↓ Skip to main content

Assessing Biosecurity Risks for the Introduction and Spread of Diseases Among Commercial Sheep Properties in New South Wales, Australia, Using Foot-and-Mouth Disease as a Case Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessing Biosecurity Risks for the Introduction and Spread of Diseases Among Commercial Sheep Properties in New South Wales, Australia, Using Foot-and-Mouth Disease as a Case Study
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2018.00080
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jake Fountain, Robert Woodgate, Luzia Rast, Marta Hernández-Jover

Abstract

Sheep production systems are a major industry in Australia, with a gross value of roughly $4.66 billion; 87.3% of which is attributable to export markets. Exotic diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) are a potential threat to the viability of Australia's export market. Previous outbreaks of FMD in developed countries, and challenges in the management of onshore biosecurity, signify the importance of on-farm biosecurity in controlling disease transmission. This study aims to investigate the risk of disease introduction and spread among New South Wales (NSW) sheep properties using FMD as a case study and draw recommendation for the industry. Exposure and partial consequence assessments, using scenario trees and Monte Carlo stochastic modeling, were conducted to identify pathways of introduction and spread and calculate the probabilities of these pathways occurring. Input parameters were estimated from the data obtained during qualitative interviews with producers and scientific literature. According to the reported practices of sheep producers and assuming each pathway was carrying the FMD virus, the exposure assessment estimates the median (5-95%) probability of FMD exposure of sheep on a naive property to be 0.619 (0.541-0.698), 0.151 (0.085-0.239), 0.235 (0.153-0.324), and 0.710 (0.619-0.791) for introduction through new stock, wildlife, carriers (humans, dogs, and vehicles), and neighbors, respectively. The spread assessment estimated the median probability of FMD spreading from an infected sheep property to neighboring enterprises to be 0.603 (0.504-0.698). A similar probability was estimated for spread via wildlife (0.523; 0.404-0.638); and a lower spread probability was estimated for carriers (0.315; 0.171-0.527), sheep movement (0.285; 0.161-0.462), and dead stock (0.168; 0.070-0.312). The sensitivity analysis revealed that the introduction of an FMD-infected sheep was more influential for exposure via new stock than isolation practices. Sharing adjacent boundaries was found to be the most influential factor for exposure and spread between neighboring enterprises, and to a lesser extent, hygiene practices were found to have the most influence on exposure and spread through carriers. To minimize the potential risk of FMD introduction and spread between sheep properties, maintenance of boundary fences, identification of infected animals before introduction to the property, and hygiene and disinfection practices should be improved.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Professor 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 20 51%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 8 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 15%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 20 51%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 April 2018.
All research outputs
#7,547,094
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#1,413
of 6,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,080
of 327,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#39
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.