Current Biosecurity Practices in the Handling and Sampling of Cervids: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

IF 1.2 4区 农林科学 Q3 VETERINARY SCIENCES
Valeriia Yustyniuk, Gretel A Keller, Marc D Schwabenlander, Kristin J Bondo, Sonja A Christensen, Tiffany M Wolf
{"title":"Current Biosecurity Practices in the Handling and Sampling of Cervids: A Cross-Sectional Survey.","authors":"Valeriia Yustyniuk, Gretel A Keller, Marc D Schwabenlander, Kristin J Bondo, Sonja A Christensen, Tiffany M Wolf","doi":"10.7589/JWD-D-25-00007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Effective biosecurity practices are essential for mitigating the risks of pathogen transmission in human-wildlife interactions, yet it is unclear how infection control policies are put into action by those working with wildlife. We evaluated biosecurity practices among professionals working with cervids in the US and Canada via an electronic survey conducted between March 2024 and June 2024. The objectives were to identify pathogens of concern, describe current biosecurity protocols, evaluate the appropriateness of disinfecting practices, and explore associations between biosecurity practices and factors such as profession, regional disease status, and the nature of interactions with cervids. Survey respondents were primarily ecologists or biologists (47%), veterinarians (46%), and managers or wildlife capture professionals lacking those backgrounds (6%). Respondents identified chronic wasting disease (CWD) and SARS-CoV-2 as primary pathogens of concern, with CWD being the most frequently targeted for disinfection, even in nonendemic areas. Although most respondents indicated the use of biosecurity protocols, adherence was inconsistent, particularly in free-living settings. Professionals working with captive cervids were significantly more likely to consistently follow biosecurity protocols than those working exclusively with free-living cervids. Use of personal protective equipment was common. Veterinarians were more likely than managers lacking an ecology, biology, or veterinary background to disinfect cervid sampling equipment between individual animals. Those working in regions where CWD was endemic were more likely to have formal biosecurity policies and cleaning and disinfection protocols compared with those in nonendemic areas. Our study also identified biosecurity protocol gaps, with some respondents using ineffective disinfectants or suboptimal concentrations against reported pathogens of concern. These findings highlight the need for standardized, evidence-based guidelines when developing and implementing cervid biosecurity protocols, particularly regarding effective disinfectant use.</p>","PeriodicalId":17602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Diseases","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Wildlife Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7589/JWD-D-25-00007","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Effective biosecurity practices are essential for mitigating the risks of pathogen transmission in human-wildlife interactions, yet it is unclear how infection control policies are put into action by those working with wildlife. We evaluated biosecurity practices among professionals working with cervids in the US and Canada via an electronic survey conducted between March 2024 and June 2024. The objectives were to identify pathogens of concern, describe current biosecurity protocols, evaluate the appropriateness of disinfecting practices, and explore associations between biosecurity practices and factors such as profession, regional disease status, and the nature of interactions with cervids. Survey respondents were primarily ecologists or biologists (47%), veterinarians (46%), and managers or wildlife capture professionals lacking those backgrounds (6%). Respondents identified chronic wasting disease (CWD) and SARS-CoV-2 as primary pathogens of concern, with CWD being the most frequently targeted for disinfection, even in nonendemic areas. Although most respondents indicated the use of biosecurity protocols, adherence was inconsistent, particularly in free-living settings. Professionals working with captive cervids were significantly more likely to consistently follow biosecurity protocols than those working exclusively with free-living cervids. Use of personal protective equipment was common. Veterinarians were more likely than managers lacking an ecology, biology, or veterinary background to disinfect cervid sampling equipment between individual animals. Those working in regions where CWD was endemic were more likely to have formal biosecurity policies and cleaning and disinfection protocols compared with those in nonendemic areas. Our study also identified biosecurity protocol gaps, with some respondents using ineffective disinfectants or suboptimal concentrations against reported pathogens of concern. These findings highlight the need for standardized, evidence-based guidelines when developing and implementing cervid biosecurity protocols, particularly regarding effective disinfectant use.

目前生物安全措施的处理和采样:横断面调查。
有效的生物安全措施对于减轻人类与野生动物相互作用中病原体传播的风险至关重要,但目前尚不清楚那些与野生动物打交道的人如何将感染控制政策付诸行动。我们通过在2024年3月至2024年6月期间进行的电子调查,评估了与美国和加拿大的供应商合作的专业人员的生物安全实践。目的是确定令人关注的病原体,描述当前的生物安全方案,评估消毒措施的适当性,并探讨生物安全措施与职业、区域疾病状况以及与提供者相互作用的性质等因素之间的关系。调查对象主要是生态学家或生物学家(47%)、兽医(46%)和缺乏这些背景的管理人员或野生动物捕获专业人员(6%)。答复者确定慢性消耗性疾病(CWD)和SARS-CoV-2是主要的关注病原体,CWD是最常见的消毒目标,即使在非流行地区也是如此。尽管大多数答复者表示使用了生物安全规程,但依从性不一致,特别是在自由生活的环境中。与那些专门与自由生活的提供商合作的专业人员相比,与圈养提供商合作的专业人员更有可能始终遵循生物安全协议。个人防护装备的使用很普遍。兽医比缺乏生态学、生物学或兽医背景的管理人员更有可能对个体动物之间的宫颈取样设备进行消毒。与非流行地区相比,在CWD流行地区工作的人员更有可能制定正式的生物安全政策以及清洁和消毒方案。我们的研究还发现了生物安全协议的空白,一些受访者使用无效的消毒剂或浓度低于所报告的关注病原体。这些发现突出表明,在制定和实施宫颈生物安全规程时,特别是在有效使用消毒剂方面,需要制定标准化的循证指南。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Wildlife Diseases
Journal of Wildlife Diseases 农林科学-兽医学
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
213
审稿时长
6-16 weeks
期刊介绍: The JWD publishes reports of wildlife disease investigations, research papers, brief research notes, case and epizootic reports, review articles, and book reviews. The JWD publishes the results of original research and observations dealing with all aspects of infectious, parasitic, toxic, nutritional, physiologic, developmental and neoplastic diseases, environmental contamination, and other factors impinging on the health and survival of free-living or occasionally captive populations of wild animals, including fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Papers on zoonoses involving wildlife and on chemical immobilization of wild animals are also published. Manuscripts dealing with surveys and case reports may be published in the Journal provided that they contain significant new information or have significance for better understanding health and disease in wild populations. Authors are encouraged to address the wildlife management implications of their studies, where appropriate.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信