Research Article

Foot and Mouth Disease Outbreak Public Awareness: A Study of Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Farmers in Baring Village, Pangkajene and Islands Regency, South Sulawesi, Indonesia

Irwan Ismail1,2, Fika Yuliza Purba1,2*, Muhammad Ardiansyah Nurdin1,2, Subaedy Yusuf2,3, Ichlasul Amal2,4, Adyatma Muhammad Nur5

1Veterinary Medicine Study Program, Faculty of Medicine, Hasanuddin University, Makassar, South Sulawesi 90245, Indonesia; 2Center for Research and Development of Livestock Resources and Tropical Animals, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, South Sulawesi 90245, Indonesia; 3Agricultural Science Doctoral Study Program, Postgraduate School, Hasanuddin University, Makassar, South Sulawesi 90245, Indonesia; 4Animal Feed Technology Study Program, Faculty of Vocational Studies, Hasanuddin University, Makassar, South Sulawesi 90245, Indonesia; 5Veterinary Paramedic Study Program, Faculty of Vocational Studies, Hasanuddin University, Makassar South Sulawesi 90245, Indonesia.

Received | March 26, 2025; Accepted | June 01, 2025; Published | June 27, 2025

*Correspondence | Fika Yuliza Purba, Veterinary Medicine Study Program, Faculty of Medicine, Hasanuddin University, Makassar, South Sulawesi 90245, Indonesia; Email: [email protected]

Citation | Ismail I, Purba FY, Nurdin MA, Yusuf S, Amal I, Nur AM (2025). Foot and mouth disease outbreak public awareness: A study of knowledge, attitudes and practices of farmers in baring village, pangkajene and islands regency, south sulawesi, Indonesia. J. Anim. Health Prod. 13(3): 546-554.

DOI | https://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.jahp/2025/13.3.546.554

ISSN (Online) | 2308-2801

Copyright © 2025 Kumar et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Copyright: 2025 by the authors. Licensee ResearchersLinks Ltd, England, UK.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

INTRODUCTION

Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) is a highly contagious viral disease affecting cloven-hoofed livestock, such as cattle, pigs, sheep and goats. The cause is Aphthovirus from the Picornaviridae family, which consists of seven distinct serotypes, including A, O, C, Asia 1 and SAT 1, 2 and 3 (Mahy, 2005). FMD is characterized by high morbidity rates close to 100% in native populations, although mortality is typically low, except in young livestock (Mee et al., 2021). This significantly affects the livestock industry by reducing milk production, weight gain, fertility and general performance, leading to severe economic consequences, particularly in endemic regions such as Indonesia (Abubakar et al., 2022).

The transmission of FMD occurs through direct contact with infected livestock, contaminated feed and fomites such as farm equipment, human clothing and vehicles. Additionally, airborne transmission is possible over long distances, particularly in humid climates (Purba et al., 2024). Clinical manifestations of FMD include fever, excessive salivation and vesicular lesions on the tongue, lips, gums, interdigital spaces and udder, leading to lameness as well as severe discomfort in affected livestock (Ismail et al., 2023). The presence of the virus in multiple secretions, including saliva, milk, semen and nasal discharge, amplifies the rapid spread, suggesting a need for effective control measures (Sutmoller et al., 2003; Abdul Kabir et al., 2024).

Various control strategies such as vaccination, movement restrictions, culling and biosecurity enforcement are known, but FMD remains a persistent challenge in many developing countries, including Indonesia. According to Zainuddin et al. (2023), Indonesia, including South Sulawesi, has experienced recent FMD outbreaks involving genetically identified virus strains, with field reports indicating infection rates of up to 20–30% in some villages based on data from local veterinary services (Zainuddin et al., 2023). Studies showed that inadequate knowledge about disease, along with poor biosecurity practices, could contribute to uncontrolled outbreaks and obstruct eradication efforts (Nyaguthii et al., 2019; Osmani et al., 2021; Nursakilah et al., 2025). Effective risk communication and targeted education campaigns are crucial in bridging these knowledge gaps and improving preventive measures (Blacksell et al., 2019).

Understanding knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) of farmers regarding FMD is fundamental to designing and implementing effective disease control programs. Previous studies reported that limited awareness, misconceptions about disease transmission and reluctance to adopt preventive measures contributed to the persistence of FMD in many areas (Sieng et al., 2022). Assessing KAP is essential to identify barriers to disease control and develop targeted interventions. This research employs a quantitative descriptive methodology via a survey to assess the KAP of farmers on FMD in Baring Village, Pangkajene and Kepulauan Regency, South Sulawesi. The results will contribute to designing effective education programs and policies to enhance FMD control strategies and mitigate the economic effects of the disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was conducted in Baring Village, Pangkajene and Islands Regency, South Sulawesi, Indonesia, in 2023. The village spans an area of 37.53 km² and is characterized by a predominantly livestock-based economy. Baring Village was selected purposively due to its recent experience with an FMD outbreak, while surrounding areas had been previously affected.

A cross-sectional descriptive survey design was employed to assess the knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) of livestock farmers regarding foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) prevention and control. The study population consisted of farmers owning at least one cloven-hoofed livestock species (cattle, goats, or buffaloes). A total of 52 farmers were selected through purposive sampling, considering feasibility, willingness to participate and representation of the actively farming community. While a formal sample size calculation was not applied, this number is consistent with similar KAP studies in rural and outbreak contexts (e.g., Osmani et al., 2021; who used a sample size of 50 farmers in Afghanistan).

Data collection was carried out between May and June 2023 through face-to-face structured interviews conducted by one veterinarian and two trained veterinary paramedics. During the fieldwork, the research team followed strict biosecurity protocols, including wearing clean, disinfected footwear and clothing before entering each farm; using footbaths and hand sanitizers before and after each interview; ensuring no direct contact with animals; and avoiding visits to multiple farms within a short time period. Prior to participation, all respondents were briefed on the purpose of the study, and verbal consent was obtained. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Animal Research Ethics Committee of Universitas Hasanuddin (Approval No. 008/UN4.1.RSHUH/B/PP36/2025).

The questionnaire was adapted from previously validated KAP tools on FMD (Osmani et al., 2021) and reviewed for face validity by three field veterinarians. It consisted of both closed- and open-ended questions, divided into three sections (see Supplementary File): (1) Knowledge (awareness of the cause, clinical signs and transmission routes of FMD); (2) Attitudes (perception of disease risks, trust in veterinary services and willingness to report); (3) Practices (preventive actions, treatment strategies (traditional and modern) and disease control behaviors). Some questions, particularly those addressing sources of information and types of preventive measures, allowed for multiple responses. The response options were informed by previous studies and field experience with FMD cases in the region. While the questions were closed-ended, interviewers allowed participants to elaborate if necessary. Any responses outside the provided options were documented separately in a comments section. These were later reviewed during data cleaning; if appropriate, they were reclassified into existing categories or noted as “don’t know.” Unique or non-categorized responses were not included in the quantitative analysis but were considered during qualitative reflection on farmers’ perceptions and behaviors.

Data were analyzed descriptively, using Microsoft Excel and SPSS version 25 to calculate frequencies and percentages for all KAP variables. No scoring system was applied, as the purpose was to present a narrative understanding of farmer behaviors and perceptions during the outbreak. This approach was considered appropriate given the exploratory nature of the study and the contextual need for flexibility in interpreting responses from rural communities.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Sources of FMD Information

The results showed that farmers in Baring Village primarily acquired information about FMD through informal sources. Relatives (39%) and community leaders (33%) were the most common sources of knowledge regarding disease (Table 1). Veterinary professionals, including veterinarians, field officers and paramedics, were consulted by only 10% of respondents. Approximately 14% of farmers relied on livestock traders for disease-related information, while television was cited as a source by only 4%. The heavy reliance on non-professional sources suggests a potential gap in accurate disease awareness. Previous studies showed that inadequate knowledge from informal sources might contribute to the persistence of misconceptions and ineffective control measures (Nyaguthii et al., 2019; Osmani et al., 2021). This signifies the need for structured educational interventions through mass media, veterinary extension services and training programs to enhance FMD awareness (Kiayima et al., 2025).

Relatives being considered the primary source of information about FMD highlights the importance of social networks in shaping community understanding of livestock health issues, since Baring Village was experiencing an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) for the first time and in the village almost all residents have cattle (at least one head), there is limited access to information from animal health officers, and there are no regular visits from the service veterinarian. Previous studies have shown that informal information sources, including family members and peers, significantly influence farmers’ perceptions and behaviors regarding disease prevention and control (Nyaguthii et al., 2019; Sieng et al., 2022). However, the information received may not be entirely accurate or comprehensive due to a lack of recognition of some clinical signs, including lesions on the gums, nose and udder, as well as misconceptions where 4% of respondents mistakenly believe that FMD is caused by bacteria.

 

Table 1: Sources of Information about Foot and Mouth Disease Among Livestock Farmers in Baring Village (n = 52).

Source of Information	Frequency	Percentage
Veterinarian, Field officer, Paramedic	5	10
Trader	7	14
Relatives, Neighbors, Friends	21	39
Television	2	4
Society Figures	17	33
Total	52	100

 

The misunderstandings about disease can be attributed to several factors. First, relevant educational programs are limited in number and scope, leading farmers to rely on general sources unable to provide in-depth explanations. Second, information dissemination through mass media tends to be less effective in communicating crucial details about FMD, such as the differences between viral and bacterial infections and the variations in clinical signs (Young et al., 2014). The information presented may appear extremely general or lack relevance to local conditions. Third, access of farmers to credible information sources such as veterinarians may be limited due to distance, cost, or lack of awareness. Consequently, difficulties are experienced in obtaining clarification about FMD, particularly when there are specific questions requiring answers (Nampanya et al., 2016).

Targeted and integrated efforts are needed to improve the quality and accessibility of information. Strategic use of mass media with more specific and relevant educational content can be an initial step. Direct outreach programs, including livestock health professionals, should be enhanced. Direct outreach allows two-way interaction between farmers and experts. Additionally, using information technology such as applications or online platforms can be an alternative to increase accessibility for farmers in remote areas (Mapiye et al., 2023).

Knowledge of Etiology and Clinical Signs

A significant proportion of farmers had a basic understanding of FMD, but large gaps persisted. Even though 50% correctly identified a viral etiology, 46% were unsure and 4% mistakenly attributed the disease to bacterial infection (Table 2). Farmers reported recognizing a variety of clinical signs, including excessive salivation (31%), foot lesions (28%), and vesicles in the mouth (24%). Awareness of vesicular lesions in the mouth (24%), nasal lesions (5%) and under lesions (1%) was significantly low.

 

Table 2: Knowledge and Awareness of Foot and Mouth Disease Among Livestock Farmers in Baring Village (n = 52).

Category	Response	Frequency	Percentage
Etiology of FMD	Virus	26	50.0
	Bacteria	3	5.8
	Don’t know	23	44.2
Recognized Clinical Signs	Excessive salivation	16	30.8
	Lesions on the udder	1	1.9
	Lesions on the gums	6	11.5
	Lesions on the nose	3	5.8
	Lesions on the foot	14	26.9
	Vesicles in the mouth	12	23.1
Known Transmission Routes	Contaminated feed	20	38.5
	Contact with infected animals	17	32.7
	Introduction of new animals	5	9.6
	Equipment, vehicles, or people entering farms	4	7.7
	Don’t know	6	11.5
Preventive Measures Known	Keep livestock separated from other herds	15	28.8
	Ensure hygiene of feed and water	10	19.2
	Regularly disinfect the housing area	10	19.2
	Avoid purchasing livestock from risky sources	5	9.6
	Take no preventive action	12	23.1

 

It is important to note that all respondents were able to identify at least one clinical sign of FMD; therefore, the option “Don’t know” was not included in Table 2. Recognition of clinical signs was variable, with excessive salivation (31%), foot lesions (28%), and vesicles in the mouth (24%) being the most frequently identified symptoms. In this context, excessive salivation (31%) and leg lesions (28%) were the most frequently identified symptoms, similar to the findings of vesicles on the legs and excessive salivation reported in other studies (Chen et al., 2022).

FMD is a highly contagious viral disease that is primarily transmitted through direct contact with infected animals, but indirect transmission, such as airborne transmission, also plays a role (Brown et al., 2022). The knowledge gaps regarding FMD transmission and etiology found in Baring Village (e.g., 46% unsure of viral cause, 4% believing it’s bacterial) were also observed in Cambodia, where many farmers failed to recognize fomites and airborne spread as potential risks (Sieng et al., 2022).

Understanding of Transmission Routes

Understanding transmission routes is crucial for effective disease control. Most respondents (39%) identified contaminated feed as a key transmission pathway, while 32% reported direct contact with infected livestock. However, misconceptions persisted, with only 9% recognizing the role of new livestock introductions and 8% attributing disease spread to fomites such as contaminated equipment and human movement. These results were consistent with previous studies stating that gaps in disease knowledge contributed to poor biosecurity compliance and ineffective outbreak control measures (Blacksell et al., 2019).

Preventive Practices and Biosecurity Measures

Preventive measures varied among farmers, with the most common practices being livestock isolation from other herds (28%), followed by maintaining feed and water hygiene (20%) as well as routine cage disinfection (20%) (Table 2). However, 22% of respondents reported taking no action to prevent FMD, and only 10% avoided purchasing livestock from risky sources. Regarding control measures, 36% recognized the importance of routine veterinary visits, and 28% understood the role of early detection by professionals. Only 12% mentioned the importance of movement control for the infected, 5% recognized the role of authorities in ensuring the health of imported livestock, and 13% did not know FMD control practices. These results show a substantial gap between awareness and action, suggesting the need for enhanced veterinary extension programs, community engagement and policy interventions to improve biosecurity compliance among farmers (Sieng et al., 2022; Ryoo et al., 2024).

Control Strategies and Reporting Behaviors

The majority of farmers (35%) choose to treat sick livestock as a primary response to FMD (Table 3). This action reflects the desire to maintain good health and prevent further disease spread. In Western Kazakhstan, approximately 21% of farmers reported treating infected animals with antibiotics (Bayantassova et al., 2023), indicating self-medication practices in the field. Additionally, 24% sell or slaughter infected livestock, potentially increasing transmission risk and causing economic consequences for other farmers. Separating the sick from the healthy population is another strategy used by 20%, showing awareness of the importance of biosecurity in FMD control. However, only 11% report FMD cases to veterinary authorities, suggesting a lack of active engagement in the livestock disease reporting system. These findings underscore the need to increase awareness and strengthen relationships between farmers and veterinary authorities to ensure timely and effective disease reporting. In Afghanistan, the majority of farmers (74.8%) reported that they would notify authorities if they suspected FMD in their animals (Osmani et al., 2021). The low reporting rate in Kazakhstan suggests significant differences in farmer behavior regarding animal disease reporting.

Approximately 10% of farmers take no action against FMD, which can escalate the risk of disease spread and complicate the effect. These results show the need to enhance the awareness and participation of farmers in FMD control efforts. Providing education on the importance of disease reporting, biosecurity and good livestock health management practices is crucial. In Cambodia, studies have shown that basic biosecurity practices such as quarantine of new animals, isolation of sick animals and FMD vaccination are still poorly implemented by smallholder farmers (Young et al., 2017). This low level of biosecurity may increase the risk of FMD transmission among livestock communities.

The success of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) control is highly dependent on the collaboration between farmers, village-level animal health officers and village leaders in disease reporting (Sieng et al., 2022). Additionally, support from the government and relevant stakeholders is necessary to assist farmers in overcoming economic and technical challenges related to control processes. These findings are consistent with previous studies, such as those by Osmani et al. (2021) in Afghanistan and Sieng et al. (2022) in Cambodia, where informal knowledge networks predominated and biosecurity practices were inconsistent (Osmani et al., 2021; Sieng et al., 2022). Likewise, Compston et al. (2021) highlighted that in Kenya, economic pressures and poor veterinary access undermined effective FMD prevention, even when awareness existed (Compston et al., 2021). Such parallels suggest that gaps between knowledge and practice are not unique to Indonesia but are shared among smallholder systems in many developing countries.

The implementation of prevention practices was found to be suboptimal. Few farmers routinely maintain the cleanliness of feed and drinking water as well as keep livestock away from other groups. Suboptimal cage disinfection and the purchase of livestock from unclear sources show a gap between knowledge and action, which can be explained by several factors. First, limited resources such as time, labor, or costs are potential constraints. Second, not understanding the importance of biosecurity can lead to underestimating some preventive practices. Third, social and economic barriers such as pressure to buy cheap livestock or lack of community support tend to influence the behavior of farmers (Mulei et al., 2007; Blacksell et al., 2019; Compston et al., 2021; Zainuddin et al., 2023).

A comprehensive method is needed to improve compliance with prevention practices. Intensive outreach concerning the importance of biosecurity and the economic impact of FMD can help change the perceptions of farmers. Practical training on how to implement proper preventive practices is capable of increasing the confidence of farmers. Facilitating access to the necessary facilities and infrastructure has the potential to reduce economic barriers (Ariestantya et al., 2024).

Building collective awareness at the community level about the importance of FMD control is essential and can be achieved through group meetings, open discussions, or public awareness campaigns. Community support will significantly motivate farmers to implement good preventive practices and remind each other during negligence. This method tends to help address social and economic barriers occasionally experienced (MacPhillamy et al., 2022).

Data showed that the majority of respondents (65%) used traditional methods to treat FMD in livestock (Table 3), while 35% had never used traditional treatment methods. This suggests that traditional treatment remains a choice for most farmers in Baring Village. Farmers frequently utilize traditional medicines such as turmeric, herbal remedies, coconut water, ginger, mango, honey, cat’s whiskers, Javanese ginger, and chicken eggs. More investigations are needed to identify the specific traditional methods used and their effectiveness, as well as potential risks and benefits. Raj et al. (2021) stated that accurate information should be provided about available treatment options, including the advantages and disadvantages (Raj et al., 2021).

Economic Impacts and Livestock Insurance

Approximately 35% of respondents reported the absence of livestock infected with FMD. This shows FMD is widely experienced by farmers in Baring Village, which can be a basis for further investigation into the impact on livestock businesses and experiences in dealing with disease outbreaks. Data presented that the majority of respondents (21%) reported several cases of livestock deaths due to FMD (Table 3), while 79% had no experience of deaths. Salvarani et al. (2025) similarly detect that FMD has caused significant economic losses for farmers in Baring Village, suggesting the urgency to increase prevention and control efforts, including through education, vaccination, and better livestock health management (Salvarani et al., 2025).

The high mortality rate and the sale of infected livestock at low prices show the severe impact of FMD on farmers in Baring Village. Economic losses are not limited to deaths but also include decreased productivity, treatment costs and losses from selling at low prices. This impact can threaten the sustainability of businesses and affect community well-being, specifically when livestock is the primary source of income for families in the village (Ibrahim, 2022).

 

Table 3: Attitudes and practices of Foot and Mouth Disease Among Livestock Farmers in Baring Village (n = 52).

Category	Response	Frequency	Percentage (percent)
Knowledge of Control Practices	Early detection by veterinary professionals	14	28.0
	Regular visits by veterinary authorities	19	36.0
	Reduce contact between groups	3	6.0
	Control movement of infected animals	6	12.0
	Health checks of imported animals	3	5.0
	Don’t know	7	13.0
Current Protective Actions	Report to vet	6	11.5
	Separate sick animals	10	19.2
	Sell/slaughter sick animals	13	25.0
	Provide care/treatment	18	34.6
	Do not take action	5	9.6
Experience and Behavior	Used traditional methods	Yes: 34	65.4
		No: 18	34.6
	FMD-infected livestock experience	Yes: 34	65.4
		No: 18	34.6
	FMD-related livestock deaths	Yes: 11	21.2
		No: 41	78.8
	Sold infected animals at low price	Yes: 39	75.0
		No: 13	25.0
Livestock Insurance	Own livestock insurance	Yes: 4	7.7
		No: 48	92.3

 

Data showed that 75% of respondents admitted to selling FMD-infected livestock at lower prices (Table 3), while only 25% declared no engagement in practices. Selling the infected at lower prices is troubling because of the tendency to promote the spread of FMD and threaten the health of other livestock. This suggests the need for stricter interventions to prevent practices, including increasing awareness of farmers about the risks of disease spread and more enforcement of regulations related to livestock trade. The sales potentially driven by economic factors are highly risky due to rapid FMD spread and the complication of control efforts (Yadav et al., 2022). Farmers may be forced to sell sick livestock to avoid greater losses through deaths, but the action harms other colleagues and the community (Nursakilah et al., 2025), suggesting a need for decisive measures to prevent these practices. Strict law enforcement with severe sanctions for offending farmers can have a deterrent effect and prevent others from doing the same. Incentives for farmers who report FMD cases early can facilitate being more responsible and proactive in disease control (Gates et al., 2021).

Table 3 showed that the majority of respondents (92%) lack insurance for livestock, and only 8% have insurance. This signifies the low level of financial protection for farmers against the risk of loss due to disease or livestock death, which is a serious concern considering the high FMD prevalence in Baring Village. There is a need to raise awareness about the benefits of insurance and advise individual participation in available insurance programs. Moreover, the low rate of insurance ownership complicates the economic impact of FMD. Livestock insurance can provide financial protection during livestock death or culling due to disease. Insurance can help farmers reduce the risk of significant financial loss, promoting focus on recovery and disease prevention efforts. However, many may lack understanding of the benefits or have difficulty accessing insurance. There is a need to raise awareness about the benefits and facilitate access to insurance, such as through subsidization programs or collaboration with financial institutions.

The practices adopted by farmers in Baring Village to prevent and control FMD varied widely and were often suboptimal. Approximately 22% of respondents reported taking no preventive action, reflecting a substantial knowledge-to-practice gap. The most common preventive measures were isolation of livestock from other herds (28%), maintaining feed and water hygiene (20%) and routine cage disinfection (20%). However, fewer farmers practiced movement control (12%) or avoided buying livestock from unknown sources (10%), despite these being crucial components of FMD containment (Blacksell et al., 2019).

These findings are consistent with those from Cambodia and Kenya, where farmers’ awareness of biosecurity measures was not always translated into action due to economic constraints, lack of infrastructure, and low perceived risk (Compston et al., 2021; Sieng et al., 2022). For example, economic factors such as the cost of disinfectants or the need to purchase cheap livestock, even from high-risk areas, influenced farmers’ decision-making and compromised biosecurity compliance (Yadav et al., 2022). Additionally, social norms and peer practices in rural communities often determine acceptable levels of preventive behavior, meaning individual knowledge may not suffice to change actions unless community-wide practices shift.

Another important observation was that only 11% of respondents reported FMD cases to veterinary authorities, which is a crucial weakness in the passive surveillance system. Gates et al. (2021) emphasized that underreporting of animal diseases often results from lack of trust in authorities, fear of culling without compensation, and limited awareness of the importance of disease reporting (Gates et al., 2021).

A critical challenge identified was the low level of veterinary service utilization—only 10% consulted veterinary professionals. This mirrors findings in South Africa and Afghanistan, where poor access to veterinary extension services, especially in remote or underdeveloped areas, limited the adoption of scientifically recommended practices (Osmani et al., 2021; Kiayima et al., 2025).

This study found critical gaps in KAP of farmers regarding FMD in Baring Village, where many had a basic awareness, but misconceptions persisted and preventive measures were often suboptimal. The results showed a need to enhance prevention and control efforts through targeted educational programs, improved veterinary extension services and financial risk mitigation strategies, such as livestock insurance.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In conclusion, this study shows the limited knowledge level of farmers in Baring Village about FMD, with the majority obtaining information from informal sources such as relatives and community leaders, while only a few consulted veterinary personnel. Although half of farmers are aware that FMD is caused by a virus, there are still misperceptions and uncertainty about the etiology and clinical signs. The prevention practices carried out by the majority are ineffective; many individuals do not implement any measures at all, and disease control is not optimal. The high infection rate (65%) and livestock mortality due to FMD (21%) suggest that disease causes significant economic losses, amplified by low livestock insurance ownership (8%). Therefore, education-based interventions, improving veterinary services, strengthening biosecurity policies and providing livestock insurance schemes are needed to improve the economic resilience of farmers and the effectiveness of control efforts.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors are grateful to the livestock farmers in Baring Village, Pangkajene and Islands Regency, South Sulawesi, for their cooperation and willingness to participate, as well as the veterinary officers and field staff that assisted in data collection. The authors are also grateful to the Faculty of Medicine for providing logistical and technical support as well as the Center for Research and Development of Livestock Resources and Tropical Animals, Universitas Hasanuddin, for facilitating field activities and data analysis. This study was conducted without any external financial support.

NOVELTY STATEMENTS

This study uniquely highlights the knowledge gaps, attitudes, and suboptimal practices of smallholder farmers during an active FMD outbreak in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. It provides localized insights to inform future FMD control strategies through education, veterinary outreach, and insurance policy development.

AUTHOR’S CONTRIBUTIONS

All the authors contributed to the study design, data collection, data acquisition, analysis and reporting, and manuscript preparation.

Supplementary Material

There is supplementary material associated with this article. Access the material online at: https://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.jahp/2025/

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

Abdul Kabir, Kamboh AA, Ullah M, Iqbal MO, Akhtar Z, Haider I, Khan N (2024). Epidemiology and Transmission of Foot and Mouth Disease among Small Ruminants – A Review. Lahore Garrison Univ. J. Life Sci.,. 8(2): 287–300. https://doi.org/10.54692/lgujls.2024.0802346

Abubakar M, Syed Z, Manzoor S, Arshed MJ (2022). Deciphering Molecular Dynamics of Foot and Mouth Disease Virus (FMDV): A Looming Threat to Pakistan’s Dairy Industry. Dairy, 3(1): 123–136. https://doi.org/10.3390/dairy3010010

Ariestantya PY, Sari WP, Putriana M, Soegiarto A (2024). Strategi Komunikasi Humas Direktorat Jenderal Peternakan dan Kesehatan Hewan Dalam Menyosialisasikan Cara Pencegahan Wabah Penyakit Mulut dan Kuku Pada Hewan Berkuku Belah. Ranah Research : J. Multi. Res. Dev.,. 6(4): 629–638. https://doi.org/10.38035/rrj.v6i4.858

Bayantassova S, Kushaliyev K, Zhubantayev I, Zhanabayev A, Kenzhegaliyev Z, Ussenbayev A, Paritova A, Baikadamova G, Bakishev T, Zukhra A, Terlikbayev A, Akhmetbekov N, Tokayeva M, Burambayeva N, Bauzhanova L, Temirzhanova A, Rustem A, Aisin M, Tursunkulov S, Rametov N, Issimov A (2023). Knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) of smallholder farmers on foot‐and‐mouth disease in Cattle in West Kazakhstan. Vet. Med. Sci., 9(3): 1417–1425. https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.1097

Blacksell SD, Siengsanan-Lamont J, Kamolsiripichaiporn S, Gleeson LJ, Windsor PA (2019). A history of FMD research and control programmes in Southeast Asia: lessons from the past informing the future. Epidemiol.. Infect., 147: e171. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268819000578

Brown E, Nelson N, Gubbins S, Colenutt C (2022). Airborne Transmission of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus: A Review of Past and Present Perspectives. Viruses, 14(5): 1009. https://doi.org/10.3390/v14051009

Chen R, Gardiner E, Quigley A (2022). Foot and Mouth Disease Outbreak in Indonesia: Summary and Implications. Global Biosecur., 4. https://doi.org/10.31646/gbio.175

Compston P, Limon G, Sangula A, Onono J, King DP, Häsler B (2021). Understanding what shapes disease control: An historical analysis of foot-and-mouth disease in Kenya. Prev. Vet. Med., 190: 105315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2021.105315

Gates MC, Earl L, Enticott G (2021). Factors influencing the performance of voluntary farmer disease reporting in passive surveillance systems: A scoping review. Prev. Vet, Med., 196: 105487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2021.105487

Ibrahim SS (2022). Livelihood transition and economic well-being in remote areas under the threat of cattle rustling in Nigeria. Geo. J., 88(1): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-022-10583-x

Ismail I, Indarjulianto S, Yusuf S, Purba FY (2023). Clinical Examination of Foot and Mouth Disease of Dairy Cows in Sukamurni, Cilawu, Garut, West Java, Indonesia. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., 1174(1): 012005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1174/1/012005

Kiayima KD, Etter E, Chaminuka P, Delabouglise A, Fosgate GT (2025). Assessment of communal farmers’ knowledge of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) within the FMD protection zone with vaccination of Limpopo and Mpumalanga Provinces, South Africa. Prev. Vet. Med., 238: 106468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2025.106468

MacPhillamy I, Young J, Earp F, Khounsy S, Windsor P, Toribio J, Bush R (2022). Foot‐and‐mouth disease seroprevalence and reporting behaviours in nine northern provinces in Lao PDR: The current situation and challenges for control. Transbound Emerg. Dis., 69(2): 645–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14031

Mahy, BWJ (2005). Introduction and History of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus. In: Mahy, B.W. (eds) Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology, vol 288. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-27109-0_1

Mapiye O, Makombe G, Molotsi A, Dzama K, Mapiye C (2023). Information and communication technologies (ICTs): The potential for enhancing the dissemination of agricultural information and services to smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. Inf. Dev., 39(3): 638–658. https://doi.org/10.1177/02666669211064847

Mee JF, Jawor P, Stefaniak T (2021). Role of Infection and Immunity in Bovine Perinatal Mortality: Part 1. Causes and Current Diagnostic Approaches. Animals, 11(4): 1033. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11041033

Mulei CM, Wabacha JK, Mbithi PM (2007). Short-term economic impact of Foot and Mouth disease outbreak in a large Diary Farm in Kiambu District, Kenya. Kenya Vet., 22(1). https://doi.org/10.4314/kenvet.v22i1.39523

Nampanya S, Khounsy S, Abila R, Young JR, Bush RD, Windsor PA (2016). Financial Impacts of Foot-and-Mouth Disease at Village and National Levels in Lao PDR. Transbound Emerg. Dis., 63(5): e403–e411. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12319

Nursakilah T, Mutawadiah, Ismail I, Yusuf S, Purba FY (2025). Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Smallholder Farmers Regarding Foot and Mouth Disease in Cattle in Punaga Village, Takalar Regency: A Descriptive Study. Int. J. Agric. Biosci., 14(2): 252–257. https://doi.org/10.47278/journal.ijab/2024.217

Nyaguthii DM, Armson B, Kitala PM, Sanz-Bernardo B, Di Nardo A, Lyons NA (2019). Knowledge and risk factors for foot-and-mouth disease among small-scale dairy farmers in an endemic setting. Vet. Res., 50(1): 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-019-0652-0

Osmani A, Habib I, Robertson ID (2021). Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAPs) of Farmers on Foot and Mouth Disease in Cattle in Baghlan Province, Afghanistan: A Descriptive Study. Animals, 11(8): 2188. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11082188

Purba FY, Apada AMS, Ariyandy A, Ismail I, Yusuf S (2024). Hematological and Biochemical Profile of Bali Cattle Affected by Foot and Mouth Disease at Different Infection Stages. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci., 12(6). https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.aavs/2024/12.6.1002.1009

Raj EFI, Appadurai M, Athiappan K (2021). Precision Farming in Modern Agriculture. In: Smart Agric. Autom. Adv. Technol., 61–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6124-2

Ryoo S, Lee H, Lim D, Lee J, Bunnary S, Tum S, Lee D, Hwang H, Jeong S, Nah J, Ku B, Kim J, Cha S (2024). Genetic characterization of a novel sublineage (O/ME-SA/Ind-2001e) of foot-and-mouth disease virus recently circulating in Cambodia. https://doi.org/10.22541/au.170667407.73018312/v1

Salvarani FM, Lins A de MC, dos Santos JB, Martins FMS (2025). What to Expect from Brazil as a Nation Certified as Free from Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) Without Vaccination. Agriculture, 15(4): 382. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15040382

Sieng S, Patrick IW, Windsor PA, Walkden‐Brown SW, Sar C, Smith RGB, Kong R (2022). Knowledge, attitudes and practices of smallholder farmers on foot and mouth disease control in two Cambodian provinces. Transbound Emerg. Dis., 69(4): 1983–1998. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14182

Sutmoller P, Barteling SS, Olascoaga RC, Sumption KJ (2003). Control and eradication of foot-and-mouth disease. Virus Res., 91(1): 101–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1702(02)00262-9

Yadav S, Delgado AH, Hagerman AD, Bertram MR, Moreno-Torres KI, Stenfeldt C, Holmstrom L, Arzt J (2022). Epidemiologic and economic considerations regarding persistently infected cattle during vaccinate-to-live strategies for control of foot-and-mouth disease in FMD-free regions. Front. Vet. Sci., 9: 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.1026592

Young JR, O’Reilly RA, Ashley K, Suon S, Leoung IV, Windsor PA, Bush RD (2014). Impacts on Rural Livelihoods in Cambodia Following Adoption of Best Practice Health and Husbandry Interventions by Smallholder Cattle Farmers. Transbound Emerg. Dis., 61: 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12193

Young JR, Suon S, Olmo L, Bun C, Hok C, Ashley K, Bush RD, Windsor PA (2017). Investigation of smallholder farmer biosecurity and implications for sustainable foot-and-mouth disease control in Cambodia. Transbound Emerg. Dis., 64(6): 2000–2012. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12609

Zainuddin N, Susila EB, Wibawa H, Daulay RSD, Wijayanti PE, Fitriani D, Hidayati DN, Idris S, Wadsworth J, Polo N, Hicks MH, Mioulet V, Knowles NJ, King DP (2023). Genome Sequence of a Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus Detected in Indonesia in 2022. Microbiol. Resour. Announc., 12(2). https://doi.org/10.1128/mra.01081-22