Study finds biosecurity gaps among livestock workers in Armenia, Moldova

A new Frontiers in Veterinary Science study adds fresh evidence that personal biosecurity remains uneven among livestock producers and veterinarians in Armenia and the Republic of Moldova, with gaps that could sustain zoonotic disease risk on farms and in rural communities. Surveying nearly 1,000 participants across the two countries, the researchers found inconsistent PPE use, risky handling practices around abortion materials and carcasses, and continued sale of unpasteurized milk products, even as many respondents recognized that zoonotic transmission is possible. (frontiersin.org)

The paper builds on a 2024 baseline study in Georgia that used a similar survey tool, giving FAO and academic partners a comparable regional picture across parts of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. That earlier work had already suggested that self-reported knowledge does not always translate into consistent protective behavior. In the Armenia-Moldova study, the same pattern appears again, now with a stronger emphasis on how education, communication, and perceived risk shape whether people actually adopt protective measures. That broader knowledge-behavior gap is also showing up in other recent Frontiers zoonoses research: a 2023–2024 survey of 326 people in rural hunting, bushmeat, and wildlife-trade communities in Gabon found that 72.7% had heard of zoonotic diseases, but 69.3% still had poor overall knowledge, and up to 31% were uncertain how to respond in high-risk situations. (frontiersin.org)

The study included 387 livestock producers and 113 veterinarians in Armenia, and 373 livestock producers and 100 veterinarians in Moldova. According to the paper, the findings revealed preventive gaps including failure to use PPE when handling abortion materials or disposing of carcasses. Risky practices also remained common: more than 60% of livestock producers in both countries reported selling unpasteurized products, and the authors flagged feeding viscera to pets as another ongoing concern. At the same time, 40% of livestock producers said they had no formal zoonoses training, while more than 80% said they wanted more information. (frontiersin.org)

There were also notable country-level differences. Armenian livestock producers reported stronger hand-hygiene and more frequent washing of farm-dedicated clothing, while Moldovan producers reported better avoidance of field carcass disposal. The paper also found a sharp difference in zoonotic awareness: 95% of Armenian livestock producers believed zoonotic transmission was possible, compared with 42% in Moldova. Among veterinarians, self-reported knowledge was generally high, and greater self-reported knowledge was associated with improved hygiene and more appropriate PPE use in specific situations. (frontiersin.org)

The study does not appear to include outside expert quotes, but it does align with broader FAO work in the region showing that livestock-sector surveys often uncover knowledge gaps and inappropriate practices that need follow-up training and system support. In Armenia, for example, FAO reported in 2023 that a national livestock-sector antimicrobial use survey identified knowledge gaps and inappropriate practices, and said the results would inform interventions, capacity building, and stronger regulatory frameworks. The same basic lesson is visible outside the livestock setting too. In Gabon, researchers studying rural hunting communities found that knowledge levels varied significantly by location and age, while prevention attitudes were generally positive despite weak practical preparedness. That combination lends weight to the new paper’s conclusion that biosecurity behavior is shaped not only by awareness, but also by access, habit, communication, and institutional support. (fao.org)

Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, this is less about isolated PPE compliance and more about the reliability of the disease-prevention chain. Veterinarians are often the main bridge between public health guidance and on-farm practice, yet the study suggests that communication between producers and veterinarians is still not fully translating into safer behavior. If producers continue to sell unpasteurized products, mishandle abortion materials, or allow risky pet feeding practices, occupational exposure can extend into household and community risk. In that sense, the findings matter not just for clinician safety, but for surveillance, outbreak prevention, and confidence in One Health implementation at the local level. The comparison with the Gabon hunting-community study is useful here: in both settings, people with regular animal exposure often reported at least some awareness of zoonotic disease, but that did not reliably produce strong practical preparedness. (frontiersin.org)

The policy backdrop also matters. Moldova’s national animal health authority maintains active animal health zoning and veterinary oversight resources, while Armenia has been the focus of FAO-backed livestock and antimicrobial stewardship work in recent years. The new study argues that those institutional structures need to be matched with context-specific training, affordable PPE, and stronger veterinary services if behavior change is going to stick. That is also consistent with the Gabon authors’ call for sustained, culturally adapted, community-based One Health interventions rather than one-off messaging. For field veterinarians, regulators, and industry groups alike, the practical message is similar: awareness campaigns alone probably will not be enough. (ansa.gov.md)

What to watch: The next signal will be whether FAO, national veterinary authorities, or academic partners use these findings to launch targeted producer education, PPE support, or follow-on surveillance work, especially given the study’s clear indication that demand for more zoonoses training is already there. More broadly, recent studies from both livestock and wildlife-exposed rural communities suggest that future programs will work best if they are local, repeated, and tailored to how people actually manage animal contact in daily life. (frontiersin.org)