Predicting badger visits to farm yards and making predictions available to farmers.
Animal Husbandry
/ methods
Animals
Cattle
Epidemiological Monitoring
/ veterinary
Farmers
/ education
Farms
/ organization & administration
Models, Statistical
Mustelidae
/ microbiology
Mycobacterium bovis
/ pathogenicity
Risk Assessment
Tuberculosis, Bovine
/ epidemiology
United Kingdom
Zoonoses
/ epidemiology
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
21
12
2018
accepted:
26
04
2019
entrez:
25
5
2019
pubmed:
28
5
2019
medline:
1
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The use of agricultural resources or environments by wildlife may result in opportunities for transmission of infections amongst wild animals, livestock and humans. Targeted use of biosecurity measures may therefore reduce disease risks, although this requires practical knowledge of where such measures would be most effective, and effective means of communicating risks so that stakeholders can make informed decisions about such investment. In parts of Europe, the European badger Meles meles may act as a wildlife reservoir for Mycobacterium bovis, the causative agent of bovine tuberculosis, and badger visits to farmyards may provide potential opportunities for transmission of M. bovis to cattle. Biosecurity measures are effective in reducing badger activity in farmyards, although it is unclear which farms should be targeted with such measures. We used cameras to monitor badger activity in 155 farmyards in south west England and Wales, and related variations in the presence and frequency of badger visits to farm characteristics. Badgers were recorded on camera in 40% of farmyards monitored. However, the frequency of visits was highly variable, with badgers recorded on >50% of nights in only 10% of farms. The presence of badgers in farmyards was positively associated with the density of badger setts, the number of feed stores and the number of cattle sheds, and negatively associated with the distance to the nearest active badger sett, the presence of a house/dwelling and the number of cattle housed on the farm. The frequency of visits was negatively associated with the distance to the nearest active badger sett and the number of cattle housed. Models predicted the presence/absence of badgers in farmyards with 73% accuracy (62% sensitivity, 81% specificity, using a cut off value of 0.265). Models could not distinguish between farms with low/high frequency of visits, although farms predicted as having badgers present typically had a higher frequency of visits than those that were not. We developed and present an interactive web based application: the Badger Farm Assessment Tool (BFAT), to allow users to enter the characteristics of a farm and generate a relative risk score describing the likelihood of badger visits.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31125349
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216953
pii: PONE-D-18-36507
pmc: PMC6534311
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0216953Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
We can also confirm that there are no competing interests of any kind. This affiliation with Biocensus Ltd. does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Références
Prev Vet Med. 2016 Dec 1;135:95-101
pubmed: 27931935
Nature. 2008 Feb 21;451(7181):990-3
pubmed: 18288193
BMJ. 2012 Jun 18;344:e3996
pubmed: 22709962
Prev Vet Med. 2010 Jan 1;93(1):2-10
pubmed: 19846226
Vet J. 2015 Jan;203(1):126-8
pubmed: 25458881
Ann Transl Med. 2016 May;4(10):195
pubmed: 27294091
Vet Med Int. 2011 Apr 26;2011:765430
pubmed: 21547222
Oecologia. 2014 Oct;176(2):409-21
pubmed: 25037464
Sci Rep. 2014 Jan 23;4:3809
pubmed: 24457532
Vet Rec. 2017 Jan 14;180(2):48
pubmed: 27756866
Vet Med Int. 2012;2012:236205
pubmed: 22737588
Infect Immun. 2005 Oct;73(10):6467-71
pubmed: 16177318
Prev Vet Med. 2000 May 30;45(1-2):23-41
pubmed: 10802332
Front Vet Sci. 2015 Jan 14;1:27
pubmed: 26664926
Vet Med Int. 2012;2012:621210
pubmed: 22966479
Prev Vet Med. 2005 Mar 15;67(4):237-66
pubmed: 15748755
Vet Med Int. 2012;2012:616318
pubmed: 22991687
Oecologia. 2015 May;178(1):31-43
pubmed: 25656581
PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e28941
pubmed: 22220199
J Evol Biol. 2011 Apr;24(4):699-711
pubmed: 21272107
Science. 2000 Jan 21;287(5452):443-9
pubmed: 10642539
Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Jul 22;269(1499):1487-91
pubmed: 12137579
J Anim Ecol. 2018 Jan;87(1):101-112
pubmed: 28815647
J Comp Pathol. 2011 Jan;144(1):1-24
pubmed: 21131004
Vet Rec. 2008 Jul 26;163(4):107-11
pubmed: 18660519
Med Decis Making. 2008 May-Jun;28(3):377-84
pubmed: 18480036
Science. 1988 Jun 3;240(4857):1285-93
pubmed: 3287615
Proc Biol Sci. 2013 Aug 07;280(1768):20131634
pubmed: 23926157
Front Vet Sci. 2018 Jun 05;5:109
pubmed: 29951489
Am J Vet Res. 2004 Nov;65(11):1483-9
pubmed: 15566085
Vet J. 2014 Dec;202(3):628-9
pubmed: 25458885