Tion near water sources, which serve as a congregation point for

Tion near water sources, which serve as a congregation point for wild birds, waterfowl, and pests, increases the likelihood of disease transmission. These potential risks associated with disease reservoirs and vectors are similar with findings from other studies. For example, wild birds most frequently reported visiting poultry houses were sparrows and European starlings, both of which are susceptible to experimental highly pathogenic H5N1 infection and excrete high viral titers [29]. Another study conducted in an artificial barnyard setting found that mallards recently infected with H5N2 and H7N3 could transmit influenza A virus to chickens, blackbirds, rats, 12926553 and pigeons demonstrating the potential for disease to spread by wild birds and pests [30]. All owners of AI seroconverted flocks, as well as most AI seronegative flocks, also allowed visitors onto their poultry premises. A higher volume of traffic on the premises potentially increases the risk of introducing disease via fomites as visitors’ vehicles, boots, and clothing may carry pathogens. Several outbreak investigations have linked fomites in connection with disease spread, such as the 1983 HPAI H5N2 outbreak in Pennsylvania and Virginia commercial poultry which was associated with human and equipment traffic from New York live bird 47931-85-1 markets [31]. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to report associations between biosecurity management practices and disease prevalence/seroprevalence of AI among backyard flocks located within close proximity to the Delmarva commercial poultry region. However, this study was subject to some limitations. The overall response rate of this study (4.1 ) was relatively poor, but believed to stem from the concern over theTable 5. Univariate analysis of categorical biosecurity variables (P#0.25).Variable Diarrhea CP21 Location Pest control WaterfowlDescription Reported within past 6 mo. North vs. other regions Implemented pest control Exposed to wild waterfowlPrevalence Ratio 2.84 2.80 2.50 3.95 Confidence Interval 0.939?.596 0.672?1.670 0.601?0.394 1.116?.P-value 0.075 0.122 0.165 0.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056851.tBiosecurity in Maryland Backyard PoultryTable 6. Multivariate logistic regression (P#0.25).Table 7. Backward selection stepwise logistic regression model to examine association between biosecurity risk factors and AI seroprevalence (P#0.05).0.133 0.104 0.380 0.204 0.942 0.736 Time owned Visit comm. Location How many 1516647 years kept poultry How often visit commercial sites North vs. other regions 0.154 0.713 2.379 0.127 0.080 0.Variable Time owned Visit comm. Diarrhea Location Pest control WaterfowlDescription How many years kept poultry How often visit commercial sites Reported within past 6 mo. North vs. other regions Implemented pest control Exposed to wild waterfowlCoefficient P-value 0.613 2.701 21.314 2.500 20.107 18.377 Variable Description Coefficient P-valuedoi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056851.tdoi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056851.tmandatory reporting of flock positives to the State Veterinarian and potential repercussions, such as “Hold Orders” that restrict the movement of birds onto or off the premises, as well as the stigma attached to having an infectious disease. A larger sample size may have also increased the ability of this study to detect significant associations between biosecurity risk factors and disease prevalence. While association could be hypothesized based on proportional analysis, wide confidence intervals indicate.Tion near water sources, which serve as a congregation point for wild birds, waterfowl, and pests, increases the likelihood of disease transmission. These potential risks associated with disease reservoirs and vectors are similar with findings from other studies. For example, wild birds most frequently reported visiting poultry houses were sparrows and European starlings, both of which are susceptible to experimental highly pathogenic H5N1 infection and excrete high viral titers [29]. Another study conducted in an artificial barnyard setting found that mallards recently infected with H5N2 and H7N3 could transmit influenza A virus to chickens, blackbirds, rats, 12926553 and pigeons demonstrating the potential for disease to spread by wild birds and pests [30]. All owners of AI seroconverted flocks, as well as most AI seronegative flocks, also allowed visitors onto their poultry premises. A higher volume of traffic on the premises potentially increases the risk of introducing disease via fomites as visitors’ vehicles, boots, and clothing may carry pathogens. Several outbreak investigations have linked fomites in connection with disease spread, such as the 1983 HPAI H5N2 outbreak in Pennsylvania and Virginia commercial poultry which was associated with human and equipment traffic from New York live bird markets [31]. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to report associations between biosecurity management practices and disease prevalence/seroprevalence of AI among backyard flocks located within close proximity to the Delmarva commercial poultry region. However, this study was subject to some limitations. The overall response rate of this study (4.1 ) was relatively poor, but believed to stem from the concern over theTable 5. Univariate analysis of categorical biosecurity variables (P#0.25).Variable Diarrhea Location Pest control WaterfowlDescription Reported within past 6 mo. North vs. other regions Implemented pest control Exposed to wild waterfowlPrevalence Ratio 2.84 2.80 2.50 3.95 Confidence Interval 0.939?.596 0.672?1.670 0.601?0.394 1.116?.P-value 0.075 0.122 0.165 0.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056851.tBiosecurity in Maryland Backyard PoultryTable 6. Multivariate logistic regression (P#0.25).Table 7. Backward selection stepwise logistic regression model to examine association between biosecurity risk factors and AI seroprevalence (P#0.05).0.133 0.104 0.380 0.204 0.942 0.736 Time owned Visit comm. Location How many 1516647 years kept poultry How often visit commercial sites North vs. other regions 0.154 0.713 2.379 0.127 0.080 0.Variable Time owned Visit comm. Diarrhea Location Pest control WaterfowlDescription How many years kept poultry How often visit commercial sites Reported within past 6 mo. North vs. other regions Implemented pest control Exposed to wild waterfowlCoefficient P-value 0.613 2.701 21.314 2.500 20.107 18.377 Variable Description Coefficient P-valuedoi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056851.tdoi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056851.tmandatory reporting of flock positives to the State Veterinarian and potential repercussions, such as “Hold Orders” that restrict the movement of birds onto or off the premises, as well as the stigma attached to having an infectious disease. A larger sample size may have also increased the ability of this study to detect significant associations between biosecurity risk factors and disease prevalence. While association could be hypothesized based on proportional analysis, wide confidence intervals indicate.