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.

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.

Despite the strong decrease in antimicrobial use in the French poultry and pig sectors over the last decade, room for improvement remains. A participatory approach was set up in France, involving representatives of veterinarians, the pig and poultry industries, technical institutes, the French Ministry of Agriculture, and researchers, to further improve how antimicrobials are used on farms. By successively defining a shared, long-term vision of future antimicrobial use on farms, identifying lock-in mechanisms impeding this future vision from being realized, and articulating practical questions on how to move in the desired direction, the group rapidly reached a consensus. The results highlight the need for consensual standardized monitoring tools that would allow farmers and veterinarians to jointly monitor the health, welfare, antimicrobial resistance, and antimicrobial use on farms. Other results relate to better communication and training for citizens regarding animal health, animal welfare, and proper antimicrobial use; some benefits but also counterproductive effects of antibiotic-free labels that imperil animal health and welfare; the economic competitiveness of farms on international markets; and the economic sustainability of farm animal veterinary practices. These results call for a concerted way to produce tools for farmers and veterinarians and the broader involvement of other food sector actors.

Biosecurity is a fundamental preventive tool to control animal infectious diseases. The relationship between advisers and farmers plays a key role in determining farmers' compliance with on-farm biosecurity measures (BMs). The aims of this survey were (1) to provide an overview on the implementation of biosecurity in European poultry farms as declared by the advisers and (2) to better understand advisers' perception of the reasons why farmers do not comply with biosecurity rules and pinpoint potential obstacles to their implementation. One hundred and fifty-seven advisers working in various poultry sectors (breeders, enclosed and free-range layers, enclosed and free-range meat poultry) were interviewed to give their opinion on the implementation of 62 BMs. The advisers' replies (n = 6485) on the implementation of BMs were reported as "always" (67.6 %), "sometimes" (19.8 %) and "never" (8.1 %) implemented. The advisers from the local governmental institutions declared a significantly lower percentage of "always implemented" replies (62 %) than those from other categories (producer organisations (73.7 %), companies (73.8 %) and veterinary clinics (67 %)). Regardless of the poultry sector, the most commonly implemented BMs declared by the advisers were the "daily surveillance of birds", "flock register", "rodent control" and "feed storage protection". The BMs declared as the least commonly implemented were "visitors and personnel showering before entering the poultry house" for all the surveyed productions and "personnel hand washing" for all the production types except breeders. Some hygiene practices were also declared to be poorly implemented in most of the surveyed productions such as the "cleaning/disinfection of the rendering tank after each collection", the "presence of concrete area around the house", the "use of separate material for the poultry house" and the "restriction of domestic animals entering the site" and especially in meat poultry "the bacterial self-check of the house" and "the cleaning/disinfection of the feed silo between each flock". According to the advisers 'reports, the reasons why farmers do not comply with biosecurity on their farm were insufficient knowledge of biosecurity issues ("not enough training" 12.3 % and "not enough advice" 8.5 %), low awareness of the expected benefits ("no known advantages" 14 % and "not useful" 4.6 %), the lack of time (17.8 %), financial issues (16.8 %) and the unsuitability of the measures (17.4 %). This study highlighted, from the European advisers 'point of view, the shortcomings of the implementation of biosecurity on poultry farms and a room of improvement requiring adapted and tailored support measures for a better biosecurity compliance.