Knowledge and practices of biosecurity in aquaculture in Loumbila commune: farmers’ perceptions and health management implications, Burkina Faso

Study period, site, and design

The study was conducted from June to July 2025 in Loumbila commune, located in Oubritenga province within the Central Plateau region of Burkina Faso. Loumbila covers 176.99 km², comprises 31 villages, and lies 25 km northeast of Ouagadougou ( Figure 1). The area belongs to the Sudano-Sahelian climatic zone, with annual rainfall ranging between 600 and 900 mm. It is characterized by a long dry season (October–May) dominated by harmattan winds and a short rainy season (June–September) influenced by the monsoon. Vegetation includes grassy savanna, shrub savanna, and gallery forests. The relief consists of a broad plain at approximately 300 m altitude, interspersed with hills and granite formations. Soils are mainly erosion-deposit, skeletal, and clay-sandy types.

Figure 1. Sampling sites areas in loumbila commune.

Data collection combined documentary review and field survey. Existing reports and records on aquaculture and biosecurity were consulted to establish background information. A purposive sampling approach was applied to select 23 fish farmers according to predefined criteria. Data were gathered through structured questionnaires (integrated into KoBo Toolbox), direct interviews, and field observations. Quantitative data focused on biosecurity practices, while qualitative observations provided contextual insights into farm operations.

Technical materials included notebooks, pens, a laptop for data entry and analysis, a mobile phone for survey administration and photography, fishing nets (dip net and cast net) for control sampling, a life jacket for safety during canoe use, and a digital scale for weighing fish.

Statistical data analysis

Data collection was conducted on-site through scheduled appointments with fish farmers. Responses were recorded electronically and subsequently exported from KoBo Toolbox into Excel 2013 for preliminary descriptive analysis. Results were presented in tables and figures to highlight biosecurity knowledge, practices, and gaps among fish farmers.

For inferential statistics, the data were analyzed using SPSS software (version 25). The Chi-square test (χ²) was applied to assess associations between categorical variables, particularly to evaluate differences in biosecurity awareness, practices, and constraints across respondent groups. Statistical significance was considered at p < 0.05.

Sociodemographic characteristics of respondents

The sociodemographic profile of the 23 surveyed fish farmers is summarized in Table 1. Women represented 52 percent of respondents, while men accounted for 48 percent; this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.412). Age distribution revealed that the majority of respondents were older than 35 years (78%), a result that was statistically significant (p = 0.031), indicating that aquaculture in Loumbila is predominantly practiced by older adults.

Experience levels showed that 65% of farmers had less than two years of practice, compared to 13 percent with 2–5 years and 22 percent with more than five years. This difference was highly significant (p = 0.007), highlighting the predominance of newcomers in the sector. Education level was skewed toward higher education (65%), with fewer respondents reporting secondary (26%) or primary education (9%). This distribution was statistically significant (p = 0.045).

Marital status was also significant (p = 0.018), with 78% of respondents being married. Regarding main occupation, 61% reported another primary activity besides aquaculture, while 39% considered fish farming their main occupation; this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.221). Training in aquaculture was reported by 70% of respondents, a highly significant result (p = 0.002), suggesting strong exposure to technical capacity-building initiatives.

Finally, aquaculture was overwhelmingly practiced as a source of income (91%), with only 9 percent combining income generation with self-consumption. This difference was very highly significant (p < 0.001), confirming the economic orientation of fish farming in Loumbila commune.

Types of infrastructures

The survey results revealed that floating cages were the most prevalent aquaculture infrastructure, accounting for 57% of the systems used. Ponds alone and mixed systems combining ponds, tanks, enclosures, and floating cages were less common, each representing 4%. Intermediate configurations were also reported, including ponds (13%), ponds combined with floating cages (13%), and ponds combined with cages and enclosures (9%).

Overall, the predominance of floating cages highlights their accessibility and adaptability, while more complex or traditional systems remain marginally represented ( Figure 2).

Figure 2. Distribution of aquaculture infrastructure types used by fish farmers.

Knowledge of biosecurity in aquaculture

The assessment of biosecurity knowledge among fish farmers revealed notable disparities in awareness, understanding, and training ( Table 2). A majority of respondents (78%) reported having heard of biosecurity in aquaculture, while 22% had never encountered the concept. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.034), suggesting that biosecurity awareness is relatively widespread but not universal.

When asked to define biosecurity, 70% of respondents described it as both protecting the aquatic environment and preventing disease, whereas 11% viewed it solely as disease prevention. The remaining 19% provided unclear or alternative definitions. This distribution was statistically significant (p = 0.021), indicating variability in conceptual understanding that may influence implementation.

Regarding training, 65% of respondents had never received formal instruction on biosecurity practices, while 35% had benefited from such training ( Table 2). This gap was highly significant (p = 0.008), underscoring the need for targeted capacity-building to reinforce biosecurity measures at the farm level.

Overall, these findings highlight the importance of strengthening both awareness and technical training to ensure consistent and effective biosecurity practices across aquaculture enterprises.

Analysis of biosecurity practices and perception of risks

The analysis of biosecurity practices among fish farmers revealed a mixed picture of awareness and implementation ( Table 3). While all respondents reported applying at least one measure, the most common practice was cleaning and disinfecting equipment (57%, p = 0.041), reflecting a baseline understanding of hygiene. However, more advanced measures were rarely adopted. For instance, only 13% required workers to wear protective clothing, and none of the farms had footbaths at their entrances (p < 0.001), underscoring significant gaps in personnel-related biosecurity. Visitor management was somewhat better, with 78% restricting access to facilities (p = 0.029), suggesting partial recognition of external contamination risks.

Equipment management practices were also insufficient. A majority (65%) did not conduct regular water quality analyses (p = 0.017), and 78% admitted sharing equipment with other farmers (p = 0.012), both of which increase the likelihood of pathogen transmission. Furthermore, 70% of farms lacked fencing (p = 0.008), leaving them vulnerable to uncontrolled access and environmental hazards. On a positive note, all respondents quarantined sick fish (p < 0.001), demonstrating strong adherence to disease containment protocols. Dead fish were most often eliminated by incineration (57%, p = 0.036), though alternative disposal methods were still common.

Risk perception mirrored these practices. Nearly half of respondents (43%) identified water pollution as the main health threat (p = 0.022), while 74% reported having suffered significant losses due to epidemics (p = 0.015). These findings highlight the dual challenge of environmental and infectious risks in aquaculture. Constraints to implementing biosecurity were primarily economic: 30% cited the high cost of equipment as a major obstacle (p = 0.027). Despite these limitations, all respondents (100%, p < 0.001) agreed that strengthening biosecurity would improve fish health, reflecting strong awareness of its importance and a willingness to adopt measures if resources allow.

Implications for health management

The findings highlight the tangible impact of biosecurity measures on fish health and farm management. A majority of respondents (61%) reported a noticeable reduction in disease occurrence or fish mortality following the implementation of biosecurity practices. The same proportion (61%) also indicated that they had benefited from veterinary follow-up to ensure the health of their stock, underscoring the role of professional support in reinforcing farm-level biosecurity.

Despite these positive outcomes, nearly all respondents (96%) expressed a strong need for additional training or technical assistance in biosecurity. This reflects both awareness of its importance and recognition of existing gaps in knowledge and practice. Furthermore, 48% of fish farmers suggested priority actions to strengthen biosecurity in their community, including regular cleaning of facilities, quarantine of newly introduced fish, visitor control, and improved waste management. These recommendations reveal a proactive attitude among farmers and a willingness to adopt measures that align with international best practices.

Overall, the results suggest that while biosecurity measures are already yielding health benefits, their sustainability and effectiveness depend on continued training, technical support, and the institutionalization of preventive practices. Overall, the results suggest that while biosecurity measures are already yielding health benefits, their sustainability and effectiveness depend on continued training, technical support, and the institutionalization of preventive practices.