Expert Views on Effectiveness, Feasibility, and Implementation of Biosecurity Measures for Mitigating Tier 1 Disease Risks in the U.S. Swine, Beef Cattle, and Dairy Industries

Abstract

Understanding disease transmission routes and implications for biosecurity is critical to mitigating livestock disease outbreaks and maintaining efficient and profitable production. The goal of biosecurity is to eliminate pathogen exposure and minimize endemic pathogen impact, particularly important for foreign animal diseases that threaten U.S. animal health and the economy. We elicit swine, beef cattle, and dairy expert views on the effectiveness, feasibility, and implementation of both biosecurity measures targeting disease transmission routes and specific biosecurity measures. Biosecurity targeting direct animal-to-animal contact, semen, people, and vehicles and other fomites was identified as the most effective and feasible for the swine, beef cattle, and dairy industries. Efforts targeting airborne and arthropod transmission were ranked low for effectiveness and feasibility across all three industries. The swine industry had higher estimated implementation of biosecurity against most disease transmission routes. All-in and all-out production had the highest estimated implementation in the swine industry. In the beef cattle industry, performing daily observations by producer/employees had the highest estimated implementation. Reduced environmental viral load through pathogen reduction had the lowest estimated implementation in the swine and beef cattle industries. In the dairy industry, monitoring production records for health status changes had the highest estimated implementation, and line of separation in place for all employees entering premises had the lowest. Swine experts considered separation line for all animals entering/leaving premises and reduced environmental viral load through pathogen reduction the most and least effective and feasible, respectively. Stabilization and monitoring for affected premises and daily observations by producer/employees were identified as most effective and feasible by beef cattle and dairy experts, respectively. All-in and all-out production was rated least effective and feasible by both beef cattle and dairy experts.

Adoption of Secure Pork Supply Plan Biosecurity by U.S. Swine Producers

“…Beliefs regarding how feasible implementation of each biosecurity practice is on his/her operation likely influences a producer's motivation to implement, as some measures could be perceived impractical or impossible (20–22). Relationships between feasibility ratings and biosecurity practice implementation were investigated using cross-tabulations (Table 2).…”

Using Expert Knowledge to Understand Biosecurity Adoption Aimed at Reducing Tier 1 Disease Risks in the U.S. Livestock Industry

“…Results indicate biosecurity adoption is positively related to risk reduction and negatively related to costs. Wu et al (2017) has shown that some under-implemented biosecurity measures are both highly effective (e.g., extent of risk reduction if implemented) and highly feasible (e.g., practicality of affordable implementation) for mitigating Tier 1 disease risks. Our survey indicates that one reason behind the low implementation of recommended biosecurity measures may be their corresponding costs.…”

“…These factors are mentioned in many discussions of biosecurity adoption and compliance (Hennessy, 2007a(Hennessy, , 2007b(Hennessy, , 2008Horan, Fenichel, Wolf, & Gramig, 2010;Reeling & Horan, 2014;Wu, Schulz, Tonsor, & Smith, 2017).…”

Effects of message delivery on cross-cultural biosecurity compliance: Insights from experimental simulations

“…Compliance with onfarm biosecurity practices is influenced by various sociopsychological factors (9,10). These include the characteristics of disease risk factors and their associated costs to implement or comply with these practices (11), how the risk of diseases is communicated and perceived (12), and heuristics used to inform biosecurity judgment (13)(14)(15)(16)(17). Motivation and conditions of such decisions might also vary at tactical (i.e., decision-making at the owner or operator level) and operational (i.e., decisionmaking at the on-farm worker level) levels (15,16) and across different populations.…”