Report

SUPERVISION OF BIOSECURITY AND

POULTRY HEALTH MANAGEMENT OF

BROILER FARMS SECTOR III IN

SUBANG DISTRICT

Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Institut Pertanian Bogor Indonesian - Dutch Partnership Program on Highly

Pathogenic Avian Influenza Control Dinas Peternakan of Subang District, West Java

2011

I. INTRODUCTION

I.1. Background

A baseline survey which was conducted by IPB and IDP in January 2010

showed that mortality in broiler farms sector III in Cipunegara sub-ditrict of

Subang was high, about 5.4% and the farms had low productivity. Level of

biosecurity measures practiced on the farms which is one of important factors for

improving poultry health was also still low with the average 46.7% out of 37

measures that should be applied on the farms. Farmers knowledge in farm and

poultry health management was very poor as well. Therefore biosecurity and

poultry health management advisors from Dinas Peternakan of Subang district

were trained and they regularly advised the farmers during weekly visits to apply

good farming practices.

Advice and supervision on biosecurity and poultry health management in

broiler farms sector III in Cipunagara Subdistrict started on October 2, 2010 and

ended in April 2011 (28 weeks). Results of the evaluation at the end of the

program recommended an extension and it was agreed to continue the program

until June 2011. Extension and advise covered the topics farm management,

poultry health, production, and biosecurity. This report covers the findings for the

period October 2010 to April 2011.

I.2. The Objectives

The objectives of the program are:

1. Improving of poultry management, health and biosecurity trough regular farm

visits by Dinas Peternakan advisors

2. Improvement of farm productivity

3. Improving Dinas staffs’ skills in poultry management, health, and biosecurity

4. Conducting surveillance of poultry disease in broiler farms sector III in

Cipunagara

II. ACTIVITIES

II.1. Time and Location

The program was conducted from October 2, 2010 to April 2011, and

subsequently extended to June 2011. The activity was conducted in 25 broiler

farms sector III in Cipunagara Subdistrict, Subang District, West Java Province.

II.2. Activity stage

The activity was carried out in the following stages:

1. Baseline survey

Baseline survey has aimed to collect data on of the biosecurity

condition and farm productivity. The survey was conducted in January

2010. The results of the survey have been reported separately.

2. Socialization of survey result

Results of the survey were socialized to the farmers during a

meeting on April 13, 2010. In this meeting, the farmers were asked for

their feedback regarding activities which could improve their farm

productivity. The farmers realized that they did not have good knowledge

regarding farm management, poultry health and biosecurity due to lack of

assistance from the government. Hence they needed advice on farm

management, poultry health and biosecurity to improve their farm

productivity.

3. Training of Trainer (TOT) for advisors

The would-be advisors were staff from Dinas Peternakan in

Subang who generally had some basic knowledge and education in

livestock production and animal health but were not yet specialists in

poultry health and management, and biosecurity. The TOT was aimed to

improve knowledge and skills of the advisors on biosecurity, poultry

health and poultry management. TOT was conducted from 3 to 5 August

2010. In addition to the TOT, weekly meetings (with Dinas, IPB and IDP

staff) were held during the first month of the program, and followed by

similar monthly meetings in the following months to evaluate supervision

activities in the field and to discuss and find solutions for problems

encountered during the farm visits in the field. Beside regular meetings, 3

additional training sessions were held for the advisors on biosecurity

measures (including a field visit) and vaccination policies and practices.

During the meetings the advisors were supervised by poultry management

and health experts both from Faculty of Veterinary Medicine of IPB and

IDP.

4. Assistance for the broiler farmers

The whole group of advisors consisted of ten people who were

divided into five teams, One team consisted of two officers. Every teams

supervised five farms, therefore 25 farmers were supervised in this

program.

The teams were allocated as in Table 1.

Table 1 The names of the advisor teams and farms supervised

Advisor team Farms supervised

drh. Sukirman and Tarjaya Nasim, Arianto, Ujang, Ade and Adut Rahmat Hidayat, A.Md and Asep Saefulloh, S.Pi

Ade Black, Sutarjo, Hasan, Toto and Ade Supriyatna

Eko Haryono, S.Pt and Nina Arifah, A.Md

Kastam, Nasir, Tono, Ade Kosasih and Rusli

Maman Tarsiman and Nana Suryana

Tarsim, Wisono, Marjuki, Sutarya and Hasim

R. Ginanjar Firmansyah W., A.Md and Deden Suharyo

H.Warsu, H. Dimyati, Sendin, Yusup and Carli

The activity of supervision consisted of:

• Every farmer was visited by the advisor team every week. Beside

regular visits, advisors assisted the farmer at shed preparation before

arrival of DOCs, vaccination and harvest time.

• Every farmer kept farm records which were kept on their farms and

in the logbook which was held by the advisor. Farms records consisted

of number of dead and culled birds, quantity (number of bags) of feed

consumption, vaccination, vitamin, diseases and treatment.

• During every visit the advisors record biosecurity practices in the farms,

bird weighing, checking farmers records and record it in logbook, and

give advice regarding poultry management, health, biosecurity and

vaccination.

• Blood samples were collected during every harvest time. The number of

collected samples were 20 birds/farm to measure antibody titer against

ND, gumboro, and avian influenza. This assay was performed to

evaluate vaccination.

• Tracheal swabs were collected of 10 birds/farm if there was mortality >

1% in 3 consecutive days.

• Weekly meetings between advisors and poultry health management

experts were performed in the first month of the intervention, and

followed by monthly meetings in the next four months.

• Results of serology test were discussed with the immunological and

poultry health experts in a special meeting separate from the regular

meetings.

• Additional meetings were performed to discuss specific topics which

were requested by advisors. The meeting consisted of lecture,

discussion and field visit.

The flow of activities is shown in Figure 1 .

Figure 1 Activity flow of assistance management, poultry health and biosecurity

for broiler farmers sector III in Cipunagara.

II.3. Farmers in the program

Farms participating in the program were broiler farms sector 3 in

Cipunagara. Total 25 farms participated and had in total 28 poultry sheds (cages)

for broiler production. Out of 25 farms, 18 farms were independent farms and 7

farms worked under contract with a poultry company. Until the end of April, 7

farms (9 cages) have completed 4 production cycles, 6 farms (6 cages) have

completed 3 production cycles, 9 farms (9 cages) completed 2 production cycles,

and 4 farms (4 cages) completed only 1 production cycle. Total number of

production cycles which have been supervised was 76. However, because there

was 1 production cycle in one farm that raised and harvested in one group broilers

of different age groups, therefore this cycle was not included, hence records of

75 production cycles were used. Out of theses 75 production cycles, 53 cycles

were independent farms and 22 cycles were contract farms.

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

III.1. Production

III.1.1. Type of Day Old Chick (DOC)

There were 4 types of DOC which were used by farmers, namely

Cobb, Ross, Lohman, and not branded. Percentage of DOC type used by

farmer was presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Type of DOC used by farmer

DOC Strain Number of cycles Persentage Remarks Cobb 37 55.1 34 independent, 3 contract Ross 7 10.1 2 independent, 5 contract Lohman 14 20.3 14 contract Not branded 16 23.2 16 independent Cobb and Lohman 1 1.5 1 independent Total 75 100

The reason for farmers to use DOC of unknown strain or origin (not

branded) was shortage of DOC in the market. In general not branded DOC

had low quality and low weight. Standard of weight of DOC is 37 gram,

while DOC that were received by the farmers were in the range 28.4 – 46

gram.

III.1.2. Period of production

Period of production was in the range from 19 – 34 days as shown in

Table 3.

Table 3 Period of chicken production (days)

Day of Slaughter (day)

Number of cycles Persentage (%)

Remarks

16 – 20 9 12.0 8 independent, 1 contract 21 – 25 31 41.3 25 independent, 6 contract 26 – 30 25 33.3 19 independent, 6 contract 31 - 35 10 13.3 10 contract Total 75* 100%

*Remarks: 1 farm production cycle was not included due to raising chickens of 3 different ages together.

Generally independent farms harvest broilers at early age namely in

the range 21 – 25 days, because of high market demand for young broilers.

Time of harvest and price for broilers on contract farms depended on the

company, therefore chickens were harvested at an age of more than 30 days

of age except for example when there was a disease on the farm.

Table 4 Age at selling/slaughter (days)

Farm type No of cycles Average age Standard deviation Independent 53 24.2 3.2 Contract 22 28.2 3.6 Total

75

25.4

3.8

III.1.3. Mortality

Distribution of mortality for all cycles are presented in the Table 5.

The highest mortality (more than 9%) were found in two farms i.e. Sutarjo

A farm in the cycle I (10,38%), and Toto farm in the cycle II (30,40%).

The high mortality in Sutarjo A farm was due to predation by cats, while in

Toto farm was because of omphalitis considered as bad quality of DOC.

Omphalities is a bacterial disease of poultry that involves the inflammation

of the navel. It is a disease that infects very young chicks, in the first few

days of their lives.

The average and standard deviation of mortality were 4.25% ±

3.69%. If it is adjusted with taken out of extreme mortality (mortality

10.38% and 30.40%), average and standard deviation of mortality were

3.81% ± 1.94%.

Table 5 Mortality distribution of 75 observed cycles

Mortality Rate (%) Number of cycles Percentage Remarks 0 - 1 7 9.33 7 independent

>1 – 2 7 9.33 7 independent >2 - 3 13 17.33 6 independent, 7 contract >3 – 4 16 21.33 11 independent, 5 contract >4 – 5 10 13.33 7 independent , 3 contract >5 - 6 8 10.67 5 independent, 3 contract >6 - 7 9 12.00 6 independent, 3 contract >7 - 8 2 2.67 1 independent, 1 contract >8 - 9 1 1.33 1 independent

>9 2 2.67 2 independent Total 75 100

III.1.4. Body weight at harvest

Body weight at harvest in each farm varies due to variation in harvest

age. In most production cycles the body weight is below standard (Annex 1),

in fact for all except the group of contract farmers the average body weight

is below the standard. See table 6. In this study we use the broiler

performance standard from PT. Charoen Pokphand Indonesia, Tbk. which

was implemented in the field. We use this standard because that company is

the common supplier for broiler farms in Subang (DOC, feed, etc).

Table 6 The average of body weight at slaughter for every cycle period and type

of farms

Farms Number of Cycle

Slaughter Day

Body Weight at Slaughter (g)

Standard deviation

(g)

% flocks above the

Standard of Body Weight

Cycle

1st cycle 27 24.8 1132.3 319.3 40.7

2nd cycle 24 26.0 1240.3 336.9 45.8

3rd cycle 15 26.5 1298.2 372.3 20.0

4th cycle 9 23.6 1060.2 202.3 22.2

Total 75 25.4 1191.4 328.9 36.0

Type of Farms

Independent 53 24.2 1067.8 243.5 26.4

Contract 22 28.2 1489.1 321.2 59.1

Total 75 25.4 1191.4 328.9 36.0

Figure 2 Percentage of flocks which reached body weight above standard at

harvest.

III.1.5. Feed Conversion Rate (FCR)

FCR (Feed Conversion Rate) is a tool to measure the efficiency of feed

consumption in relation to body weight gain. FCR is the kg of feed

consumed per kg weight gain and is calculated with total feed consumption

divided by total body weight at harvest. Therefore a lower FCR shows a

more efficient feed conversion. FCR varies depending on chicken age at

harvest. FCR will increase with increasing age of chickens. Standard of

FCR for each age of broiler chicken was shown at Annex 1. The FCR at

slaughter for every cycle period and type of farms is presented in Table 7.

Generally contract farms had a less efficient FCR compared to the

standard because the feed is provided by the company and farmers tend to

give more feed to reach maximum body weight. Figure 3 shows the

percentage of flocks which have more efficient FCR than the standard for

each of the production cycles. This figure shows that the percentage of

flocks which have a more efficient FCR increased. This means the

utilization of feed compared with bodyweight gain was efficient.

Table 7 The FCR at slaughter for every cycle period and type of farms

Farms Cycle % flocks better

than the Standard of FCR

Average Index of

Performance (IP)

Standard deviation

of IP

Cycle

1st cycle 27 33.3 302.3 61.4

2nd cycle 24 70.8 350.7 90.0

3rd cycle 15 60.0 353.5 75.3

4th cycle 9 66.7 344.9 88.9

Total 75 54.7 333.1 79.5

Type of Farms

Independent 53 60.4 330.4 88.4

Contract 22 40.9 339.7 53.5

Total 75 54.7 333.1 79.5

The FCR is generally less efficient compared to the standard, except

for the category 4th cycle and the category independent farmers where the

FCR is slightly more efficient than the standard.

Figure 3 Percentage of flocks which have a more efficient FCR

compared to standard in each production cycle.

III.1.6. Index of Performance (IP)

Index of performance (IP) is a tool to measure and compare the

performance of farms. The IP is a parameter which combines the feed

efficiency, the differences in final weight and the number of days reared in

one formula and makes it possible to compare the results of a broader range

of broiler flocks.

IP is calculated with the following formula:

Where: m = mortality rate (%) BW = average body weight (in kg) FCR = Feed conversion rate Age = Age of harvest (days)

Index of performance is divided into four categories as shown in the

Table 8.

Table 8 Category of farm performance based on IP value

Index of performance

Category

<200 Poor

200 – 250 Moderate

>250 – 300 Good

>300 Very good

For all categories of poultry the average Index of Performance is in

the category ‘Very Good’.

Figure 4 presents the percentage of IP category for each flock for

every production cycle. This figure showed that IP increased for each

production cycle.

Figure 4 Percentage of IP category for each flock on every production cycle.

The average of IP for all cycles was in the category very good with

the average more than 300. The IP showed an increase for every production

cycle. The average of IP for each production cycles presented in Table 7 and

Figure 5.

Figure 5 Average of IP for each production cycles.

Generally, contract farms had good IP ( (>300). 17 flocks from the

22 flocks on contract farms had an IP higher than 300 (Table 7). This is

because on contract farms, all farm needs such as feed, vitamin and vaccine

were provided by the company, while independent farm must provide all

these inputs by themselves and they are not always able to do meet the exact

requirements for the chickens.

Table 9 The index of performance (IP) distribution of independent and

contract farms

Index of Performance Number of flocks Remarks < 200 2 2 independent

200 - 250 8 7 independent, 1 contract > 250 - 300 16 12 independent, 4 contract

> 300 49

32 independent, 17 contract

Total 75

III.2. Vaccination

Most farmers applied the ND I and IBD I vaccination on the farms. AI

vaccination and IBD II was only done by the contract farms. Distribution of

vaccination application on the farm for each production cycle is presented in

Table 10. Contract farmers did not vaccinate against ND I because they received

DOC which were vaccinated against ND at the hatchery. At the contract farms,

vaccination programs followed the vaccination program that had been determined

by the company.

Table 10 Distribution of vaccination application on the farm for each production

cycle

Production Cycle Vaccination I (%)

n=27 II (%) n=24

III (%) n=15

IV (%) n=9

ND I 96.3 100 93.3 88.9

ND II 11.1 12.5 0.0 0.0

IBD I 66.7 75.0 80.0 66.7

IBD II 14.8 4.2 0.0 0.0

AI 3.7 4.2 0.0 0.0

Farmers generally slaughtered the chickens at the age of 21 to 25 days so

that the ND and IBD vaccination was only done once.

Each farm was given a vaccination protocol to ensure that farmers could

vaccinate properly and obtain a good protection against the diseases. Before

vaccination farmers must notified the advisor to enable the advisors to provide

assistance and guidance during the vaccination implementation. Vaccinations

were evaluated at the end of each production cycle by taking serum samples from

20 chickens/farm at harvest time and testing the antibody titer against ND, IBD

and AI in the Laboratory in Cikole, which is the diagnostic laboratory of Dinas

Peternakan of West Java Province. Results of laboratory tests were discussed

with the immunology and poultry health experts and the results were

communicated to with the farmers.

III.3. Serological Test Result for Vaccination Evaluation

Serological tests were carried out to evaluate the antibody titer against

Newcastle Disease (ND), Infectious bursal disease (IBD / Gumboro) and Avian

Influenza (AI). Positive and negative criteria for AI and ND are according to OIE

standards, which is negative if 2log (antibody titer) < 4, and positive if 2log

(antibody titer) ≥ 4. The positive and negative criteria for IBD was following the

manual ELISA kit used in Cikole Diagnostic Laboratory, which is negative if 2log

(antibody titer) < 8, and positive if 2log (antibody titer) ≥ 8. Serological test results

were presented in Table 11.

Table 11 The results of serological tests against ND, IBD and AI

Diseases

The Frequency

of Vaccination

Negative Positive Total

0 3 0 3

1 47 0 47

2 4 1 5

Total 54 1 55

ND

% 98.2 1.8 100

0 14 5 19

1 24 10 34

2 0 2 2

Total 38 17 55

IBD

% 69.1 30.9 100

0 53 0 53

1 2 0 2

Total 55 0 55

AI

% 100 0 100

Table 12 Application time of vaccination and growing period of chickens (days)

Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation

ND 1 0*) 6 3.6 1.1

ND 2 17 19 18.3 0.8

IBD 1 0*) 18 12.4 3.0

IBD 2 19 21 19.4 0.9

AI 7 7 7.0 0.0 Growing Period 19 34 25.4 3.8

*)Vaccination was done in hatchery

HI test results for ND show only one farm with a positive antibody titer,

namely one of the five flocks which was vaccinated twice in one production cycle.

For the farms which vaccinate ND twice the first vaccination is usually performed

on day 4and the second one between day 17 until 19. Because the chickens were

generally sold between day 22 and 25 the antibody titer had not yet increased after

the vaccination. On farms which vaccinated only once antibody titers had

decreased at time of selling so they also showed negative results.

The first IBD vaccination was generally performed on day 12 and the

second vaccination on day 19. The results of ELISA test showed that the two

farms that vaccinated for IBD twice obtained positive results. As for the farms

which vaccinated once 10 of 34 farms showed positive test results. The time

between the first IBD vaccination and slaughter was 2 weeks. At that time there

had been an increase in antibody titer to obtain a positive test result. As for the

few farms that had negative test results this was possibly caused by a low vaccine

doses or improper vaccination procedure. With the aim to improve the

vaccination results the farmers were provided with a protocol and the and the

advisors must be present at the farms at the vaccination time to provide guidance

to farmers regarding the dose and procedure of application.

Some farms which were not vaccinated against IBD showed a positive

ELISA test results. That farms must be wary because there is the possibility that

their farm is infected with IBD. Those farmers were advised to disinfect the shed

properly in order to kill the IBD virus, for example by using disinfectant

concentration two times theusual concentration and to give formaldehyde.

In general farmers did not do AI vaccination. AI vaccination was only

done on one farm, and the results of HI test against the AI showed negative results

in all flocks.

III.4. Disease Outbreak Report

One of the activities during supervisor program was to take tracheal

swabs from 10 birds/farm if there was mortality > 1% in 3 consecutive days at

that farm.

Advisors to Kastam's farm reported that there were high mortality for 3

consecutive days. High mortality occurred from day 20 in the first and again in

the second cycle during assistance program. The number of deaths during

outbreaks in the two cycles are presented in Table 13.

Table 13 The outbreak history at Kastam’s Farm

Day Mortality (head) Cycle I (N = 3000)

20 28 21 15 22 25 23 (go to slaughter) 50

Cycle II (N = 3100) 20 5 21 5 22 21 23 57 24 (go to slaughter) 161

Advisors took 15 tracheal swabs in both cycles and sent the samples to the

Diagnostic Laboratory in Cikole, Bandung. The PCR test results were H5

positive, which confirmed that the farm was infected with avian influenza.

The advisors investigated the farm and interviewed the farmer. The farm

was a contract farm. The farmer informed that in the first cycle he received the

feed from the company which had first been on another farm but was surplus after

selling the chickens. Partner companies usually send the feed every two weeks. In

the second cycle the farmer received a visit from a friend who works at the poultry

slaughter house. The farmis surrounded by a bamboo garden and located away

from settlements.

From the investigation result there is the possibility that the infection is

transmitted through feed provided by the company. The incubation period for AI

ranges from 3 to 7 days, and in this case the feed arrived on day 14and the

outbreak occurred on day 20. After that the shed was empty for 5 weeks.

However, it is assumed that the disinfection process implemented on the farm did

not kill the AI virus and the outbreak occurred again in the next flock.

Biosecurity recommendations for the farmer wereto disinfect the shed

using formaldehyde to kill and eradicate the virus; not to accept feed waste or

feed from another farm; and to control the traffic of people, animals and vehicles

visiting the farm. Further not allow visitors to enter, except with the owner’s

permission and using special clothing.

III.5. Biosecurity Measures

In general, the application of biosecurity on farms showed an increase,

especially for biosecurity practices which can be implemented without any cost or

at low cost.

Of the 32 biosecurity items that were recommended to be applied on the

farms, only one was not implemented by the farmers, namely safe storing and

disposal of manure. In the handling of manure, farmers usually remove the

manure immediately after harvest and transport it to be used as fertilizer. Farmers

never store manure for a long time at their farms.

Biosecurity practices which were applied by only a few farmers (<10%)

until the 28th week of supervision were cleaning & disinfection of vehicles, as

well as providing special farm clothing. Other biosecurity practices that

application were also applied by few farmers (3.27%) were providing farm boots

and insect control.

Locking the gates, control of wild birds and control of rodent and other

animals entering the farm were only done by 36.4% of farmers. All in all out was

only practiced by 45.5% of farmers, while other farmers sold their poultry

gradually ( e.g. every 1 or 2 days) over a short period.

Biosecurity measures applied by the farmers from the first week of

supervision until the 28th week are described in detail in Table 15.

Table 14 showed the implementation of biosecurity measures (%) in week

1 and week 28, and Table 15 showed the percentage of farmers who apply the 32

items of biosecurity in broiler farms sector 3 of the initial assistance program

(week 1) until the week 28th.

Table 14 The implementation of biosecurity measures (%) in week 1st and week

28th.

Farms applying the biosecurity measure (%)

Week 1 Week 28 No Biosecurity measure

n=25 n=22

1 Fencing surrounding the farm 24.0 54.5 2 Lock on front of gate 12.0 36.4 3 Stop sign at entrance 40.0 100.0 4 Biosecurity manual 68.0 100.0 5 Keep visitors log 80.0 100.0 6 Lock on all poultry houses 88.0 100.0 7 Record name breeding farm,

location of breeding farm 64.0 86.4

8 Record mortality (including culled bird)

72.0 100.0

9 All-in all-out n/a 50.0

10 Separate all poultry species (include water fowl)

88.0 100.0

11 Separate age classes of poultry

100.0 95.5

12 Clean spilled feed 40.0 95.5 13 Protect feed store from rodent and

wild bird) 28.0 77.3

14 Cleaning and disinfection between flocks

100.0 100.0

15 Dead bird removal from shed at least 3 times per day

40.0 90.9

16 safe disposal of dead birds (burning, burying, composting)

52.0 90.9

17 Sign at entry restricting visitors

44.0 100.0

18 Remove manure after harvest 100.0 100.0 19 Storing and disposal manure

safely 0.0 0.0

20 Cleaning and disinfection of equipment and tools

76.0 100.0

21 Cleaning & disinfection of vehicles

0.0 9.1

22 Having hand wash facilities on the farm

48.0 95.5

23 Provide farm clothing

4.0 9.1

24 Provide farm boots 20.0 50.0

25 Washing hands before and after entering the poultry house

32.0 95.5

26 Boot cleaning and Disinfection action before entering the shed

20.0 77.3

27 Insect Control 8.0 27.3 28 Make the shed Wild bird proof 16.0 40.9

29 Rodent Control for other animal

8.0 45.5

30 Scavening dogs and cat control 12.0 54.5

31 Control of open water (drainage, water lakes)

32.0 86.4

32 Control of vegetation around the farm

32.0 86.4

Average 43.5 73.6

Table 15 The percentage of farmers who apply the 32 items of biosecurity

in broiler farms sector 3 of the initial assistance program (week 1)

until the week 28th

Week

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 No Biosecurity

n=25 n=25 n=25 n=25 n=25 n=25 n=25 n=25 n=25 n=25 n=25 n=25 n=24 n=24

1 Fencing surrounding the farm

24.0 32.0 40.0 48.0 44.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 50.0 50.0

2 Lock on front of gate

12.0 12.0 20.0 28.0 28.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 33.3 33.3

3 Stop sign at entrance

40.0 68.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

4 Biosecurity manual

68.0 88.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

5 Keep visitors log

80.0 96.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

6 Lock on all poultry houses

88.0 88.0 88.0 92.0 92.0 96.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

7 Record name and location breeding farm

64.0 72.0 76.0 80.0 76.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 84.0 83.3 83.3

8 Record mortality (including culled bird)

72.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

9 All-in all-out

n/a 66.7 44.0 44.0 44.0 44.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 50.0 50.0

10 Separate all poultry species (include water fowl)

88.0 88.0 92.0 96.0 92.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

11 Separate age classes of poultry

100.0 100.0 96.0 96.0 92.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 95.8 95.8

12 Clean spilled feed

40.0 80.0 88.0 96.0 92.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 95.8 95.8

13 Protect feed store from rodent and wild bird)

28.0 48.0 56.0 64.0 68.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 75.0 75.0

14 Cleaning and disinfection between flocks

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

15 Dead bird removal from shed at least 3 times per day

40.0 64.0 80.0 84.0 80.0 84.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 92.0 92.0 92.0 91.7 91.7

16 safe disposal of dead birds (burning, burying, composting)

52.0 72.0 84.0 88.0 88.0 92.0 92.0 92.0 92.0 92.0 92.0 92.0 91.7 91.7

17 Sign at entry restricting visitors

44.0 76.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

18 Remove manure after harvest

100.0 100.0 96.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

19 Storing and disposal manure safely

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20 Cleaning and disinfection of equipment and tools

76.0 88.0 96.0 100.0 96.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

21 Cleaning & disinfection of vehicles

0.0 8.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.3 8.3

22 Having hand wash facilities on the farm

48.0 72.0 84.0 88.0 92.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 95.8 95.8

23 Provide farm clothing

4.0 12.0 12.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.5 12.5

24 Provide farm boots

20.0 36.0 36.0 52.0 48.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 50.0 50.0

25 Washing hands before and after entering the poultry house

32.0 72.0 84.0 96.0 92.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 95.8 95.8

26 Boot cleaning and Disinfection action before entering the shed

20.0 60.0 64.0 76.0 72.0 76.0 76.0 76.0 76.0 76.0 76.0 76.0 75.0 75.0

27 Insect Control

8.0 20.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 25.0 25.0

28 Make the shed Wild bird proof

16.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 32.0 32.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 37.5 37.5

29 Rodent Control for other animal

8.0 24.0 32.0 40.0 40.0 44.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 41.7 41.7

30 Scavening dogs and cat control

12.0 28.0 36.0 44.0 44.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 54.2 54.2

31 Control of open water (drainage, water lakes)

32.0 60.0 76.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 87.5 87.5

32 Control of vegetation around the farm

32.0 24.0 40.0 68.0 76.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 87.5 87.5

IV. CONCLUSION

During the implementation of the program there was an increase in the

application of biosecurity measures in poultry farms sector 3, especially for measures

that did not require any or only little cost. The implementation of the following

measures increased from being applied at less than 50 % of the farms to 100% or

almost 100%. Stop sign at entrance, cleaning spilled feed, sign at entrance restricting

visitors, dead bird removal 3 x per day, having hand washing facilities on the farm,

washing hands before and after entering the poultry house, control of open water

(drainages, lakes), and control of vegetation around the farm.

The parameters used to measure productivity were not conclusive and were not

easily comparable. There is an indication that the productivity during the 1ste cycle

was lower but no significant difference could be found between the subsequent 2nd,

3rd and 4th cycle and further studies are needed with a longer cycle of observation to

prove whether the increase is caused by the supervision program.

Contract farms have in average a slightly higher biosecurity score compared to

independent farms. Flock size is more than 3 times higher in contract farms, while size

of the shed is almost 4 times bigger. Broilers are reared at contract farms in average for

28 days, which is 4 days more than on independent farms. Broilers from contract farms

are in average over 400 grams heavier when they are sold. IP indexes are similar for

both groups of farms, but the feed conversion (kg feed per kg growth) is quite a bit

higher in contract farms compared to the independent farms.

Through regular visits and discussions with the Dinas staff in this supervision

program, the farmers have obtained a better level of knowledge of farm management,

poultry health and biosecurity. The staff from the Subang District Livestock Office

also gets the benefit from the training and the working experience in the program and

this increases the capacity of Dinas in the fields of farm management, poultry health,

socialization and biosecurity.

In order to sustain the program commitment and good cooperation with the

stakeholders and government is required in addition to sufficient funding for running

such a program.

Annex 1.

DAILY PERFORMANCE STANDARD FOR BROILER

Age (Day)

Chicken weight (gram)

Feed consumption (gram/head)

Cumulative feed consumption (gram/head)

Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR)

1 67 9.0 9.0 0.13

2 89 14.0 23.0 0.26

3 111 18.0 41.0 0.37

4 133 22.0 63.0 0.47

5 155 27.0 90.0 0.58

6 177 33.0 123.0 0.69

7 200 37.0 160.0 0.80

8 236 41.0 201.0 0.85

9 272 45.0 246.0 0.90

10 308 50.0 296.0 0.96

11 344 54.0 350.0 1.02

12 380 59.0 409.0 1.08

13 433 63.0 472.0 1.09

14 486 70.0 542.0 1.12

15 543 75.9 617.9 1.14

16 602 81.9 699.8 1.16

17 663 87.7 787.5 1.19

18 727 93.7 881.2 1.21

19 793 99.6 980.8 1.24

20 862 105.3 1086.1 1.26

21 932 110.8 1196.9 1.28

22 1004 116.6 1313.5 1.31

23 1077 122.5 1436.0 1.33

24 1153 128.5 1564.5 1.36

25 1230 134.4 1698.9 1.38

26 1308 140.0 1838.9 1.41

27 1387 145.6 1984.5 1.43

28 1467 150.8 2135.3 1.46

29 1549 155.8 2291.1 1.48

30 1631 160.7 2451.8 1.50

31 1714 165.2 2617.0 1.53

32 1797 169.1 2786.1 1.55

33 1881 172.5 2958.6 1.57

34 1965 175.8 3134.4 1.60

35 2049 179.0 3313.4 1.62

Age (Day)

Chicken weight (gram)

Feed consumption (gram/head)

Cumulative feed consumption (gram/head)

Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR)

36 2134 181.7 3495.1 1.64

37 2218 184.3 3679.4 1.66

38 2302 186.8 3866.2 1.68

39 2386 189.1 4055.3 1.70

40 2469 191.1 4246.4 1.72

41 2552 193.0 4439.4 1.74

42 2634 194.7 4634.1 1.76 Adapted from PT. Charoen Pokphand Indonesia, Tbk. which was implemented in the field.