Biosecurity compliance on broiler farms and livestock farmer advisors’ knowledge of biosecurity in Cameroon

Abstract

Background

Biosecurity is a key strategy for reducing poultry diseases and increasing farm productivity and profitability. In Cameroon where infectious diseases represent one of the main constraint in poultry sector, data on on-farm biosecurity implementation is scarce. This study assessed livestock farmers’ advisors' knowledge of biosecurity and evaluated biosecurity compliance on Cameroonian broiler farms. From February to October 2024, biosecurity compliance was evaluated on 153 broiler farms across four regions (North, Adamawa, East, Centre) using face-to-face Biocheck.UGent® interviews while 169 livestock advisors from all the ten regions were surveyed through an online questionnaire.

Results

The overall average biosecurity score of broiler farms was 51 out of 100 with 58.8% of farms scored ≥ 50. Internal biosecurity (mean 56) was better implemented than external biosecurity (mean 49). Mortality rate was significantly (p < 0.001) higher (4.63 ± 3.19%) in farms with poor biosecurity compared to others (2.89 ± 2.01%). Concerning the survey of advisors, the majority of respondents were veterinary doctors (36.1%) and zoo-technicians (30.2%). Most of the farmers’ advisors had very good knowledge of biosecurity but their knowledge was weak on animal biosecurity legislation in force in Cameroon. For example, few advisors knew sheep pox (87.1%) and infectious bursal disease (79.9%) were notifiable diseases in Cameroon. Public-sector advisors had significantly higher knowledge scores of biosecurity legislation than private-sector advisors (p = 0.03). Advisors identified farmers' lack of training (34.3%) and lack of knowledge about biosecurity importance (31.4%) as the main barriers to biosecurity implementation in the farms.

Conclusion

The findings showed that advisors can be used to raise awareness and train livestock farmers to improve biosecurity implementation. In addition, they underscore the need to enhance biosecurity training for both farmers and advisors, emphasizing the importance of measures and relevant Cameroonian regulations.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12917-025-04935-1.

Background

Over the past two decades, the poultry industry has experienced significant global growth, becoming the leading animal production sector in many countries [1, 2]. Broiler chicken consumption has risen substantially due to its versatile use as meat, affordability, and dietary benefits compared to other meats [1]. In Cameroon, the poultry sector accounts 4% to the gross domestic product and plays an important role in food nutrition and employment [3].

Despite its economic importance, poultry disease remains a major constraint to production [4]. High pathogenic avian influenza, Newcastle disease, infectious bursal disease, Salmonellosis and colibacillosis are among the most frequent [4–6]. To combat this, farmers have relied heavily on antimicrobials [7, 8]. Unfortunately, heightened antimicrobial usage (AMU) drives the development and spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) [8, 9], posing transmission risks to humans [10] as AMU is the primary driver of AMR [11].

Finding effective, non-antimicrobial strategies for disease prevention and control on Cameroonian poultry farms is therefore urgent, as emphasized by Eijck & De Wilt [12]. Consequently, biosecurity stands as the key strategy for reducing disease incidence, thereby decreasing AMU and AMR development. Biosecurity is a set of measures used to limit the introduction and spread of pathogens in livestock, thereby protecting animal and human health [13]. It includes segregation, hygiene, or management procedure, excluding medically effective feed additives and preventive/curative treatment of animals [14]. Various studies have highlighted that a higher incidence of infectious diseases are linked to poor biosecurity compliance in farms [15, 16]. For example, a low prevalence of enteric virus have been associated with the regular vermin control and the use of barn-specific clothing and/or footbaths in Austrian broiler flocks [17].

In addition, the positive impact of biosecurity implementation on production performance and economic returns is well-documented [18, 19]. In Cameroon, data on on-farm biosecurity implementation is scarce. Crucially, no study has evaluated livestock farmers’ advisors knowledge of biosecurity, despite evidence that the knowledge of individuals working on or visiting farms influences compliance [20–22]. Furthermore, a recent study showed a variability of farm biosecurity implementation according to the poultry biosecurity regulation of the countries [23]. This study aimed to assess the knowledge of livestock farmers' advisors regarding biosecurity and to evaluate biosecurity implementation on broiler farms in Cameroon.

Methods

Study location and design

This cross-sectional study was conducted in Cameroon from February to October 2024. Two surveys were conducted: one was to evaluate biosecurity compliance in broiler farms and the other, to assess the knowledge of livestock farmers' advisors regarding biosecurity. Livestock farmers here refer to those who are rearing animal species such as cattle, pig, goat, sheep, and poultry. The survey of livestock farmers’ advisors concerned the whole country while broiler farms were assessed in four of the ten regions of Cameroon: Adamawa (6°49′59’’ LN and 13°15′0’’ LE), Centre (3° 52’- 6°14'LN and 11°31’- 12°93'LE), East (2°- 6° LN and 13°- 16° LE), and North (8°−10° LN and 12°- 16° LE). The selected regions represent three of the five agro ecological zones named Sudano-sahelian (North), Guinea Savanna (Adamawa), and bimodal rainforest zone (East and Centre) and were home to 46% of the Cameroonian’s population in 2019 [24].

Evaluation of biosecurity compliance and mortality rate in broiler farms

This part of the study was undertaken in broiler farms in four regions (North, Adamawa, East and Centre) from April to October 2024. A minimum sample size of 382 was estimated [25] based on previous reports on the level of biosecurity of 46.2% [26] with a confidence interval of 95% and precision set at 5%. In total, 153 farmers were interviewed during this study due to financial constraint. Only broiler farmers with at least two years of experience in poultry farming and with a minimum stock of 200 broilers on their farms were included in the study. They were randomly selected from the lists of poultry farmers obtained at the Delegations of the Ministry of Livestock in the study regions. After receiving the verbal consent of the participants (farm managers or owners), biosecurity compliance of each broiler farm was assessed by using Biocheck.UGent™ questionnaire (Supplementary material 1) as performed by Tanquilut et al. [27]. The interview was followed by technical observations of the farms.

This broiler specific Biocheck.UGent™ scoring system was developed by researchers in Ghent University to measure and quantify the level of biosecurity on broiler farms. This questionnaire contained questions organized in subcategory of biosecurity measures related to internal (disease management, cleaning and disinfection, materials, and measures between compartments) and external (purchase of 1-d-old chicks, off-farm movements of live animals, feed and water supply, removal of manure and dead birds, supply of materials, entrance of visitors and personnel, infrastructure and biological vectors, location of the farm) biosecurity measures as deeply described by Gelaude et al. [28]. The information collected with the questionnaire was entered into the online Biocheck.UGentTM database (https://biocheckgent.com/en) to generate scores for the various subcategory of biosecurity measures including external and internal biosecurity. Scores range from 0 (total absence of any biosecurity measure) to 100 (full application of all available biosecurity measures). The overall biosecurity level of a farm is measured by a weighted average of the external and internal biosecurity scores [28]. This biosecurity assessment was conducted in French by well-trained final year veterinary students. During the visits to the farms, farmers were also asked to provide data about the number of broilers dead during the starter (Day 1 to day 15), grower (Day 16 to day 30) and finisher (Day 31 to day 45) phases of the production cycle. Mortality rate was calculated as suggested by Gelaude et al. [28]:

$$\mathit{Mortality\; rate}=\frac{M1+S1}{n1}\times 100\%$$

M1 = number of animals dead at time T1; S1 = number of animals euthanized at time T1; n1 = number of subjects at time T1.

Survey of livestock farmers’ advisors

The survey was conducted online via a questionnaire from February to September, 2024. The survey aimed to assess the knowledge of livestock farmers’ advisors about biosecurity. It targeted persons who assist livestock farmers (poultry, pig, cattle, goat, sheep, etc.) in managing their farms in Cameroon. Livestock farmers’ advisors were selected because usually advisors in Cameroon are not specialized by animal species. Therefore, they can follow many farms in many regions with different animal species at the same time. Only those who, after finishing their secondary school, have received two (agropastoral advisors), three (technicians, animal production work engineers) or five (zoo-technicians) years of training in animal production or those with two or three (veterinary nurses) or five (veterinary doctors) years of training in animal health were include in the survey because they are the main advisors of livestock farmers in Cameroon.

Due to the lack of data related to this subject in Cameroon, we proceeded with the assumption that the level of biosecurity knowledge of farmer’s advisors is 90 out of 100. Thus, with the formula of Thrusfield [25] and 5% desired precision at 95% confidence interval, a minimum required sample size of 138 advisors was found. The questionnaire developed in English and French, was pre-tested before the survey for validation. It had a total of 55 questions and was organized in different sections, including general information concerning the interviewees, respondents’ knowledge about biosecurity and their knowledge about Cameroonian biosecurity rules/policies, reasons why livestock farmers are not implementing biosecurity measures, training on biosecurity, etc. The link to the questionnaire is provided as Supplementary material 2. The questionnaire was sent through different advisors’ WhatsApp professional groups. In addition, the questionnaire was distributed by e-mail to all the participants at the First Veterinary Symposium organized in August, 2024 in Cameroon. The online questionnaire, completed by each respondent, was directly received into our database.

Data analysis

Once the survey was completed, the data were recorded in Excel 2013 and analysed using Statgraphics Centurion version 19 (Statgraphics Technologies Inc., VA, US). Descriptive analyses were carried out after qualitative and quantitative verification of the data. Biosecurity was classified as poor when the farms had total score below 50 and good when it was equal or above 50. The responses of the questionnaire addressed to advisors were recoded as binary outcomes with 1 representing good knowledge, while 0 represented no knowledge. Responses such as “sometimes” or “not known” were coded as 0. The sum of the correct responses provided by each advisor was divided by the total number of items in the category to obtain the score expressed in percentage [29]. The scores of advisor’ knowledge were categorized using the following three levels; “low or insufficient” for scores below 50%; “Good” for score between 50 and 75%; and “high” for scores equal or above 75%. As data did not followed the normal distribution, Mann–Whitney test was used to compare two means while Kruskal Wallis test was used to compare more than two means. The significance level was set at 5%. Odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated to assess the association between biosecurity compliance and broiler mortality on farms.

Results

Profile of farmers and farms’ characteristics

From the 153 farmers interviewed, the majority were male (70.6%), aged between 31 and 40 years old (45.7%), and with at least a secondary school education level (87.6%). As presented in Table 1, most of the interviewed farmers had a maximum of 5 years of experience in poultry farming (61.4%) but with no training in the domain (66.7%). Most of the respondents did not receive funding support from any organization (national or international) to start rearing broilers (90.8%) and poultry farming was not their main activity (58.8%). The average number of broiler chickens reared was 700 per cycle (range from 200 to 4,000) with most farms having one barn (58.2%).

Table 1.

Demographics of the respondents and characteristics of broiler farms (n = 153) in four regions of Cameroon (North, Adamawa, East and Centre), 2024

Variables	Number (n)	Percentage (%)
Gender
Male	108	70.6
Female	45	29.4
Age (years)
20–30	36	23.6
31–40	70	45.7
41–50	28	18.3
> 50	19	12.4
Educational level
No education	5	3.3
Primary	14	9.1
Secondary	88	57.5
Higher	46	30.1
Training in poultry farming
Yes	51	33.3
No	102	66.7
Years of experience in poultry farming
2–5	94	61.4
6–10	31	20.3
> 10	28	18.3
Poultry farming as the main activity
Yes	63	41.2
No	90	58.8
Have received funding for broiler farming
Yes	14	9.2
No	139	90.8
Number of broilers present at the farm
200–500	81	52.9
501–1000	38	24.9
> 1000	34	22.2

Level of biosecurity implementation in broiler farms

Table 2 presents the scores of the different biosecurity subcategories of measures. Overall, the average biosecurity score in broiler farms sampled in Cameroon was 51 out of 100 (range 28–71) with the majority of farms (58.8%) recorded a good biosecurity score (score ≥ 50). The score of external biosecurity varied from 23 to 72 with a mean of 49. The mean score of internal biosecurity was 56 (range 41–73). Measures related to material supply scored highest (mean score of 84) while those associated with removal of manure and carcasses scored the lowest (mean score of 17). Figure 1 presents the variation of the overall biosecurity score in each study region. Farmers’ demography and farm characteristics did not affect biosecurity scores.

Table 2.

Biosecurity score in broiler farms (n = 153) in four regions of Cameroon (North, Adamawa, East and Centre), 2024. SD standard deviation

Subcategory	Average	SD	Median	Min	Max
External biosecurity
Purchase of one-day chicks	45	23	41	0	100
Depopulation of broilers	35	16	30	6	73
Feed and water	29	18	31	3	83
Removal of manure and carcasses	17	10	5	0	78
Visitors and farmworkers	57	16	60	19	81
Material supply	84	25	100	0	100
Infrastructure and biological vectors	62	16	63	11	95
Location of the farm	57	22	61	0	100
Subtotal External biosecurity	49	10	49	23	72
Internal biosecurity
Disease management	64	15	63	23	100
Cleaning and disinfection	41	10	39	9	67
Materials and measurements between compartments	73	27	82	0	100
Subtotal Internal biosecurity	56	10	58	24	73
Overall biosecurity score	51	8	51	28	71

Fig. 1.

Overall biosecurity score in the broiler farms in the study regions (Cameroon), 2024

Relationship between biosecurity and mortality rate in broiler farms

The overall mortality rate in broiler farms varied from 0 to 10.40% with a mean of 3.60%. Higher mortality rate was recorded during the starter phase (1.82%). In general, the mortality rate was significantly (p < 0.001) higher (4.63 ± 3.19%) on farms with poor biosecurity compared to farms with good biosecurity (2.89 ± 2.01%). Similar difference was recorded when the starter and the grower phases are considered separately (Table 3). Poor biosecurity represented an important risk factor that increased mortality in broiler farms (odds ratio: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.53–1.74%).

Table 3.

Variation of mortality rate according to the level of biosecurity in broiler farms (n = 153) in four regions of Cameroon (North, Adamawa, East and Centre), 2024

Production phase	Poor biosecurity (n = 63)	Good biosecurity (n = 90)	P-value
Starter (d1-15)	2.23 ± 1.88a	1.43 ± 0.98b	0.003
Grower (d16-30)	2.26 ± 1.86a	1.47 ± 1.25b	0.008
Finisher (d 31- 45)	1.94 ± 1.26a	1.51 ± 1.20a	0.217
Total (d1-45)	4.63 ± 3.19a	2.89 ± 2.01b	< 0.001

For the same production phase, values with different letters of the alphabet (a, b) are significantly different at p = 5% , d1–15: Day one to day 15 of the production phase

Demographics of farmers’ advisors

In total, 174 farmers’ advisors from all ten regions of Cameroon took part in the study but only 169 questionnaires were completely filled (Table 4). The highest number of responses was recorded in the Centre (28.4%), followed by Adamawa (18.3%), Far North (14.2%) and West (11.8%) regions. The majority of the respondents were male (82.8%), aged between 30 and 39 years (50.3%) and had above secondary school education (88.2%). Most of the advisors had at least six years of experience (58.5%) as livestock extension workers while 33.8% had experience of working with chicken farms. More than half of the study participants (53.3%) worked in the private sector. In terms of training qualification, the majority of respondents were veterinary doctors (36.1%) followed by zoo-technicians (30.2%).

Table 4.

Demographics of livestock farmers’ advisors (n = 169) in Cameroon, 2024

Variable	Number (n)	Percentage (%)
Gender
Male	140	82.8
Female	29	17.2
Age (year)
20–29	45	26.6
30–39	85	50.3
40–49	30	17.8
≥ 50	9	5.3
Educational level
Secondary	20	11.8
Higher	149	88.2
Profession
Agropastoral advisors	14	8.2
Veterinary doctors	61	36.1
Veterinary nurses	15	8.9
Zoo-technicians	51	30.2
Animal production work engineers	10	5.9
Technicians of animal production	18	10.7
Years of experience
2–5	70	41.5
6–9	47	27.7
≥ 10	52	30.8
Sector
Private	90	53.3
Public	79	46.7
Farm followed
Ruminants	39	23.0
Chicken	80	47.4
Pig	26	15.4
Not reported	24	14.2

Knowledge of livestock farmers’ advisors about biosecurity

The results showed that the majority of farmers’ advisors (82.8%) had a high level of knowledge about farm biosecurity (score ≥ 75%), with only 3.6% of them having insufficient knowledge on the topic (score < 50%). Most of the advisors (75.2%) had insufficient knowledge (score < 50) about biosecurity legislation in Cameroon. Almost half of the participants (48.9%) were not aware of the animal biosecurity legislation/regulation in Cameroon. The majority of them did not know that swine erysipelas (62.1%) and infectious bursal disease (79.9%) were notifiable diseases in Cameroon (Fig. 2). Brucellosis in cattle (56.2%) and sheep pox in small ruminants (87.1%), were not recognized by advisors as notifiable diseases in Cameroon as well (Fig. 3).

Fig. 2.

Farmers advisors’ knowledge about notifiable pig and poultry diseases in Cameroon, 2024. The figure presents the farmers’ advisors knowledge concerning notifiable poultry and pig diseases in Cameroon. Positive answers (%) are reported in blue, while negative answers (%) are reported in orange

Fig. 3.

Farmers advisors’ knowledge about notifiable cattle and small ruminant diseases in Cameroon, 2024. The figure presents the farmers’ advisors knowledge concerning notifiable cattle and small ruminant diseases in Cameroon. Positive answers (%) are reported in blue, while negative answers (%) are reported in orange, CBPP: Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia

Table 5 presents the results of the assessment of biosecurity knowledge of farmers’ advisors according to their demographics. The level of biosecurity knowledge of advisors significantly depended on their profession (p = 0.002). Highest scores of knowledge were recorded by veterinary doctors (86.89 ± 11.53%) and zoo-technicians (84.48 ± 12.47%). In addition, as shown in Table 6, advisors working in public sector showed a significantly (p = 0.03) higher score for knowledge concerning biosecurity legislation in Cameroon (45.46 ± 7.14%) compared to those working in the private sector (42.55 ± 7.53%).

Table 5.

Distribution of mean knowledge scores on biosecurity of advisors (n = 169) versus their demographic characteristics in Cameroon, 2024

Variable	Mean score (%)	P-value
Profession		0.002
Agropastoral advisor (n = 14)	69.65 ± 27.65a
Veterinary doctors (n = 61)	86.89 ± 11.53b
Veterinary nurses (n = 15)	72.22 ± 22.19b
Animal production works engineers (n = 10)	71.67 ± 29.97a
Zoo-technicians (n = 51)	84.48 ± 12.47b
Technicians of animal production (n = 18)	72.24 ± 21.79a
Years of experience		0.082
2–5 (n = 70)	78.75 ± 19.69a
6–9 (n = 47)	83.33 ± 12.53a
≥ 10–13 (n = 26)	83.01 ± 19.22a
Sector		0.480
Private (n = 90)	83.06 ± 15.27a
Public (n = 79)	79.96 ± 20.57a
Farms followed		0.454
Ruminants (n = 39)	82.41 ± 11.37a
Chicken (n = 80)	82.24 ± 15.43a
Pig (n = 26)	81.09 ± 14.25a
Not reported (n = 24)	78.81 ± 27.14a

For the same variable, score with different letters of the alphabet (a, b) are significantly different at p = 5%

Table 6.

Distribution of mean scores of advisors’ knowledge on biosecurity legislation in Cameroon versus their profiles (n = 169), 2024

Variable	Mean score (%)	P-value
Profession
Agropastoral advisor (n = 14)	39.47 ± 7.96a	0.358
Veterinary doctors (n = 61)	43.19 ± 7.93a
Veterinary nurses (n = 15)	46.09 ± 8.29a
Animal production works engineers (n = 10)	44.19 ± 4.86a
Zoo-technicians (n = 51)	44.95 ± 6.59a
Technicians of animal production (n = 18)	44.87 ± 7.69a
Years of experience		0.366
2–5 (n = 70)	44.1 ± 8.26a
6–9 (n = 47)	43.7 ± 6.87a
≥ 10–13 (n = 26)	45.77 ± 6.29a
Sector		0.030
Private (n = 90)	42.55 ± 7.53a
Public (n = 79)	45.46 ± 7.14b
Farms followed		0.302
Ruminants (n = 39)	43.56 ± 7.0a
Chicken (n = 80)	45.39 ± 7.56a
Pigs (n = 26)	42.01 ± 7.91a
Not reported (n = 24)	43.9 ± 7.47a

For the same variable, score with different letters of the alphabet (a, b) are significantly different at p = 5%

Advisors’ opinion on why farmers are not implementing good biosecurity practices

The advisors were asked the reasons why biosecurity measures are not implemented frequently by farmers. Five major reasons were reported. The most common answers provided were ‘lack of training on biosecurity’ (34.3%) and ‘lack of awareness on biosecurity’ (31.4%). The ‘lack of willingness, ‘the perception that such measures are too expensive’ and ‘lack of continuous advices’ were respectively reported by 14.2, 7.6 and 5.9% of advisors as the reasons why farmers did not implement biosecurity measures on their farms.

Training on biosecurity of farmers’ advisors

A part of their professional training, the majority of farmers’ advisors in Cameroon (59.8%) had not received additional training in animal biosecurity (Table 7). Among those who had received such training (n = 68), the majority reported having trained one or two times (63.2%), their trainings took place on farms (55.9%), and were free of charge (80.9%). These trainings were short; lasting for three days (55.8%), included both theory and practical aspects (58.8%) and focused on more than one animal species (50.0%).

Table 7.

Training in biosecurity of farmers’ advisors in Cameroon, 2024

Variable	Number (n)	Percentage (%)
Training in biosecurity received
Yes	68	40.2
No	101	59.8
Number of trainings received
1-2	43	63.2
≥ 3	25	36.8
Type of training received
Online	9	13.2
On site (on farm)	38	55.9
Hybride	21	30.9
The online training were interactive
Yes	5	55.6
No	4	44.4
Format of the training received
Practical	2	2.9
Theory	26	38.2
Theory and practice	40	58.8
Training focused on
Chicken	20	29.4
Ruminants	8	11.8
Pig	6	8.8
More than one species	34	50.0
Duration of the training (days)
≤ 1	29	42.6
2–3	9	13.2
4–7	26	38.3
> 7	4	5.9
Did you receive a Certificate after training?
Yes	25	36.8
No	43	63.2
Did you pay for the training?
Yes	13	19.1
No	55	80.9

Discussion

The results showed that the average biosecurity score on visited farms was 51%. This moderate score may be attributed to the educational level of interviewees. In addition, it can be due to the not adaptability of Biocheck.Ugent™ tools to small-or medium-scale farms or to the specific context of Cameroon. Indeed, some questions were difficult to answer as they did not fit with the study area context. The average biosecurity score obtained was similar to finding recorded by Gomez and Mbaga [30] in broiler farms in Tanzania (average score of 54). Zaki et al. [31] reported a lower biosecurity score (average 38) in Egyptian poultry farms. This discrepancy in results could be attributed to the different profiles and levels of biosecurity knowledge of the farmers interviewed in these studies. Indeed, several studies have shown that the demographic profile [32, 33] and knowledge of farmers [34] could influence farm biosecurity practices. All the above biosecurity scores in African countries are well below the world average score of 72 reported in the Biocheck.UGent™ database. This difference showed the need for improving on-farm biosecurity in poultry sector in Africa by increasing training and awareness of farmers on biosecurity and reinforcing biosecurity legislation and rules in the livestock sector in African countries.

The analyses showed that internal biosecurity measures (mean score of 56) were better applied than external biosecurity measures (mean score of 49). Similar results have been observed in some African [8, 35], European [20, 36] and Asian countries [27, 37]. This could be explained by the fact that the relationship between internal biosecurity measures and disease prevention or control is generally more perceptible to farmers than with external biosecurity measures. For example, farmers are not quick to see the link between disease outbreaks and limiting visits to their farms. Poor implementation of external biosecurity measures can increase the risk of disease spreading among animals [16], which can lead to a significant reduction of production due to increased mortality and reduced growth performance. In addition, treatment costs associated to diseases can negatively affect farm profitability. Further efforts are needed to improve external biosecurity practices on broiler farms in Cameroon.

Biosecurity measures related to the removal of manure and carcasses on broiler farms scored lowest. This result highlights farmers' lack of awareness of the risk posed by manure and dead animals. During the surveys, we observed that many farmers accumulated dead animals just close to the farms. These findings are consistent with those of Abdurehman et al. [38] in Ethiopia, whose results showed that 25 out of 36 farms (69%) did not dispose dead chicken carcasses properly, and 22 out of 36 farms (61%) did not store the removed litter appropriately. Our previous study [16] also found that poor management of manure and carcasses was a major risk factor for the transmission of diseases such as coccidiosis on poultry farms in Africa. Dead chicken carcasses and used litter must be disposed properly, as they represent major sources of infectious agents [28].

In this study, poor biosecurity represented an important risk factor for broiler mortality in the farms. Farms with a poor biosecurity showed a significantly higher mortality rate (4.63%) compared to farms with good biosecurity (2.89%). Similar results were reported by Khan et al. [39] in Bangladesh. Indeed, biosecurity compliance can prevent and control poultry diseases, thus reducing mortality [7, 16].

In general, farmers’ advisors in Cameroon had high knowledge about animal biosecurity measures. This shows that these professionals can be used to raise awareness and train livestock farmers to improve biosecurity implementation at farm level. These results corroborate those obtained by Agrawal et al. [34] in Illinois (United States). However, most of the advisors (59.8%) did not receive training on biosecurity after their professional training. It is therefore necessary to regularly reinforce their skills to update them according to the epidemiology of infectious diseases in country and new biosecurity measures. Since training is among the keys to increase on-farm biosecurity compliance, it is urgent to identify stakeholders’ needs in terms of training on biosecurity. Despite the good knowledge of farmers’ advisors on biosecurity, few of them knew about animal biosecurity legislation in Cameroon. For example, only few advisors knew that swine erysipelas, infectious bursal disease, cattle brucellosis and sheep pox were notifiable diseases in Cameroon. This lack of knowledge of farmers’ advisors concerning the Cameroonian biosecurity legislation can be a major obstacle during outbreak management. This can, result in serious economic loss for livestock farmers and population.

The results showed that education level had a significant impact on the level of biosecurity knowledge of advisors. Indeed, veterinary doctors and zoo-technicians recorded a significantly higher knowledge scores than other stakeholders. This could be associated to the fact that their training programs had greater emphasis on biosecurity than that of the others. The study conducted by Auplish et al. [40] in Vietnam also showed a relationship between the level of education and the biosecurity knowledge of animal health professionals.

The online surveys showed that, in comparison to advisors from the private sector, those of the public sector had a better knowledge about biosecurity regulations in force in Cameroon. This could be due to the fact that most of the farm regulations and legislations on animal biosecurity in Cameroon are related to the management of epidemics (example law n° 006 of16^th April 2001). This epidemic management is generally carried out by the advisors of public services with very little involvement of the private sector. This finding highlights the need to raise the awareness of all the stakeholders in the livestock sector. In addition, there is an urgent need to strengthen biosecurity regulations in the livestock sector in Cameroon.

According to the advisors’ opinion, the main reasons why biosecurity measures are not implemented frequently by farmers are the lack of training of farmers on biosecurity and the ignorance of the importance of these measures which could be due to their reduced contacts with advisors and the high cost associated with the latter's services. The low number of animal health specialists in Cameroon is a major obstacle to the development of livestock farming. While it is true that since the creation of Cameroon's first veterinary school in 2007 the number of veterinarians trained is increasing, the recommended ratio of livestock farmers/veterinarians has not yet been achieved. In addition, for a number of reasons (such as the logistics involved in conserving veterinary products), most veterinarians are based in the big towns, limiting their contacts with farmers who are generally far from the towns. This makes their services very expensive when they have to travel to assist farmers. All these force farmers to work without any real support from advisors, as previously pointed out [41]. Laconi et al. [20] reported similar result in the most relevant areas for national poultry production in Italy, where a lack of awareness of the importance of biosecurity measures was identified as one of the major factors for the non-implementation of biosecurity on poultry farms. The lack of training of farmers on biosecurity as the reason for poor biosecurity implementation was also reported in large-scale poultry farms in Europe [42].

While the findings of this study cannot be generalized to the whole Cameroon, due to the limited sample size, they provide valuable insights for future research. Another limitation of the study is due the fact that the analysis was limited to univariable analysis. For example, many other factors can affect mortality at poultry farm. Future research should collect other farm variables and do a multivariable regression including co-variants to really see the impact of biosecurity implementation on mortality rate on broiler farms.

Conclusions

This study aimed to assess biosecurity implementation in broiler farms in Cameroon and evaluated the knowledge of livestock farmers’ advisors concerning biosecurity. Results revealed that the overall biosecurity level in broiler farms was moderate with a better implementation of internal biosecurity measures. A high mortality rate was recorded on broiler farms with poor biosecurity. While farmers’ advisors had very good knowledge about biosecurity, their knowledge concerning animal biosecurity legislation in force in Cameroon was weak. In addition to show that advisors can be used to raise awareness and train livestock farmers to improve biosecurity implementation at farm level, these results highlight the need to train both farmers and advisors on biosecurity measures. Addressing these gaps will strengthen future efforts of biosecurity implementation in livestock farms.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Material 2. The questionnaire used for the advisors survey can be found at https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfyHOmsUBtujzQNisrzj7WqB5TrbKB04JHul0fM0AJbET1NmQ/viewform.

Authors’ contributions

V.N.: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing-review & editing, Validation. D.N.: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing-review & editing. H.M.: Visualization, Writing-review & editing. H.Z.: Conceptualization, Writing-review & editing, Supervision, Validation.

Funding

This research did not receive any financial support.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was conducted in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations and approved by the scientific research and ethics committee of the School of Veterinary Medicine and Sciences of the University of Ngaoundere, Cameroon (2024/017/UN/ESMV/D). Informed consent was obtained from all the participants in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.