1 ± 5.7% to 70.3 ± 5.7% (mean ± Std. dev). The study, hence, presents convincing proof of how coaching can lead to new solutions not previously considered.

This paper describes the selection and validation of supporting measures (SMs) aimed at enhancing biosecurity compliance within Italian poultry farms. A tailored methodology, based on a stakeholders’ survey involving farmers and advisors, included a virtual farm tour, group discussion, and farmer coaching. Virtual farm tours and group discussions were delivered during two meetings targeting meat and egg production stakeholders, separately. Coaching was validated in 26 pilot farms (PFs) by assessing farmers’ attitudes towards change (i.e., ADKAR^®) and farms’ biosecurity score (i.e., Biocheck.Ugent^TM) before and after a minimum six-month period. A total of 20 out of 26 farmers agreed to implement at least one action plan (AP). Full implementation of the agreed APs was observed in ten farms, while others only partially implemented (n = 7) or did not implement (n = 3) the improvement. Most APs focused on enhancing house hygiene locks (n = 7), followed by bacterial auto-control after cleaning and disinfection (n = 4). Scoring tools indicated minimal or no variations in farmers’ attitudes towards change and farm biosecurity. Virtual farm tours and group discussions were found to be effective in fostering interaction and facilitating the exchange of experiences and knowledge among farmers and stakeholders of poultry production. Coaching indicated that farmers might prefer implementing minor changes possibly influenced by time and cost constraints associated with structural interventions. These limitations could have also impacted the scores of the farmer/farm. The findings of this study provide a foundation for further application of SMs to improve biosecurity in Italian poultry farms.

Poultry producers’ attitudes towards biosecurity practices were assessed by using the ADKAR^® (Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement) behavioral change model. Conventional poultry producers (n = 155) from different production types including broilers (n = 35), layers (n = 22), breeders (n = 24), turkeys (n = 19), ducks (n = 23), free-range broilers (n = 11), free-range layers (n = 11), and hatcheries (n = 10) from seven European countries were scored for each ADKAR element (1 = total absence to 5 = perfect fulfilment). Each country performed selected interventions (e.g., coaching, participatory meetings, etc.) to improve biosecurity compliance. After the interventions, significant change was observed in three of the four attitude elements. The overall mean scores ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ ± SD) obtained during the initial assessment (n = 130) were 4.2 ± 0.6 for Awareness, 4.1 ± 0.7 for Desire, 3.8 ± 0.8 for Knowledge, and 4.0 ± 0.7 for Ability, whereas after intervention, the scores were A = 4.3 ± 0.6, D = 4.2 ± 0.7, K = 4.1 ± 0.7, and Ab = 4.1 ± 0.7. The Reinforcement component was only evaluated after the change and obtained a score of 3.7 ± 0.7 on average. Identifying the elements influencing poultry producers and their behavior related to farm management decisions was useful in guiding our educational interventions to effectively change their behavior.

Fear and environmental stressors may negatively affect the welfare of farm animals such as pigs. The present study investigated the effects of music and positive handling on reproductive performance of sows (n = 1014; parity 1 to 8) from a commercial pig farm practicing a batch farrowing system. Every 2 weeks, 56 sows were moved from the gestation unit to conventional-crated farrowing houses 1 week prior to expected farrowing. Treated (T; n = 299) and control (C; n = 715) sows were included in the study. In the farrowing houses, auditory enrichment (music from a radio) was provided to sows of T groups daily from 0600 to 1800 h until the end of lactation. Until the day of farrowing, T sows were additionally subjected, for 15 s per day per sow, to continuous back scratching by one member of farm staff. Litter performance and piglet mortality were recorded and analysed between T and C sows using linear mixed regression models. The number of liveborn piglets (C 13.85 v. T 13.26) and liveborn corrected for fostering (C 13.85 v. T 13.43) was significantly higher (P < 0.05) in C groups compared to the T groups. The number of stillborn piglets was 0.60 and 0.72 in T and C groups, respectively (P > 0.05). With regard to piglet mortality, a linear mixed regression model showed a significant overall effect of treatment in reducing piglet mortality (P < 0.01). Yet, the effect of treatment varied according to litter size (number of liveborn piglets) with a diminishing treatment effect in sows with a high litter size (P < 0.01). Pre-weaning survival was improved in the current study by the combined effect of daily back scratching of sows prior to farrowing and providing music to sows and piglets during lactation. Further research is needed to assess the separate effects of both interventions.