Owning backyard poultry has become increasingly popular in cities such as Seattle, Portland, New York, Chicago, and San Francisco and is slowly becoming a national trend.1–6 Historical data from the USDA indicates that from 1988 to 2007, the extent of urban and peri-urban agriculture (both plant- and animal-based) increased from 30% to 40%.7 Urban and peri-urban residents likely have a multitude of reasons for raising backyard poultry and livestock, such as a preference for locally sourced food as well as cultural, novelty, sustainability, companionship, and economic reasons. However, urban and peri-urban agriculture has been largely overlooked by the veterinary community in North America.3,8
An important consideration for animal-based urban and peri-urban agriculture is the potential for public health issues and zoonotic disease transmission owing to an increase in contact at the human-animal interface. For example, a potential sequela of backyard poultry ownership is the transmission of zoonoses such as salmonellosis and HPAI. Owners who view their animals as pets may not maintain adequate biosecurity and thereby put themselves and others at risk for zoonotic disease. In fact, close contact with backyard poultry has been associated with a series of Salmonella outbreaks in humans.9
In addition to a public health risk, backyard poultry flocks have been implicated as the origin of disease outbreaks important to commercial poultry flocks, such as virulent Newcastle disease and Marek disease.10–13 Outbreaks of HPAI in backyard poultry flocks represent threats to commercial poultry flocks. For instance, the 2015 HPAI outbreak that was traced to backyard poultry flocks had severe economic and trade consequences for the commercial poultry industry.14,15 Because HPAI is maintained in a wildlife reservoir, there will be future outbreaks in domestic poultry, which makes it imperative to prepare for that contingency. Veterinarians, along with extension specialists, agricultural extension educators, and governmental agencies, could work with small-scale poultry owners to improve owner awareness of and ability to detect diseases to help mitigate potential disease outbreaks.
The health and welfare of poultry and livestock in UPAs are of concern because owners of those animals often lack knowledge or expertise regarding safe animal handling and husbandry.16 Most owners of livestock and poultry in UPAs use products from those animals (eg, milk, eggs, and meat) for their own personal use, and many view those animals more as pets than production animals, with only a small percentage of owners maintaining the animals for profit.3,8,17 Given that owners of livestock and poultry in UPAs generally have only a few animals, a disease outbreak could be both emotionally and economically devastating to those owners.
To elucidate veterinary care gaps perceived by UPA animal owners, a survey of backyard and small-scale livestock owners was conducted in 4 western states.17 Results of that survey17 indicate that most owners desire improved access to livestock and poultry veterinary care and medicine. Survey respondents indicated that they would seek out competent veterinary care if it was available, but many perceived that they had sufficient experience to deal with minor medical issues.17 Interestingly, those same respondents preferred to call a veterinarian for animal husbandry and production questions17; however, the knowledge, skills, and interests of practitioners, particularly in regard to domestic poultry and livestock, in UPAs are unknown. The purpose of the study reported here was to assess the extent of veterinary engagement with owners of poultry and livestock in UPAs of 4 western states (California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington), determine the level of knowledge and skill veterinarians in those areas have in regard to treating domestic poultry and livestock, and identify potential barriers to the provision of veterinary services to poultry and livestock in UPAs. The overall hypothesis was that there is an increasing demand for veterinary services for poultry and livestock in UPAs.
Materials and Methods
Survey population
All survey protocols and the survey instrument were reviewed and approved by the institutional review boards of the University of California-Davis (No. 726301-3) and WSU (No. 14537).
The target population for the survey included members of the California Veterinary Medical Association as of May 2016, Colorado Veterinary Medical Association as of October 2016, Oregon Veterinary Medical Association as of December 2016, and Washington State Veterinary Medical Association as of June 2015. The membership directories for each of those state veterinary medical associations was accessible online or made available to investigators by the respective associations. Practicing veterinarians in California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington who were not members of their respective state veterinary medical associations were ineligible for study inclusion. The target population was further refined by the inclusion of only veterinarians with practices in UPAs, which were defined on the basis of zip codes in metropolitan areas with populations > 5,000 people as determined by the US Census Bureau.a The primary practice type of each veterinarian in the target population was characterized on the basis of categories established by the AVMA18 (ie, food animal exclusive, food animal predominant, mixed animal, companion animal exclusive, companion animal predominant, equine, or other). Veterinarians who worked at specialty veterinary clinics, such as emergency, dentistry, ophthalmology, surgery, and equine-exclusive clinics, as well as veterinarians who worked primarily in research were excluded from the sampling frame.
After the described initial screening, the sampling frame consisted of 7,065 veterinarians. A random number generator was used to select a random sample of 2,409 veterinarians from the sampling frame.
Survey instrument
The survey initially included 29 questions, 7 of which were open-ended. The questions were designed to gather information that could be used to understand the willingness of veterinarians to provide care for backyard poultry and livestock and the frequency with which that type of care was provided. The survey also asked veterinarians to self-report their extent of knowledge and skill for treating backyard poultry and livestock and to identify barriers to providing such services. The survey was reviewed by faculty and staff members of the WSU College of Veterinary Medicine and University of California-Davis School of Veterinary Medicine and mailed to 5 veterinary practitioners who were asked to validate its format, evaluate the questions, and comment on the design layout. Comments were used to refine and create the final questionnaire.
The final questionnaire was collaboratively developed by the WSU College of Veterinary Medicine and SESRC. It was a mixed-mode survey that was formatted for delivery online as well as by mail. The questionnaire was designed by use of the tailored design method, a survey methodology aimed at maximizing response rates.19 In the online version, the questions were displayed on 22 separate linked web pages. The paper or mail version was developed by use of a uni-design method to create an 8-page questionnaire that closely resembled the format of the online version (Supplementary Appendix S1, available at: avmajournals.avma.org/doi/suppl/10.2460/javma.257.2.196).
Survey delivery and data management
Respondents were not provided any incentives to complete the survey. An invitation to participate in the survey was mailed to 2,409 randomly selected veterinarians who practiced in UPAs of California (n = 708), Colorado (645), Oregon (322), and Washington (734). A sequential contact strategy was used to encourage veterinarians to complete the survey, and up to 4 follow-up reminders were mailed to nonrespondents. The contact sequence consisted of an invitation letter with a unique access code and the URL for the online survey. One week later, the paper version of the questionnaire was mailed to all invitees with a letter that included the unique access code and the URL for the online version and a preaddressed, postage-paid envelope for returning the questionnaire. A postcard reminder was mailed 15 days after the initial letter was mailed.
The online version of the survey was hosted on a WSU website. Each recipient was provided a unique code to access the online survey. Internet access to the survey site was restricted by firewalls at the university hub and monitored by the SESRC server to decrease undesirable access to the survey pages. A respondent could exit the online survey and return to complete it at any time. Once the survey was completed and submitted, the respondent's access code was inactivated, and that code could no longer be used to access the survey.
For surveys completed and returned by mail, responses were transcribed into the online version by means of double data entry by 2 operators. Staff at the SESRC verified the data for every completed survey. To maintain respondent confidentiality, all electronic data were maintained in secure computerized spreadsheetsb and all hard copy (paper) data were maintained by SESRC staff at a secure location on the WSU campus.
Statistical analysis
Initial data evaluation, data coding, and descriptive analyses were performed by use of a computerized spreadsheet program.b Descriptive analyses and frequency counts that were used to identify relationships and trends in the responses were performed with a statistical software program.c Data from incomplete surveys were included in descriptive analyses.
Multiple correspondence analysis was performed by use of a data-mining feature within the statistical software programc to identify relationships among the survey questions and categorize survey responses. Multiple correspondence analysis is an extension of principal component analysis and correspondence analysis for evaluation of multivariable categorical data.20 It is used to identify patterns of relationships in complex data sets with multiple categorical variables,20,21 which, for our data, were the survey questions. Multiple correspondence analysis facilitates visualization of correlations among variables by displaying each variable as a point in a multidimensional Euclidean space.20–22 Results are interpreted on the basis of the relative position of variables and their distributions along the dimensions of the Euclidean space. The more similar categories are in terms of distribution, the closer they are represented in the space.21 The overall discriminatory value is computed for each categorical variable, and typically only the 2 or 3 dimensions with the highest values are interpreted. This method identifies variables that highly discriminate individual respondents along the axis of each dimension.21 For this study, we used the first 2 dimensions, and 2-D maps were created to visually interpret relationships among the categorical variables (questions) in the survey. In 1 map, categorical variables were plotted on the basis of their discriminatory values in both dimensions. This allowed observation of groups of variables on the basis of discriminatory potential. In another map, the coordinates of each respondent as well as the coordinates for the mean response (ie, answer) to each question were plotted in both dimensions. This facilitated an understanding of how respondents were sorted on the basis of the answers they provided to multiple questions. Forty-seven variables were initially analyzed, but only variables with a mean discriminatory value ≥ 0.03 for both dimensions 1 and 2 were retained in the final model. The final model included 38 variables. The MCA required responses to all survey questions; therefore, incomplete surveys were excluded from the analysis.
The MCA results were used to select variables for evaluation in univariable logistic regression models to assess the respective associations of those variables with the respondents’ interest in CVME regarding livestock and poultry. Because responses for the 2 outcome variables (interest in livestock CVME and interest in poultry CVME) were originally coded into 4 categories (strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree) and logistic regression requires binary outcomes, the response data for those 2 variables were dichotomized into agree (interested) or disagree (not interested). Results were modeled on the basis that the respondent was interested in CVME. Although several variables were strongly correlated on the MCA and a subsequent exploratory correlation matrix, only a few were assessed for each outcome. Explanatory variables assessed for each outcome were selected on the basis of relevance to the outcome. For example, only variables (questions) related to poultry and variables that were not species specific were assessed for the interest in poultry CVME models. Similarly, only variables related to small ruminants and variables that were not species specific were selected for the interest in livestock CVME models. Variables related to cattle and swine were omitted from the analyses because those variables were strongly correlated with the small ruminant variables, and respondents indicated that they were asked to examine small ruminants more frequently than cattle and pigs. If 2 or more highly correlated variables were selected for a particular outcome, only the variable with the least number of missing variables was evaluated. Values of P ≤ 0.05 were considered significant.
Results
Respondents
Of the 2,409 veterinarians invited to participate in the survey, 9 indicated that they were ineligible to participate (ie, were no longer in practice or did not have any urban or peri-urban clientele) and 880 (230 from California, 221 from Colorado, 82 from Oregon, and 347 from Washington) completed (n = 627) or partially completed (253) the survey. Thus, the overall response rate was 37% (880/2,400). The state-specific response rate was 32.5% (230/707) for California, 34.5% (221/640) for Colorado, 25.6% (82/321) for Oregon, and 47.4% (347/732) for Washington. The formula used to calculate response rates was as follows: (number of completed surveys + number of partially completed surveys)/(number of completed surveys + number of partially completed surveys + number of refusals + number of invitees who could not be interviewed or contacted). That formula is considered the industry standard for calculation of response rates and complies with standard definitions for response rates established by the American Association for Public Opinion Research.23
Some respondents did not answer all the survey questions; therefore, the number of responses varied among questions. The median number of years in practice was 23 (range, 1 to 56 years) for all respondents, 28.5 for California respondents, 18 for Colorado respondents, 24 for Oregon respondents, and 21 for Washington respondents. The majority (492/853 [57.7%]) of respondents reported they had been in practice for ≥ 20 years. Most respondents indicated they worked in companion animal predominant (196/849 [23.1%]) or companion animal only (565/849 [66.5%]) practices. Seven hundred one of 842 (83.3%) respondents worked in practices in urban (n = 235 [27.9%]) or peri-urban (466 [55.3%]) areas, which was a higher percentage than the national average (65%).18
Contact with and knowledge of livestock and poultry
The majority (656/863 [76%]) of respondents reported an increasing trend in the number of backyard poultry and livestock in their practice areas within the preceding 5 years, with some variation by state (Table 1). Most respondents (601/865 [69.5%]) reported receiving questions about livestock at least once monthly, although the number of livestock questions received per month was generally low (1 to 4). California respondents were proportionately more likely to receive questions about livestock than were respondents from each of the other 3 states.
Perceived trends in the number of livestock and poultry in UPAs and frequency of questions related to livestock health and husbandry that veterinarians in those areas receive on a monthly basis as reported by 880 veterinarians from California (n = 230), Colorado (221), Oregon (82), and Washington (347) who responded to a survey designed to assess their level of interest and engagement with owners of urban and peri-urban poultry and livestock.
Respondents | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Question | Response | California | Colorado | Oregon | Washington | All |
In your opinion, to what extent is there an increasing trend in urban and peri-urban livestock animals, including poultry, in your practice area within the last 5 years? | No trend | 84 (37.3) | 35 (16.1) | 12 (15.0) | 76 (22.3) | 207 (24.0) |
Slight increase | 69 (30.7) | 82 (37.8) | 31 (38.8) | 118 (34.6) | 300 (34.8) | |
Moderate increase | 50 (22.2) | 54 (24.9) | 30 (37.5) | 99 (29.0) | 233 (27.0) | |
Strong increase | 22 (9.8) | 46 (21.2) | 7 (8.8) | 48 (14.1) | 123 (14.3) | |
No answer | 5 (2.2) | 4 (1.8) | 2 (2.4) | 6 (1.7) | 17 (1.9) | |
To your knowledge, on a monthly basis, how often does your practice receive questions about husbandry or medical concerns for poultry or livestock species? | Never | 0 (0) | 94 (42.9) | 36 (46.2) | 134 (39.3) | 264 (30.5) |
1–4 | 116 (51.1) | 100 (45.7) | 27 (34.6) | 143 (41.9) | 386 (44.6) | |
6–10 | 84 (37.0) | 12 (5.5) | 6 (7.7) | 29 (8.5) | 131 (15.1) | |
11–20 | 21 (9.3) | 4 (1.8) | 5 (6.4) | 12 (3.5) | 42 (4.9) | |
> 20 | 6 (2.6) | 9 (4.1) | 4 (5.1) | 23 (6.7) | 42 (4.9) | |
No answer | 3 (1.3) | 2 (0.9) | 4 (4.9) | 6 (1.7) | 15 (1.7) |
Values represent the number (percentage) of respondents. Within a question and column, the percentages for all response categories except the no answer category were calculated with the sum of responses provided for those categories used as the denominator; for the no answer category, the denominator used to calculate the percentage was the sum of responses provided for all response categories including the no response category.
Poultry was the livestock species most commonly examined by respondents. Two hundred ten of 851 (24.7%) respondents reported that they had examined at least 2 poultry patients within the previous 6 months. One hundred sixty-three of 823 (19.8%) respondents reported that they had examined ≥ 2 small ruminant patients within the previous 6 months, whereas 91 of 810 (11.2%), 88 of 808 (10.9%), and 74 of 804 (9.2%) respondents reported that they had examined ≥ 2 cattle, swine, and camelid patients, respectively, within the previous 6 months.
The respondents’ perceptions regarding the likelihood of being presented poultry, small ruminants, cattle, and swine for examination were summarized (Table 2). Most respondents indicated practice limitations were the primary barrier to their examining and treating backyard poultry and livestock. Among specifically defined practice limitations, most respondents indicated that a lack of interest was the primary reason for not examining small ruminants (409/838 [48.8%]), swine (476/848 [56.1%]), and cattle (487/841 [57.9%]) and a lack of experience was the primary reason for not examining poultry (302/847 [35.7%]). Other barriers to examination and treatment of backyard poultry and livestock included financial constraints for animal owners, lack of equipment or adequate facilities, lack of demand in the practice area, or the fact that the practice was species limited (eg, companion animal only practice) or a specialty practice.
Frequency and perceived barriers to offering veterinary care to particular species at urban and peri-urban veterinary practices as reported by the 880 respondents to the survey described in Table 1.
Question | Response | Poultry | Small ruminants | Cattle | Swine |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Overall, how likely are you to examine or see patients of the given species in your practice? | Not likely | 601 (69.5) | 663 (76.8) | 728 (85.7) | 710 (82.8) |
Somewhat likely | 110 (12.7) | 70 (8.1) | 42 (4.9) | 69 (78.1) | |
Likely | 65 (7.5) | 44 (5.1) | 39 (4.6) | 41 (4.8) | |
Very likely | 89 (10.3) | 86 (10.0) | 40 (4.7) | 37 (4.3) | |
No answer | 15 (1.7) | 17 (1.9) | 31 (3.5) | 23 (2.6) | |
Which of the following is your main barrier to offering care to the given species in your practice? | No limitations | 46 (5.4) | 46 (5.5) | 42 (5.0) | 35 (4.1) |
Multiple answers | 22 (2.6) | 18 (2.1) | 19 (2.3) | 16 (1.9) | |
Financial limitations | 177 (20.9) | 126 (15.0) | 77 (9.2) | 85 (10.0) | |
Practice limitations | 602 (71.1) | 648 (77.3) | 703 (83.6) | 712 (84.0) | |
Inexperience working with this species* | 302 (35.7) | 158 (18.9) | 113 (13.4) | 155 (18.3) | |
Not interested in working with this species* | 253 (29.9) | 409 (48.8) | 487 (57.9) | 476 (56.1) | |
Companion animal only | 20 (2.4) | 24 (2.9) | 25 (3.0) | 22 (2.6) | |
Lack of equipment and facilities* | 3 (0.4) | 24 (2.9) | 41 (4.9) | 20 (2.4) | |
Not enough demand* | 24 (2.8) | 33 (3.9) | 37 (4.4) | 39 (4.6) | |
No answer | 33 (3.8) | 42 (4.8) | 39 (4.4) | 32 (3.6) |
Included in practice limitations; the denominator used to calculate the percentage was the sum of responses provided for the no limitations, multiple answers, financial limitations, and practice limitations categories.
See Table 1 for remainder of key.
The majority of respondents indicated that they had little knowledge for answering questions about husbandry of poultry (482/866 [55.7%]), small ruminants (460/866 [53.1%]), cattle (492/863 [57.0%]), swine (565/863 [65.5%]), and camelids (616/864 [71.3%]). Most respondents also acknowledged that they had little or only basic knowledge of poultry and livestock restraint, examination, and disease diagnosis (Table 3). In response to a separate question, only 254 of 731 (34.7%) respondents felt confident about answering questions regarding HPAI.
Information regarding knowledge and proficiency performing physical examination and diagnosis of disease in poultry and livestock as reported by the 880 respondents to the survey described in Table 1.
Question | Response | Poultry | Small ruminants | Cattle | Swine | Camelids |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
How knowledgeable are you about answering animal husbandry questions for each of the following species? | Little knowledge | 482 (55.7) | 460 (53.1) | 492 (57.0) | 565 (65.5) | 616 (71.3) |
Basic knowledge | 301 (34.8) | 283 (32.7) | 240 (27.8) | 236 (27.3) | 186 (21.5) | |
Proficient | 83 (9.6) | 123 (14.2) | 131 (15.2) | 62 (7.2) | 62 (7.2) | |
No answer | 14 (1.6) | 14 (1.6) | 17 (1.9) | 17 (1.9) | 16 (1.8) | |
How skilled are you restraining each of the following species while offering care? | Little knowledge | 315 (36.5) | 324 (37.5) | 398 (46.3) | 489 (56.9) | 525 (61.3) |
Basic knowledge | 285 (33.0) | 299 (34.6) | 266 (30.9) | 247 (28.7) | 216 (25.2) | |
Proficient | 264 (30.6) | 241 (27.9) | 196 (22.8) | 124 (14.4) | 115 (13.4) | |
No answer | 16 (1.8) | 16 (1.8) | 20 (2.3) | 20 (2.3) | 24 (2.7) | |
How knowledgeable are you performing examinations for each of the following species? | Little knowledge | 415 (47.9) | 357 (41.3) | 400 (46.5) | 486 (56.4) | 525 (61.0) |
Basic knowledge | 294 (33.9) | 312 (36.1) | 282 (32.8) | 255 (29.6) | 226 (26.3) | |
Proficient | 157 (18.1) | 195 (22.6) | 178 (20.7) | 120 (13.9) | 109 (12.7) | |
No answer | 14 (1.6) | 16 (1.8) | 20 (2.3) | 19 (2.2) | 20 (2.3) | |
How knowledgeable are you diagnosing diseases for each of the following species? | Little knowledge | 524 (60.5) | 480 (55.7) | 502 (58.4) | 580 (67.4) | 625 (72.8) |
Basic knowledge | 271 (31.3) | 251 (29.1) | 227 (26.4) | 219 (25.4) | 171 (19.9) | |
Proficient | 71 (8.2) | 131 (15.2) | 131 (15.2) | 62 (7.2) | 62 (7.2) | |
No answer | 14 (1.6) | 18 (2.0) | 20 (2.3) | 19 (2.2) | 22 (2.5) |
See Table 1 for remainder of key.
Perceptions regarding the role of veterinary medicine
The majority of respondents strongly agreed or agreed with the following statements: “I think veterinarians play an important role in public health or zoonotic disease prevention” (842/849 [99.2%]) and “I feel that there are sufficient veterinarians in my practice area to treat companion animal species” (786/844 [93.1%]). There was less agreement among respondents regarding the ability, knowledge, and perceived need for veterinarians to work with urban and peri-urban poultry and livestock. Four hundred twenty-nine of 835 (51.4%) respondents strongly agreed or agreed that urban and peri-urban livestock production poses a public health risk. Four hundred thirty-six of 829 (52.6%) respondents strongly agreed or agreed with the statement, “I feel that there are sufficient veterinarians in my practice area to treat production animal species,” whereas only 226 of 823 (27.5%) respondents strongly agreed or agreed with the statement, “I feel that veterinarians in my area are adequately trained and equipped to see and treat poultry” (Figure 1).
CVME
The majority (501/840 [59.6%]) of respondents strongly agreed or agreed with the following statement: “I typically focus solely on companion animal CVME tracks but do not explore poultry or herd health options” (Figure 2). Only 234 of 843 (27.8%) respondents indicated that they actively looked for CVME options regarding backyard poultry and livestock. However, 413 of 841 (49.1%) respondents indicated they would be interested in participating in a CVME program focused on poultry medicine, and 300 of 839 (35.8%) respondents indicated they would be interested in participating in a CVME program focused on other production animal species. Three hundred seventy-one of 797 (46.5%) respondents strongly agreed or agreed with the statement, “I feel that there is adequate CVME provided through state and national association meetings to provide veterinarians backyard or small-scale poultry medicine training,” and 373 of 773 (48.3%) respondents strongly agreed or agreed with the statement, “I feel that there is adequate CVME provided through state and national association meetings to provide veterinarians ruminant medicine training for small-scale farms.”
The majority (755/792 [95.3%]) of respondents indicated that they would most likely participate in CVME that was presented in lecture format, followed by wet lab format (529/687 [77.0%]), online format (503/676 [74.4%]), and webinar format (438/655 [66.9%]). The proportion of respondents who indicated they would be interested in each type of CVME delivery mode was similar across all 4 states (Table 4).
Information regarding type of CVME format preferred by the 880 respondents to the survey described in Table 1.
Respondents | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Question | Response | California | Colorado | Oregon | Washington | All |
Would you participate in CVME in webinar format? | Yes | 112 (66.3) | 129 (71.3) | 43 (75.4) | 154 (62.1) | 438 (66.9) |
No | 57 (33.7) | 52 (28.7) | 14 (24.6) | 94 (37.9) | 217 (33.1) | |
No answer | 61 (26.5) | 40 (18.1) | 25 (30.5) | 99 (28.5) | 225 (25.6) | |
Would you participate in CVME in wet lab format? | Yes | 130 (75.1) | 143 (75.3) | 51 (83.6) | 205 (77.9) | 529 (77.0) |
No | 43 (24.9) | 47 (24.7) | 10 (16.4) | 58 (22.1) | 158 (23.0) | |
No answer | 57 (24.8) | 31 (14.0) | 21 (25.6) | 84 (24.2) | 193 (21.9) | |
Would you participate in CVME in lecture format? | Yes | 196 (95.6) | 198 (94.7) | 69 (97.2) | 292 (95.1) | 755 (95.3) |
No | 9 (4.4) | 11 (5.3) | 2 (2.8) | 15 (4.9) | 37 (4.7) | |
No answer | 25 (10.9) | 12 (5.4) | 11 (13.4) | 40 (11.5) | 88 (10.0) | |
Would you participate in CVME online? | Yes | 121 (71.6) | 132 (73.3) | 51 (85.0) | 199 (74.5) | 503 (74.4) |
No | 48 (28.4) | 48 (26.7) | 9 (15.0) | 68 (25.5) | 173 (25.6) | |
No answer | 61 (26.5) | 41 (18.6) | 22 (26.8) | 80 (23.1) | 204 (23.2) |
See Table 1 for remainder of key.
Among the 552 respondents who provided topics of interest for CVME, the most common was poultry medicine (n = 220 [39.9%]) followed by small ruminant medicine (97 [17.6%]), companion animal medicine (87 [15.8%]), and specialized surgery or internal medicine topics that were not specific to any particular species but were predominantly applicable to companion animals (86/552 [15.6%]). Other topics for CVME, such as swine or cattle medicine, general livestock husbandry, and zoonoses, garnered interest from only a small number of respondents (4.9% to 8.9%). Even fewer respondents (0.2% to 1.3%) indicated interest in CVME on topics related to other species, such as horses, rabbits, exotic pets, and bees, and only 15 of 552 (2.7%) respondents indicated interest in CVME on practice and business management topics.
MCA
The MCA was performed by use of data from 627 completed surveys. Thirty-eight variables were included in the MCA. Variables included in the final model were associated with practitioner exposure to poultry and livestock, skills and knowledge of livestock medicine and husbandry, demographics, and CVME needs and perceptions. Other variables had no significant discriminatory power. Data were presented in the first 2 dimensions, which accounted for 28.6% of the total model variance (variance in dimension 1, 20.12%; variance in dimension 2, 8.49%). Each of the 38 variables was defined along with its discrimination values in dimensions 1 and 2 (Appendix). Twenty-four variables had relatively high discriminatory values (> 0.4) in dimension 1, with 21 variables having a discriminatory value > 0.5; however, only 5 variables had a discriminatory value > 0.4 in dimension 2. When the 38 variables were plotted on a 2-D map, 4 distinct groups were identified on the basis of their discriminatory characteristics (Figure 3). Group 1 included variables associated with proficiency in medicine and husbandry of livestock other than poultry. The variables in group 1 had high discriminatory values in both dimensions 1 (> 0.57) and 2 (> 0.25). Group 2 included variables associated with frequency of exposure to livestock other than poultry and practice type. The variables in group 2 had high discriminatory values in dimension 1 (> 0.41) but low discriminatory values in dimension 2 (< 0.09). Group 3 included variables associated with proficiency in poultry medicine and husbandry. The variables in group 3 had moderate discriminatory values in both dimension 1 (> 0.02) and dimension 2 (> 0.09). Group 4 included variables associated with frequency of questions related to livestock and poultry, exposure to poultry, CVME interests, knowledge of HPIA, and practice environment (urban, peri-urban, or rural). The variables in group 4 had moderate to low discriminatory values in dimension 1 and low discriminatory values in dimension 2. Interestingly, the discriminatory values for questions related to mammalian livestock were consistently greater than the discriminatory values for similar questions related to poultry.
Examination of the coordinates for specific variables and individuals in both dimensions revealed that results were clearer and easier to interpret along dimension 1 than along dimension 2. Dimension 1 also accounted for a greater proportion of the overall model variation, compared with dimension 2 (20.12% vs 8.49%). Overall, the plot created by the data points had a U shape, which suggested the presence of a Guttman effect, such that the eigenvalues (discriminatory values) for variables continuously increased along dimension 1 but alternated (increased or decreased) along dimension 2. Thus, individuals could not be distinguished into clear and distinct groups on the basis of their survey responses. Instead, individual responses fell along a continuum in dimension 1, and dimension 2 was mostly artifactual. Consequently, interpretations were much clearer along dimension 1 than along dimension 2. For example, individuals with negative eigenvalues in dimension 1 tended to be veterinarians who specialized in companion animal medicine with little knowledge of poultry and livestock and little interest in CVME focused on poultry and livestock, whereas individuals with positive eigenvalues in dimension 1 tended to be veterinarians who reported their practices were located in rural areas and were knowledgeable and proficient in poultry and livestock medicine and interested in CVME focused on poultry and livestock (Supplementary Figure S1, available at avmajournals.avma.org/doi/suppl/10.2460/javma.257.2.196). However, there were no clear breakpoints between groups of individuals in dimension 1 and no clear groups of individuals evident in dimension 2.
Logistic regression
Variables significantly associated with an interest in CVME focused on livestock other than poultry (Table 5) and poultry (Table 6) as determined by univariable logistic regression analyses were summarized. In general, respondents who were more frequently asked questions about or examined livestock and poultry were more likely to be interested in CVME focused of livestock and poultry than were respondents who seldom or never examined livestock and poultry. The odds of interest in livestock-focused and poultry-focused CVME increased as respondents’ knowledge level about animal husbandry and performing examinations on those types of animals increased from little to basic knowledge to proficient. Type of practice and rural veterinarians were also significantly associated with interest in livestock-focused and poultry-focused CVME. Compared with respondents who worked in companion animal-only practices, the odds of interest in livestock-focused CVME progressively increased for respondents who worked in companion animal predominant (OR, 4.17; 95% CI, 2.98 to 5.84) to mixed animal (OR, 15.66; 95% CI, 8.12 to 30.20) to food animal predominant (OR, 20.88; 95% CI, 2.49 to 175.09) practices. The odds of interest in poultry-focused CVME were also greater for respondents who worked in companion animal predominant (OR, 4.04; 95% CI, 2.85 to 5.72) and mixed animal (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.91) practices relative to those for respondents who worked in companion animal-only practices. Interestingly, the odds of interest in poultry-focused CVME did not differ significantly (P = 0.11) between respondents who worked in companion animal-only and food animal predominant practices. The odds of interest in both livestock-focused and poultry-focused CVME did not differ significantly between respondents who worked in urban and peri-urban practices but were greater for respondents who worked in rural practices relative to those who worked in urban practices. The odds of interest in poultry-focused CVME increased as respondents’ level of confidence in answering food safety or zoonotic disease questions about HPAI in poultry increased.
Univariable logistic regression results for variables (survey questions) significantly associated with an interest in CVME focused on livestock other than poultry as determined by data obtained from the respondents of the survey described in Table 1.
Explanatory variable | Category | Proportion (%) interested in CVME | OR (95% CI) | Wald test P value |
---|---|---|---|---|
To your knowledge, on a monthly basis, how often does your practice receive questions about husbandry or medical concerns for livestock species? | Never | 57/258 (22) | Referent | — |
1–5 times/mo | 119/370 (32) | 1.67 (1.16–2.41) | 0.006 | |
6–10 times/mo | 66/123 (54) | 4.08 (2.58–6.47) | < 0.001 | |
11–20 times/mo | 26/41 (63) | 6.11 (3.03–12.31) | < 0.001 | |
> 20 times/mo | 27/38 (71) | 8.66 (4.05–18.51) | < 0.001 | |
Overall, how likely are you to examine or see small ruminant patients in your practice? | Not likely | 142/634 (22) | Referent | — |
Somewhat likely | 46/67 (69) | 7.59 (4.38–13.14) | < 0.001 | |
Likely | 39/44 (89) | 27.03 (10.46–69.85) | < 0.001 | |
Very likely | 69/84 (82) | 15.94 (8.85–28.72) | < 0.001 | |
How knowledgeable are you about answering animal husbandry questions for small ruminant species? | Little knowledge | 73/438 (17) | Referent | — |
Basic knowledge | 140/273 (51) | 5.26 (3.72–7.44) | < 0.001 | |
Proficient | 85/121 (70) | 11.81 (7.43–18.77) | < 0.001 | |
How knowledgeable are you performing examinations for small ruminant patients? | Little knowledge | 53/338 (16) | Referent | — |
Basic knowledge | 119/304 (39) | 3.46 (2.38–5.02) | < 0.001 | |
Proficient | 126/190 (66) | 10.59 (6.96–16.11) | < 0.001 | |
What do you consider your practice type, primarily? | Companion animal only | 123/551 (22) | Referent | — |
Companion animal predominant | 115/211 (55) | 4.17 (2.98–5.84) | < 0.001 | |
Mixed animal | 54/66 (82) | 15.66 (8.12–30.20) | < 0.001 | |
Food animal predominant | 6/7 (86) | 20.88 (2.49–175.09) | 0.005 | |
How would you characterize your practice location? | Urban | 62/228 (27) | Referent | — |
Peri-urban | 154/458 (34) | 1.36 (0.96–1.93 | 0.088 | |
Rural | 74/139 (53) | 3.05 (1.96–4.75) | < 0.001 |
Variables related to cattle and swine were omitted from logistic regression analyses because those variables were strongly correlated with the small ruminant variables, and respondents indicated that they were asked to examine small ruminants more frequently than cattle and pigs.
— = Not applicable.
Univariable logistic regression results for variables (survey questions) significantly associated with an interest in CVME focused on poultry as determined by data obtained from the respondents of the survey described in Table 1.
Explanatory variable | Category | Proportion (%) interested in CVME | OR (95% CI) | Wald test P value |
---|---|---|---|---|
To your knowledge, on a monthly basis, how often does your practice receive questions about husbandry or medical concerns for poultry species? | Never | 81/260 (31) | Referent | — |
1–5 times/mo | 188/370 (51) | 2.28 (1.64–3.18) | < 0.001 | |
6–10 times/mo | 86/122 (70) | 5.28 (3.30–8.44) | < 0.001 | |
11–20 times/mo | 25/42 (60) | 3.25 (1.66–6.35) | < 0.001 | |
> 20 times/mo | 27/38 (71) | 5.42 (2.57–11.47) | < 0.001 | |
Overall, how likely are you to examine or see poultry patients in your practice? | Not likely | 184/576 (32) | Referent | — |
Somewhat likely | 87/109 (80) | 8.42 (5.11–13.88) | < 0.001 | |
Likely | 56/64 (88) | 14.91 (6.97–31.93) | < 0.001 | |
Very likely | 81/85 (95) | 43.14 (15.57–119.52) | < 0.001 | |
How knowledgeable are you about answering animal husbandry questions for poultry species? | Little knowledge | 132/463 (29) | Referent | — |
Basic knowledge | 205/292 (70) | 5.91 (4.28–8.15) | < 0.001 | |
Proficient | 72/79 (91) | 25.79 (11.57–57.50) | < 0.001 | |
How knowledgeable are you performing examinations for poultry patients? | Little knowledge | 104/398 (26) | Referent | — |
Basic knowledge | 176/287 (61) | 4.48 (3.23–6.21) | < 0.001 | |
Proficient | 131/151 (87) | 18.52 (11.00–31.18) | < 0.001 | |
I would feel confident answering food safety or zoonotic disease questions about HPAI in poultry. | Strongly disagree | 59/181 (33) | Referent | — |
Disagree | 194/379 (51) | 2.17 (1.50–3.14) | < 0.001 | |
Agree | 114/207 (55) | 2.53 (1.67–3.84) | < 0.001 | |
Strongly agree | 34/43 (79) | 7.81 (3.52–17.35) | < 0.001 | |
What do you consider your practice type, primarily? | Companion animal only | 218/554 (39) | Referent | — |
Companion animal predominant | 152/210 (72) | 4.04 (2.85–5.72) | < 0.001 | |
Mixed animal | 35/66 (53) | 1.74 (1.04–2.91) | 0.034 | |
Food animal predominant | 5/7 (71) | 3.85 (0.74–20.04) | 0.11 | |
How would you characterize your practice location? | Urban | 102/229 (45) | Referent | — |
Peri-urban | 221/459 (48) | 1.16 (0.84–1.59) | 0.37 | |
Rural | 80/139 (58) | 1.69 (1.10–2.58) | 0.016 |
— = Not applicable.
Discussion
The primary goals of the survey described here were to assess veterinarian engagement with owners of poultry and livestock in UPAs in 4 western states (California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington), determine the level of knowledge and skill veterinarians in those areas have in regard to treating domestic poultry and livestock, and identify potential barriers to the provision of veterinary services to poultry and livestock in UPAs. The primary livestock species maintained in UPAs are poultry (ie, backyard poultry) followed by small ruminants. To our knowledge, the present survey was the first to quantify veterinarian perspectives regarding urban and peri-urban agriculture and the frequency with which veterinary services are provided to livestock in UPAs in the western United States. Quantification of veterinarians’ motivations, attitudes, and preferences regarding urban and peri-urban agriculture and livestock will help inform CVME offerings and hopefully facilitate the availability of veterinary services for poultry and livestock in UPAs.
Results of the present survey supported our theory that there is an increasing trend in ownership of backyard poultry and livestock in UPAs of California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington. Findings also suggested that opinions regarding urban and peri-urban agriculture varied greatly among veterinarians who responded to the survey. Most respondents felt that there were sufficient veterinarians in their practice areas to treat companion animal (786/844 [93.1%]) and production animal (436/829 [52.6%]) species. However, many respondents who worked in UPAs and specialized in companion animal medicine reported they had little knowledge of poultry and livestock husbandry, examination, and disease diagnosis and had little interest in CVME that focused on poultry or livestock. Conversely, respondents who reported working in rural areas or mixed-animal and food animal predominant practices were generally proficient in poultry and livestock husbandry and medicine and were interested in CVME that focused on poultry and livestock. We found it interesting that, although 601 of 865 (69.5%) respondents reported that they were not likely to examine poultry or livestock species and > 75% of respondents had not examined > 2 poultry or livestock patients within the 6 months prior to completing the survey, most respondents indicated that their practices received telephone calls and other queries about poultry and livestock health on a monthly basis. However, many respondents reported that they had little knowledge about and were ill prepared to answer questions about poultry and livestock husbandry or to restrain, examine, or diagnose disease in poultry and livestock.
Respondents of the present survey reported several barriers to the provision of veterinary services to backyard poultry and small-scale livestock operations. The most frequently cited barrier was practice limitations, which encompassed a lack of interest or knowledge in poultry and livestock husbandry and medicine by veterinarians working within a practice, lack of equipment and facilities to provide care for backyard poultry and livestock, and lack of demand for backyard poultry and livestock services. Another barrier to the provision of veterinary services to backyard poultry and livestock commonly cited was the perceived financial constraints of the owners of such animals, which was consistent with findings of another study.24 Surveys17,25 of backyard poultry and small-scale livestock owners indicate that many had not sought veterinary care for their animals in the 12 months preceding the survey. Reasons owners provided for not seeking veterinary services included cost, lack of availability of veterinarians with livestock experience in the local area, and the fact they were comfortable performing common husbandry procedures (eg, vaccination, deworming, castration, dehorning, and beak trimming).17,25 Lack of access to or inconsistent use of veterinary care by owners of backyard poultry and livestock can have severe consequences and lead to the spread of contagious disease in those animals as well as commercial livestock. For example, the 2018-2019 virulent Newcastle Disease outbreak in California originated in backyard poultry flocks and spread to commercial flocks.12
The present survey was completed before implementation of the Veterinary Feed Directive26 (January 2017) and California Senate Bill 2727 (January 2018). Following implementation of those rules, all owners of animals classified by the FDA as food-producing animals must have a valid veterinary-client-patient relationship to administer antimicrobials in feed or water26 and a prescription to purchase medically important antimicrobials from California retailers.27 Therefore, the number of questions related to and requests for veterinary care of backyard poultry and livestock reported by the respondents of the present survey might underestimate the current needs for such services, particularly in California. Moreover, results of a 2018 study24 indicate that the available food animal veterinary capacity was inadequate to support implementation of the Veterinary Feed Directive in 728 of 3,140 (23.2%) US counties evaluated. The veterinary profession needs to consider how veterinary schools and colleges will prepare the next generation of professionals to meet the needs of conventional production livestock as well as the ever-increasing population of poultry and livestock in UPAs.
The consensus of the respondents of the present survey was that veterinarians played vital roles in guarding public health and preventing the spread of zoonotic diseases. The vast majority (786/844 [93%]) also indicated that they felt there were sufficient veterinarians in their practice areas to treat companion animal species; however, only a little more than half of respondents (436/829 [53%]) felt there were sufficient veterinarians in their practice areas to treat production animal species. We were somewhat concerned that only 51% (429/835) of respondents recognized that poultry and livestock in UPAs represent a public health risk. We could not discern whether that perception was based on the specific clientele of the respondents or their perception of the prevailing public opinion on the matter. No specific questions regarding the prevalence of zoonotic diseases were asked in the survey. The public health risks of UPA livestock production have been described.8,28–30 Recent multistate outbreaks of salmonellosis and Escherichia coli O157:H7 infections in human patients linked to direct contact with poultry in backyard flocks9 and calves31 and dairy goats32 in public settings (eg, petting zoos) and exposure to animal manure33 emphasize the potential risk for transmission of zoonotic diseases to humans through direct contact with live animals or proximity of livestock in UPAs.
Findings of the present survey supported recommendations of a 2013 US veterinary workforce study34 regarding future demand for specific veterinary services, including public health veterinarians. There appears to be a need and opportunities for collaboration among veterinary colleges, governmental agencies, and professional associations to build educational programs focused on public health and zoonotic disease risks associated with poultry and livestock maintained in UPAs. The identification of current perceptions and barriers to the provision of veterinary services to backyard poultry and small-scale livestock operations will facilitate the development of educational programs and public health information on that growing niche. In 2009, WSU Extension veterinarians presented an educational program entitled Pet Poultry Training, which was immensely popular, suggesting a need for education regarding poultry medicine in urban areas and an effective strategy on how to provide better care and disease prevention for backyard poultry populations.35 In fact, nearly half (413/841 [49%]) of respondents to the present survey indicated that they would be interested in such a program. Educational workshops on the husbandry and care of poultry in UPAs are relevant to public health because during a disease outbreak, all poultry will be regulated in the same manner regardless of whether the birds are part of a flock of 5 hens maintained in someone's backyard or a 100,000-hen commercial egg-producing flock. Backyard chickens, in particular, pose a public health risk because they are highly susceptible to HPAI, live in close proximity to and have frequent contact with humans, and are often maintained in areas with inadequate biosecurity to limit contact with wild birds.3
The increase in popularity of urban and peri-urban agriculture provides both challenges and opportunities for veterinarians. Providing veterinary service to owners of backyard poultry and livestock, who often view their animals as pets rather than production animals, requires a different approach and some different skills than providing veterinary service to owners of conventional or commercial livestock operations.6,35 This creates demand for and opportunities to develop CVME and outreach programs focused on poultry and livestock disease diagnosis and surveillance. Backyard poultry and livestock owners in UPAs are likely to seek veterinary services from local practitioners, most of whom work in companion animal only or companion animal predominant practices and who would benefit from poultry-focused and livestock-focused CVME. Rural veterinarians may also benefit from that type of CVME because many owners of backyard poultry and livestock may be agreeable to or desire more complex treatment options than those traditionally provided to animals in commercial livestock production systems.36 Development of effective partnerships with professional associations, veterinary colleges, and governmental agencies responsible for animal health and surveillance will facilitate creation of curricula intended to meet the demand for CVME regarding veterinary care of poultry and livestock in UPAs. It is also important for program providers to promote the fact that CVME activities offer value to participants, their practices, and their patients.37
The present survey had several limitations. The respondents may not have been representative of all urban and peri-urban veterinarians in the United States, but rather were representative of such veterinarians in only the 4 states surveyed (ie, the external validity of the survey may be limited). Also, although the survey targeted veterinarians who worked in metropolitan areas with populations > 5,000 people, 139 of 880 (15.8%) respondents self-reported that they worked in rural practices. Respondents were not provided with specific definitions for urban, peri-urban, and rural practices. Consequently, classification of a practice as urban, peri-urban, or rural was dependent on the interpretation of individual respondents, and misclassification was possible owing to the subjective nature of that interpretation and other factors.6 Additionally, the present survey, like any needs assessment, was subject to selection and nonresponse biases. No incentives were offered to the respondents of the present survey, and survey participation was dependent on respondents recognizing or acknowledging its importance and potential relevance to their practices. Surveys were completed or partially completed by 880 of the 2,400 veterinarians who were invited to participate, resulting in a 37% response rate, which is considered good for a population of health-care professionals who traditionally respond poorly to survey requests. It is possible the present survey was affected by coverage error because the sampling frame consisted of only current members of state-specific veterinary medical associations; thus, practitioners who chose to not join their state veterinary medical association for personal, financial, or ideological reasons were excluded from the survey. Despite the exclusion of practitioners who were not members of their state veterinary medical association from the survey, the sample size calculation was based on the total number of veterinarians licensed to practice veterinary medicine in the 4 respective states, and 880 respondents exceeded the calculated number of respondents necessary to achieve the desired precision and power for the survey.
Results of the present survey revealed that respondents, most of whom were companion animal practitioners, perceived that urban and peri-urban agriculture was increasing in popularity in California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington; however, respondents’ opinions regarding urban and peri-urban agriculture and backyard poultry and small-scale livestock operations varied substantially. There was a consensus that veterinarians played critical roles in guarding public health and preventing the spread of zoonotic diseases. Overall, respondents felt there were sufficient veterinarians in their practice areas to treat companion animal species, but few respondents were actively treating production animal or livestock species in UPAs. The provision of veterinary services to backyard poultry and livestock in those areas can be challenging because veterinarians who work in urban and peri-urban practices often lack the facilities, interest, or experience to examine and treat those types of animals. Nevertheless, poultry and livestock maintained in UPAs require veterinary services, and the veterinary profession has an opportunity to improve both the health and welfare of those animals as well as maintain its standing as a defender of public health.
Acknowledgments
Supported by WSU Veterinary Medicine Extension, the Consortium of Western Regional Colleges of Veterinary Medicine, and University of California-Davis start-up funds received by Dr. Pires.
The authors thank Jasmin Torres for assistance with survey development and delivery.
ABBREVIATIONS
CVME | Continuing Veterinary Medical Education |
HPAI | Highly pathogenic avian influenza |
MCA | Multiple correspondence analysis |
SESRC | Social and Economic Sciences Research Center |
UPA | Urban and peri-urban area |
WSU | Washington State University |
Footnotes
United States Census Bureau, Suitland, Md. Available at: www.census.gov/. Accessed May 21, 2015.
Excel, Microsoft Corp, Redmond, Wash.
R, version 3.6.1, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at: www.r-project.org/. Accessed Mar 3, 2020.
References
1. Brinkley C. Evaluating the benefits of peri-urban agriculture. J Plan Lit 2012;27:259–269.
2. Brinkley C, Kingsley JS, Mench J. A method for guarding animal welfare and public health: tracking the rise of backyard poultry ordinances. J Community Health 2018;43:639–646.
3. Elkhoraibi C, Blatchford RA, Pitesky ME, et al. Backyard chickens in the United States: a survey of flock owners. Poult Sci 2014;93:2920–2931.
4. Garber L, Hill G, Rodriguez J, et al. Non-commercial poultry industries: surveys of backyard and gamefowl breeder flocks in the United States. Prev Vet Med 2007;80:120–128.
5. Tobin MR, Goldshear JL, Price LB, et al. A framework to reduce infectious disease risk from urban poultry in the United States. Public Health Rep 2015;130:380–391.
6. McClintock N, Pallana E, Wooten H. Urban livestock ownership, management, and regulation in the United States: an exploratory survey and research agenda. Land Use Policy 2014;38:426–440.
7. Nickerson C, Ebel R, Borchers A, et al. Major uses of land in the United States, 2007. EIB-89, USDA Economic Research Service, December 2011.
8. Pollock SL, Stephen C, Skuridina N, et al. Raising chickens in city backyards: the public health role. J Community Health 2012;37:734–742.
9. CDC. Multistate outbreaks of human Salmonella infections linked to live poultry in backyard flocks. Available at: www.cdc.gov/salmonella/live-poultry-06-17/index.html. Accessed Jun 5, 2018.
10. Greger M. The human/animal interface: emergence and resurgence of zoonotic infectious diseases. Crit Rev Microbiol 2007;33:243–299.
11. Smith G, Dunipace S. How backyard poultry flocks influence the effort required to curtail avian influenza epidemics in commercial poultry flocks. Epidemics 2011;3:71–75.
12. USDA APHIS. USDA confirms virulent Newcastle disease in third commercial chicken flock in California. Available at: content. govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAAPHIS/bulletins/2277035. Accessed Jan 29, 2019.
13. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Virulent Newcastle disease. Available at: www.cdfa.ca.gov/ahfss/Animal_Health/Newcastle_Disease_Info.html. Accessed Jan 29, 2019.
14. USDA APHIS. 2016 HPAI preparedness and response plan. Available at: www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/downloads/animal_diseases/ai/hpai-preparedness-and-response-plan-2015.pdf. Accessed Jan 29, 2019.
15. Ramos S, MacLachan M, Melton A. Impacts of the 2014-2015 highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreak on the US poultry sector. LDPM-282-02, USDA Economic Research Service, December 2017.
16. Murillo AC, Mullens BA. Diversity and prevalence of ectoparasites on backyard chicken flocks in California. J Med Entomol 2016;53:707–711.
17. Pires AFA, Peterson A, Baron JN, et al. Small-scale livestock and backyard owners needs assessment in western United States. PLoS One 2019;14:e0212372.
18. AVMA. Market research statistics: US Veterinarians 2017. Available at: www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Statistics/Pages/Market-research-statistics-US-veterinarians-2017.aspx. Accessed Jan 24, 2019.
19. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM. Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2014.
20. Ayele D, Zewotir T, Mwambi H. Multiple correspondence analysis as a tool for analysis of large health surveys in African settings. Afr Health Sci 2014;14:1036–1045.
21. Costa PS, Santos NC, Cunha P, et al. The use of multiple correspondence analysis to explore associations between categories of qualitative variables in healthy ageing. J Aging Res 2013;2013:302163.
22. Kukielka EA, Jori F, Martínez-López B, et al. Wild and domestic pig interactions at the wildlife-livestock interface of Murchison Falls National Park, Uganda, and the potential association with African swine fever uutbreaks. Front Vet Sci 2016;3:31.
23. American Association of Public Opinion Research. Response rates—an overview. Available at: www.aapor.org/Education-Resources/For-Researchers/Poll-Survey-FAQ/Response-Rates-An-Overview.aspx. Accessed Jan 20, 2015.
24. Tack DM, McCool-Eye MJ, Kizer CR, et al. Exploration of veterinary shortages in the wake of the Veterinary Feed Directive. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2018;253:1334–1341.
25. Mainali C, Houston I. Small poultry flocks in Alberta: demographics and practices. Avian Dis 2017;61:46–54.
26. Veterinary Feed Directive FDA. (VFD), 80 FR 31707, 2015. Available at: www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/06/03/2015-13393/veterinary-feed-directive. Accessed Jan 29, 2019.
27. California Senate. Senate Bill 27 (SB-27) Livestock: use of antimicrobial drugs. Available at: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB27, 2015. Accessed Jan 29, 2019.
28. Kauber K, Fowler H, Lipton B, et al. Salmonella knowledge, attitudes and practices: a survey of backyard poultry owners residing in Seattle, Washington and the surrounding metropolitan area. Zoonoses Public Health 2017;64:21–28.
29. Grunkemeyer VL. Zoonoses, public health, and the backyard poultry flock. Vet Clin North Am Exot Anim Pract 2011;14:477–490 (vi).
30. Beam A, Garber L, Sakugawa J, et al. Salmonella awareness and related management practices in US urban backyard chicken flocks. Prev Vet Med 2013;110:481–488.
31. CDC. Multistate outbreak of multidrug-resistant Salmonella Heidelberg infections linked to contact with dairy calves (final update). Available at: www.cdc.gov/salmonella/heidelberg-11-16/index.html. Accessed Dec 2, 2018.
32. Laughlin M, Gambino-Shirley K, Gacek P, et al. Notes from the field: outbreak of Escherichia coli O157 infections associated with goat dairy farm visits—Connecticut, 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016;65:1453–1454.
33. Luna S, Krishnasamy V, Saw L, et al. Outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 infections associated with exposure to animal manure in a rural community—Arizona and Utah, June-July 2017. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2018;67:659–662.
34. IHS Center for Healthcare & Pharma and Center for Health Workforce Studies Report for AVMA. 2013 US veterinary workforce study: modeling capacity utilization. Available at: www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Reports/Documents/Veterinarian-Workforce-Final-Report.pdf. Accessed Jan 29, 2019.
35. Crespo R, Faux C, Dhillon SA, et al. Pet poultry training for veterinary practitioners. J Vet Med Educ 2010;37:383–387.
36. Marmulak T, Tell LA, Gehring R, et al. Egg residue considerations during the treatment of backyard poultry. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2015;247:1388–1395.
37. Moore DA, Klingborg DJ, Brenner JS, et al. Using focus groups for continuing veterinary medical education needs assessment and program planning. J Vet Med Educ 2002;29:101–104.
Appendix
Discriminatory values in dimensions 1 and 2 for the 38 variables (survey questions) included in the final MCA model used to categorize responses of 627 veterinarians from California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington who completed a survey designed to assess their level of interest and engagement with owners of urban and peri-urban poultry and livestock.
Discriminatory values (R2) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variable label | Variable type | Survey question | Dimension 1 | Dimension 2 | Mean |
Q02 | Exposure | To your knowledge, on a monthly basis, how often does your practice receive questions about husbandry or medical concerns for poultry or livestock species? | 0.34 | 0.04 | 0.19 |
Q03A | Exposure | Have you personally examined more than 2 poultry patients in the last 6 months? | 0.20 | 0.00 | 0.10 |
Q03B | Exposure | Have you personally examined more than 2 small ruminants in the last 6 months? | 0.57 | 0.01 | 0.29 |
Q03C | Exposure | Have you personally examined more than 2 swine in the last 6 months? | 0.41 | 0.02 | 0.21 |
Q03D | Exposure | Have you personally examined more than 2 cattle in the last 6 months? | 0.43 | 0.03 | 0.23 |
Q03D | Exposure | Have you personally examined more than 2 camelids in the last 6 months? | 0.42 | 0.05 | 0.24 |
Q04 | Exposure | Overall, how likely are you to examine or see poultry patients in your practice? | 0.26 | 0.05 | 0.16 |
Q05 | Exposure | Overall, how likely are you to examine or see small ruminant patients in your practice? | 0.63 | 0.08 | 0.36 |
Q06 | Exposure | Overall, how likely are you to examine or see swine patients in your practice? | 0.52 | 0.07 | 0.30 |
Q07 | Exposure | Overall, how likely are you to examine or see cattle patients in your practice? | 0.55 | 0.08 | 0.32 |
Q08A | Knowledge | How knowledgeable are you about answering animal husbandry questions about poultry? | 0.23 | 0.12 | 0.18 |
Q08B | Knowledge | How knowledgeable are you about answering animal husbandry questions about small ruminants? | 0.70 | 0.42 | 0.56 |
Q08C | Knowledge | How knowledgeable are you about answering animal husbandry questions about swine? | 0.62 | 0.30 | 0.44 |
Q08D | Knowledge | How knowledgeable are you about answering animal husbandry questions about cattle? | 0.62 | 0.38 | 0.50 |
Q08E | Knowledge | How knowledgeable are you about answering animal husbandry questions about camelids? | 0.61 | 0.25 | 0.43 |
Q09A | Knowledge | How skilled are you restraining poultry? | 0.23 | 0.13 | 0.18 |
Q09B | Knowledge | How skilled are you restraining small ruminants? | 0.65 | 0.39 | 0.52 |
Q09C | Knowledge | How skilled are you restraining swine? | 0.57 | 0.32 | 0.45 |
Q09D | Knowledge | How skilled are you restraining cattle? | 0.57 | 0.37 | 0.47 |
Q09E | Knowledge | How skilled are you restraining camelids? | 0.60 | 0.32 | 0.46 |
Q10A | Knowledge | How knowledgeable are you performing examinations on poultry? | 0.22 | 0.15 | 0.18 |
Q10B | Knowledge | How knowledgeable are you performing examinations on small ruminants? | 0.72 | 0.49 | 0.60 |
Q10C | Knowledge | How knowledgeable are you performing examinations on swine? | 0.62 | 0.41 | 0.51 |
Q10D | Knowledge | How knowledgeable are you performing examinations on cattle? | 0.65 | 0.46 | 0.55 |
Q10E | Knowledge | How knowledgeable are you performing examinations on camelids? | 0.61 | 0.36 | 0.48 |
Q11A | Knowledge | How knowledgeable are you diagnosing diseases in poultry? | 0.24 | 0.09 | 0.17 |
Q11B | Knowledge | How knowledgeable are you diagnosing diseases in small ruminants? | 0.72 | 0.39 | 0.56 |
Q11C | Knowledge | How knowledgeable are you diagnosing diseases in swine? | 0.60 | 0.31 | 0.46 |
Q11D | Knowledge | How knowledgeable are you diagnosing diseases in cattle? | 0.64 | 0.41 | 0.52 |
Q11E | Knowledge | How knowledgeable are you diagnosing diseases in camelids? | 0.61 | 0.26 | 0.44 |
Q16F | CVME | I have looked for CVME options for poultry or other small-scale livestock production courses. | 0.20 | 0.05 | 0.12 |
Q16G | CVME | I typically focus solely on companion animal CVME tracks but do not explore poultry or herd health options. | 0.12 | 0.05 | 0.09 |
Q16H | CVME | I feel that there is adequate CVME provided through state and national association meetings to provide veterinarians backyard or small-scale poultry medicine training. | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.03 |
Q16J | Knowledge | I would feel confident answering food safety or zoonotic disease questions about highly pathogenic avian infuenza in poultry. | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.09 |
Q16K | CVME | I would be interested in participating in a CVME program focused on poultry medicine. | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.07 |
Q16L | CVME | I would be interested in participating in a CVME program focused on other production species. | 0.32 | 0.06 | 0.19 |
Q18 | Demographics | What do you consider your practice type, primarily? | 0.55 | 0.07 | 0.31 |
Q19 | Demographics | How would you characterize your practice location? | 0.14 | 0.00 | 0.07 |
Discriminatory values > 0.6 were considered very high, > 0.4 to 0.6 were considered high, and > 0.2 to 0.4 were considered moderate.