CASE NOTES

Producer Disease Reporting

Zi Yi Lim, District Veterinarian, Western Local Land Services, Broken Hill

Posted Flock & Herd January 2023

Introduction

The impact of animal disease outbreaks on food and fibre industries can be mitigated through effective disease surveillance systems. These work by decreasing the time interval between disease introduction and detection. Animal disease surveillance is highly reliant upon reporting by farmers. This is particularly relevant in parts of Australia, where vast distances across sparsely populated regions pose a challenge to dedicated surveillance efforts. Furthermore, the interactions of farmers with their livestock and their inherent economic stake in the health of their animals underpins their role as a critical component of a surveillance system. However, there are several factors that can affect disease reporting by farmers.

Summary

Farmer recognition of disease

Disease pathogenesis. Acute, fast-moving diseases (e.g. FMD, ASF) are easier to notice than slow-moving subclinical disease (bovine tuberculosis and scrapie). Endemic diseases may also resemble exotic diseases, which can temper the level of urgency exercised.
Production type and system. Lactating dairy animals with frequent handling offer more observational opportunities than extensively managed sheep or cattle in pastoral regions. Furthermore, the proximity of farmers to stock in each production system can further affect recognition of disease.
Staff experience and role. Individuals with a farming background and stake in the enterprise may be more inclined to recognise disease than those on farms with high staff turnover and limited experience.
National situational context. 'Worried-well' syndrome describes the increased vigilance shown by individuals after highly-publicised disease events. Hence, farmer awareness of disease events is crucial.

Farmer decision to report

Perceived impacts of disease can affect the propensity to report disease. For example, numbers of affected stock and occurrence of neighbouring properties can affect this.
Local situational context. The concurrency of a similar disease outbreak, weather patterns as well as a farmer's own prior experiences can modulate the decision to report disease, if recognised.
Beliefs in efficacy of response measures can influence disease reporting. A successful prior response, cost/benefit and disease awareness can influence the decision to report.
Sense of personal responsibility. Farmer attitudes to biosecurity as a shared responsibility, contrasted with a government responsibility in addition to individual knowledge and vested interest also plays a role in the decision to report.
Farmer identity. Landholders who value their reputation of being a 'good' farmer or neighbour are more likely to report disease. Alternatively, concealing or ignoring disease may also 'maintain' this reputation.

Farmer actions-do nothing vs. treating themselves vs. contacting veterinarian or animal health authorities

The farmer-veterinarian relationship, along with access to veterinary services greatly affects a farmer's likelihood of reporting disease to an animal health professional.
Stock Value - particularly topical, the current livestock pricing will influence a producer's decision to treat for the highest likelihood of success.
Criteria for reporting to animal health authority. Differing perceptions of the problem and reporting thresholds may result in under-reporting, despite farmers believing they are making rational decisions.
Trust in animal health authority - similar to the farmer-veterinarian relationship, may be shaped by prior experiences and additionally by confidence in government understanding and response to the problem.
Mandatory reporting requirements offer a potential solution to under-reporting, however there are limitations to enforcement and may negatively impact the vet-client relationship.
Consequences of reporting can be a demotivator to reporting, particularly if stock destruction or depopulation is involved, as well as reputational damage. There may be significant farmer mental health implications from a detrimental outcome. Exemplified by OJD response in the 2000s. OJD, a slow-moving disease that doesn't 'wipe out' large numbers of stock, difficult to test in a timely manner and highly disruptive to trade. If a flock was found positive, all neighbouring flocks became 'suspect', until proven otherwise and quarantined. Damaging to aforementioned Farmer-Vet/Animal Health Authority relationship. Many farmers driven to suicide or suffered severe mental health issues.
Incentives for reporting - epitomised by the 'Bucks for brains' scheme for TSE submissions. Additionally, the 'free' or subsidised examination and advice can also add value from a producer perspective.
Channels for reporting incursions may include telephone hotlines and mobile device apps. Equally important are the information management processes implemented to process this data.

References

Gates, MC, Earl, L & Enticott, G, 2021. Factors influencing the performance of voluntary disease reporting in passive surveillance systems: A scoping review. Preventative Veterinary Medicine, no. 196, pp. 1-11
Thumbi, SM, Njenga, MK, Otiang, E, Otieno, L, Munyua, P, Eichler, S, Widdowson, M-A, McElwain, TF & Palmer, GH, 2019. Mobile phone-based surveillance for animal disease in rural communities: implications for detection of zoonoses spillover. Philosophical Transactions Royal Society. B 374: 20190020., viewed 24 March 2022 dx.doi.org
Brew, B, Inder, K, Allen, J, Thomas, M & Kelly, B, 2016. The health and wellbeing of Australian farmers: a longitudinal cohort study. BMC Public Health, vol. 16, no. 988, pp. 1-11, viewed 24 March 2022 dx.doi.org