Next Article in Journal
Multivariate Analysis of Clean Technologies in Agricultural and Livestock Companies in Castilla y León
Previous Article in Journal
Research on the Adaptive Cleaning System of a Soybean Combine Harvester
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 13
Issue 11
10.3390/agriculture13112086
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

U.S. Small-Scale Livestock Operation Approach to Biosecurity

by
Glen Morris
1,*,
Shawn Ehlers
1 and
John Shutske
2
1
Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
2
Biological Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2023, 13(11), 2086; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13112086
Submission received: 16 September 2023 / Revised: 19 October 2023 / Accepted: 30 October 2023 / Published: 1 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Agricultural Economics, Policies and Rural Management)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Agricultural biosecurity is a pressing global issue that must be given continuous attention by researchers, producers, consumers, and government agencies responsible for food security. This article examines the relevant literature specifically related to recommended practices for U.S. small-scale farms and ranches to minimize potential disease susceptibility in animals and humans. Current training and educational resources appear to focus on mechanisms of disease transmission and ecological and/or social factors that support mitigation efforts. Training against biological incursion and knowledge of diseases are typically focused on serving the continuing educational needs of veterinarians, epidemiological groups, and animal health technicians for large-scale facilities. However, there is a gap in the available resources that could be beneficial to keepers of livestock, smaller farmers, and ranchers who lack the financial capability to employ the most proven prevention or mitigation strategies. There have been limited comprehensive reviews in the U.S. of disease control, perception, education, or analysis on current prevention measures among small-scale producers. Findings from a review of the literature were used to formulate disease-prevention training resources and outreach strategies directed at U.S. small-scale farm operators and those likely to be involved in disease outbreak situations (e.g., veterinarians, first responders, and family members). The evaluation of the current types and causes of diseases, along with their respective level of current threat to agriculture, was a fundamental strategy to achieve this goal while reviewing literature focused on U.S. biosecurity and international biosecurity. Developing an evidence-based approach to prevention measures for biosecurity operations will allow for more effective execution and adoption of protocols for small-scale farms.

1. Introduction

Biosecurity is typically defined as the management of activities that reduce opportunities for infectious agents to gain access, spread, and reproduce within an environment [1,2,3]. Shortall, a researcher of agricultural occupations, defines farm livestock biosecurity as ‘the set of practices that stop the spread of disease onto or out of an area where farm animals are present’ [4]. In an agricultural setting, biosecurity practices differ between production types, such as large-scale and small-scale farming, disease strains, current legislation for disease control, and available resources to increase biosecurity. Typically, larger enterprises adhere more to stricter biosecurity protocols than small-scale or backyard-holding farms [2]. Protecting national agriculture systems from biological impairments, such as pests and disease, is generally considered to be a public good and a necessity for our public health and global food security [5].
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines a farm as any place that generated or would have normally generated USD 1000 or more in agricultural product sales during the census year; additionally, for the sake of USDA categorization, the term “farms” is inclusive of ranches [6]. According to the 2017 USDA census, a significant 91% of farming operations fell within the “small farm” category, defined with gross cash farm income (GCFI) ranging from USD 1000 to USD 350,000 under the revised USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) Farm Typology [7]. These small-scale farms, operating largely through production contracts, contribute approximately USD 22 billion annually to the GFIC [7]. Despite this uptick in small-scale farm production, however, the USDA has observed a trend where larger farms are gaining a larger share of production and overall operations, with approximately 2.1 million such “large farms” noted in the 2012 census [8] (p. 105). While a mere 3.8% of these 2.1 million “large farms” generate over USD 1 million in annual revenue, they collectively contribute two-thirds of the total agricultural production value in the United States [8]. This review has focused on the growth of noncommercial farms within this small-scale subset and explores their increasing numbers in contrast to perceived resource limitations.

Literature Review Aim

This review addresses two primary concerns: (i) the current biosecurity practices on small-scale agricultural operations (farms) and (ii) the typical biosecurity resource content types among small-scale agricultural operations. Biosecurity practices can have a positive effect on a farming operation’s ability to keep biological threats away, which in turn will increase public health security against zoonotic diseases and strengthen the safety of our nation’s food supply. Small-scale farming operations are perceived to have different approaches to biosecurity practices and different resources when compared to large-scale farms. A review of the literature includes numerous sources from peer-reviewed papers, book chapters, and conference proceedings that assessed or discussed biosecurity practices on small-scale farms. This review predates an in-depth analysis of distributable biosecurity material that was available to small-scale farms. These literature sources were reviewed and searched using a combination of keyword searches, including biosecurity, disease, small-scale farming, urban, corporate, industrial, poultry biosecurity, dairy biosecurity, and agrosecurity. The research explored biosecurity practices employed on these farms to identify the propensity for disease susceptibility and to address gaps in specialized resource development. Additional goals of this research were to develop, evaluate, and disseminate curricula to targeted groups on biosecurity threats to small-scale farms.

2. Methods

A literature search was conducted to identify relevant studies on small-scale biosecurity operations, with the primary focus being in the U.S. Despite research on biosecurity measures in agriculture, there has been a significant gap in understanding the specific challenges faced by small-scale farmers within the country. Literature on small-scale biosecurity in other countries was also included, but the authors note there are often differences in the definition of “small-scale” farming outside of the U.S. The search was performed across multiple electronic databases, including the National Agricultural Library (NAL), American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE), Journal of Agromedicine (JAM), University Extension Journals, and Google Scholar. The search strategy utilized a combination of keywords and controlled vocabulary terms related to “small-scale”, “biosecurity”, and related terms. The search was not limited by publication date, but it was restricted to articles published in English.
This literature review is subject to certain limitations. The search strategy may not have captured all relevant studies, as some articles on small-scale biosecurity may use different terminology or be published in non-indexed sources. The search parameters included search terms that might have also encompassed “small-scale” operations, such as “hobby farm” or “rural farm”. Additionally, the rapidly evolving nature of biosecurity practices and technologies may mean that some findings are outdated by the time of this review.

3. Discussion/Results

Understanding disease origins and risk factors equips small-scale farmers to preempt threats, adopt effective safeguards, and make informed choices in an effort to reduce losses and optimize resources. Studies have shown that biosecurity practices are not widely used by small-scale producers, inducing a need for cheaper and/or easier access to infection prevention and control training practices [9]. This knowledge-based approach bolsters biosecurity, fostering resilience, sustainability, and community awareness. Biological protection in agriculture promotes better food security, and its prevention is usually undertaken by governments, with the additional cooperation of shippers and importers [5]. Understanding disease causes can equip small-scale farmers to detect threats early, tailor effective prevention measures, and make informed decisions, minimizing economic losses and optimizing resource utilization. This knowledge-driven approach enhances biosecurity strategies, fostering resilience, sustainability, and community awareness. Henceforth, the term “biosecurity” will refer broadly to operational practices that could contribute to preventing disease-causing infections in both livestock and human populations of all agricultural operation sizes.

3.1. Zoonotic Disease Etiology

Throughout food systems, there are millions of cases of illnesses that can be traced back to pathogens and other biological threats [10]. The World Health Organization (WHO) has pioneered a ‘one health’ approach to understanding and addressing the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health. The WHO states that 75% of the existing pathogens in our ecosystems have originated from animals [11]. These diseases cause major destruction to both public health and agricultural production, with over 36% of emerging infectious zoonotic diseases being associated with animals kept for food production [12]. These diseases contribute to one billion global cases of human illness annually and, specific to zoonotic diseases, lead to one million deaths in humans per year [11]. The likelihood of numerous diseases is poised to escalate in the forthcoming years and decades due to the impact of climate change [13]. Contributing factors to this heightened risk comprise the expansion of certain pathogens into regions previously deemed inhospitable due to temperature, the rise in humidity and precipitation in many locales, and elevated stress levels among farm animals and livestock [13].
Agricultural diseases can be associated with all parts of the agricultural cycle, including livestock handling, pre- and post-harvest processing, handling of market chains, and even final preparations by the consumer [14]. Some of the principal drivers of their emergence are associated with human activities, including changes in ecosystems and land use and the increase of agriculture [15]. The control of livestock pathogens is an important aspect of mitigating operational threats to biosecurity [15,16]. Small-scale farms generally have fewer resources, including financial, technical, and manpower resources, to invest in disease prevention and control [17,18,19]. This can impact their ability to implement sophisticated biosecurity measures, leading to potential disease vulnerabilities. Small-scale farming operations are not unique to this component but often do not have adequate resources or knowledge available to combat the operational risk for a One Health approach.
There is increasing evidence pointing towards modern farming practices and intensified human population densities contributing to disease emergence [20,21,22,23,24]. This evidence suggests that the interaction between humans and livestock or wildlife exposes a significant proportion of the human population to disease cycles and can increase the risk of spillover of potential pathogens.
The overall projection of infectious disease rates is expected to increase sharply by 2100, related to changing social and environmental conditions [25]. Zoonotic diseases themselves have been linked to agricultural intensification and environmental change [20]. The zoonotic human health burden in developing countries may have a greater impact than in the developed world, but lack of diagnosis and underreporting may hide the true impact for those small-scale operations that have less access to resources [20]. Small- and mid-sized farmers and ranchers working in rural areas with high persistent poverty often need extra support [26]. Few studies have focused on the development of strategies and supporting resources aimed at disease prevention on small and/or special-population-operated farms. From the very limited research that has been conducted in the U.S., a recent study found that small-scale farms often lacked experience and knowledge in husbandry, displaying limited awareness of zoonotic diseases, with a significant number allowing unrestricted visitor access (62.9%) and neglecting personal protective measures when handling animals or manure (57.1%), highlighting the need for targeted veterinary and public health education in preventing such diseases in this population [27].

3.2. Small-Scale Production Practices of Biosecurity

Understanding differences in biosecurity practices among small- to large-scale agricultural production practices can be challenging, as there is limited research based on specific biosecurity practices by small-scale farming operations, especially in the U.S. Biosecurity concerns have been found to stem from live animals, trucks and/or vehicles, visiting people, emergencies, aerosols, wildlife, and vectors [28,29]. Disease spread has been examined through epidemiological models; however, the influence of human behavior on the spread of diseases and animal health remains underexamined [30].
Research has found smaller agricultural operations were less likely to use certain biosecurity practices such as quarantining and testing new animals, when compared to larger operations [31]. Alternatively, the same study looked at biosecurity engagement and found that smaller operations were less likely to engage in risky biological exposing practices [31]. This study also reported on how the lack of information on the regional distributions for large and small-scale operations often pose issues for geospatial or geographic information system (GIS) tools and overall disease spread modeling [31]. A publication that looked at an active assessment of U.S. livestock biosecurity policies noted that “A farming community’s biosecurity is only as good as the smallest farms or the lowest amount of biosecurity efforts in place”, which holds true to some of these perceptions on policy engagement along with resource allocation [32]. Small-scale farms may rely more on locally sourced inputs, including seeds, compost, and manure. While these can be beneficial for sustainability, they can also introduce pathogens or pests that are specific to the local environment. Biosecurity practices among small-scale farming operations are not as well documented as larger operations but consist of similar techniques and procedures.
A review of biosecurity techniques specifically for small-scale poultry flock owners indicated best practices were to keep distance from potential disease-carrying agents, clean the area where the animals were, clean vehicles used in operations, not to borrow equipment, understand the warning signs of the diseases, and report sick birds to a local veterinarian, diagnostic laboratory, or the USDA [33]. Other commonly employed biosecurity measures include implementing a biosecurity plan of sanitizing and showering before both entering and leaving farms, donning clean coveralls and boots before handing livestock, controlling the access of farm visitors, and limiting contact between drivers and the collections, all to limit the transmission of novel agents on a farmstead in both commercial and small-scale farming operations [34,35,36]. An important small-scale farm biosecurity operation is to quarantine new or returning animals for 14 days, but this practice has been seen to vary by animal species and geographic region [31]. It was also noted that vaccines are seemingly a highly used biosecurity method, specific to small-scale farming operations [37,38,39]. However, vaccine use has not been extensively studied on small-scale farms in the U.S., but it has been noted that a combination of biosecurity and vaccination programs may be useful to control certain agricultural diseases [37].

3.3. Biosecurity Perception among Small-Scale Farms

A study in 2019 found that small-scale feedlots are more likely to rank biosecurity efforts higher; however, these same smaller farms were less willing to adopt biosecurity practices [29]. This could be attributed to small-scale farms having less capital and disposable income to spend implementing such on-farm measures as compared to larger farms or the small-scale operation not being the primary source of income for the operator [29]. In such operations, the producer’s perception of the profit gained from implementing biosecurity measures is a factor in the level of implementation and willingness to enforce strict biosecurity practices [40].
A review of the literature revealed limited research on biosecurity resources and training among small-scale farming operations in the U.S. A study of small-scale and large-scale Wisconsin dairy producers that looked at perceptions of biosecurity found that larger producers had more knowledge of zoonotic pathogens and their personal health risks [41]. The conclusion from this study was that “producers from large herds adopted more biosecurity practices than did those from small herds” [41]. It is important to note that this study also found that some biosecurity risks were believed to be lower on small-scale farms, such as smaller herds are less likely to encounter visitors or other biological risks. Another study on routine poultry mortality found that at least 50% of farms experienced routine mortality rates of 4% or higher, with small-scale operations having the highest rates of mortality (rates above 5%) [32]. This study also indicated that farms with 149,999 birds or less were less willing to adopt biosecurity practices than larger-scale farms [32]. Small-scale farmers were asked in a different study if they believed additional training on biosecurity would be useful and over 70% indicated a desire for more of those resources [3]. This study also indicated that local Extension offices and written publications from journals were their preferred channels for receiving training or additional information [31]. A related study on small-scale farmers indicated a lack of utilization of local educational resources, which could have further improved the farmers’ productivity [42].
Not all literature supports small-scale farmers failing to implement biosecurity plans on a farm. A study in 2020 analyzed preventive measures for farmers of varying genders, levels of education, or personal incomes and found that those variables did not affect the individual’s biosecurity beliefs or behaviors [43]. Surprisingly, they did find a positive correlation between farm revenue and the presence of pests in the holding areas and how often farmers quarantine new animals [43]. Another study looked at the use of personal protective equipment for visitors and how that changed with socioeconomic status on small-scale dairy farms [9]. Can and Altuğ (2014) found that around 32% of the producers provided protective clothing for visitors and around 55% of producers reported controlling visitor access or implementing restrictions for visitors. Additionally, 56% of the small-scale dairy farms surveyed reported allowing only necessary visitors during operations, and around 60% cleaned and disinfected vehicles and barns [9]. Biosecurity practices on small-scale farming operations might not always be implemented, but there is evidence to suggest that while there is a gap in the literature devoted to small-scale farming practices, there is the use of biosecurity practices and recognition of their importance in these communities. “While many of these procedures may be impracticable for small-holder or semi-commercial animal farmers, even the simplest precautions can go a long way to preventing the introduction of serious diseases” [44].

3.4. Economic Consequences and Regulations

After the events of 11 September, which reshaped the U.S. approach to homeland security, and the discovery of mad cow disease (BSE), federal and state governments have bolstered current food safety and security regimes and created some new regulatory authorities. The current agencies that work closely with agriculture biosecurity are the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Specific to biosecurity, the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) was created in 2005 under the United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) [45]. There are also numerous state entities that regulate this space, often working in partnership with their federal counterparts. While the misuse of biological knowledge and technologies poses a threat to public health, there is a large potential for these aspects to negatively impact “farming, livestock, aquaculture, terrestrial and marine wildlife, companion animals, domestic and wild plants and trees, ecological systems, and other natural resources, as well as manmade resources” [45].
Currently, major statutes that impact agriculture biosecurity are indicated in Table 1. The mentions of small-scale farms in these Statutes are limited. The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act mentions small-scale farms by giving “priority to projects [grants] that target small-scale and medium sized farms” for food safety training, education, and extension. The Bioterrorism Act has language in the statute to encourage “private companies, including small-scale businesses” to have PPE in case of bioterrorism events. There are other regulations and reports that have language concerned with biosecurity and could be assumed to include small-scale farms under its meanings.
The economic implications of biosecurity on agricultural operations are critical when considering the viability of farming operations, especially for small-scale farming operations that may not have a lot of capital to spare. A report about the 2004 Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy outbreak in the U.S. showed USD 3.2 billion to USD 4.7 billion dollars was lost due to export restrictions [46]. Specific to farm operation size, a review in 2011 by Fasina and others researched the economic costs of biosecurity in small- to medium-scale pig farming operations for African swine fever (ASF) outbreak. This study focused on 122 sow pig farms (mean heard size of 71) and described an economic approach for operations in Nigeria. Their study highlighted that inadequate biosecurity measures can lead to significant economic losses, with potential losses of up to USD 910,836.70 in a single year due to an ASF outbreak [47]. While this was focused on Nigerian farms, it is important to note that measures in pig farming operations could vary significantly in other countries, potentially leading to even greater financial losses in regions with higher pig prices and operational costs. Fasina et al. suggest that implementing effective biosecurity measures, despite causing a 9.70% reduction in total annual profit, is justified given the substantial economic loss of typically 100% mortality incurred during ASF outbreaks. However, the benefit–cost ratio of biosecurity against an infection of ASF would result in a ratio of anywhere from 29 to 31 [47]. The World Bank has estimated that six major zoonotic disease epidemics over 12 years (1997–2009) have resulted in an economic loss of more than USD 80 billion [48].
Lastly, even false-positive biosecurity threat reports can negatively impact an industry through the loss of consumer or manufacturer confidence. Many industries have an intense system of checks and balances to prevent false positives. The need for testing, confirmation, and tracking are critical aspects of a biosecurity plan for any operation, regardless of its size.

3.5. Operation Size and Biosecurity Challenges

A significant distinction between large- and small-scale farming lies in the USDA’s classification of farm operations, as previously mentioned. Research has explored the comparative efficiency of small- and large-scale farms, revealing distinctions in their performance [49,50]. Galanopoulos et al.’s study noted lower technical efficiency in smaller small-scale farming operations [49]. Optimizing technical efficiency in biodefense and biosecurity measures ensures that limited resources such as funding, personnel, and infrastructure are utilized effectively to enhance preparedness and response capabilities against biological threats and emerging infectious diseases. Their analysis extended to overall efficiency, highlighting superior performance among larger farms [49].
Peterson delved into the efficiency levels of small-scale farms, correlating them with production levels and variations in management and environmental conditions impacting biological efficiency [50]. Notably, a divergence in yield was observed, attributed by Peterson to disparities in land quality, with larger farms generally situated on higher-grade land [50]. Production percentages, GCFI, and efficiency are among several factors illustrating the contrasting attributes of small-, mid-sized-, and large-scale farming in the U.S. These variations extend to biosecurity practices, highlighting the diverse considerations within these farming scales.

3.6. Biosecurity Resources/Training

Small-scale farming biosecurity resources are rather scarce and can be challenging to find. There are programs that focus on new and beginning farmers, such as training by 4-H and FFA. Aside from the resources that are available for youth, private and public organizations play an important role in biosecurity resources [5]. Previous research revealed that farming communities have apprehension about adopting biosecurity practices because they thought that “disease was inextricably linked to political, social and economic factors outside their sphere of control” [51].
Limited research has focused on biosecurity training for small-scale farming, but there is some research to show how resources and programs can be beneficial for improving knowledge [33]. In a study about poultry biosecurity and disease prevention curriculum, 11% of the subjects reported being exposed to biosecurity training in the past that improved their knowledge and attitudes in biosecurity [33]. Farmers and governments are dealing with a greater range of biosecurity threats than ever before. Resources need to move away from already established sectoral biosecurity traditions and focus on a shared toolbox of best practices for measuring risk with the costs and benefits [5]. It is through working together and utilizing all our resources that we can accumulate better world health.

4. Conclusions

This review underscores the significance of a knowledge-driven approach to biosecurity among small-scale farmers in the U.S. Research reveals a notable deficiency in the adoption of biosecurity practices by small-scale producers, necessitating the development of accessible and cost-effective infection prevention and control training. Moreover, the economic ramifications of inadequate biosecurity measures are paramount, impacting agricultural operations across the spectrum. Regulatory frameworks provided by agencies such as the FDA, USDA, and DHS play a pivotal role in reinforcing biosecurity. This study further highlights the economic repercussions of false positive biosecurity reports and underscores the imperative for comprehensive testing and meticulous tracking. In essence, the knowledge-driven enhancement of biosecurity practices for small-scale farmers contributes not only to their economic viability but also to the resilience, sustainability, and overall well-being of the broader agricultural community.
Typically, the age, education, experience, ability, lifestyle, community attitude, goals, and values of agricultural farmers have all been shown to affect the decisions being made about agricultural biosecurity [36]. Agricultural production, on any scale, or through any cultural lens, is susceptible to various concerns of biosecurity and pre-existing beliefs about management practices and/or the spread of disease can also influence people’s perceived vulnerability to certain biosecurity risks [52]. Vigilance against risks of incursion and knowledge of diseases is not only beneficial to veterinarians, epidemiological groups, and animal health technicians but could also serve livestock-keepers at any sized farm [44]. The review of the literature identifies that further research is needed to fully understand at what scale resources are allocated to small-farming operations in the U.S., along with adequate training to illustrate the importance of biosecurity in agricultural operations and to further identify the gaps in resource availability for small-scale farmers.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.M. and S.E.; methodology, G.M. and S.E.; formal analysis, G.M. and J.S.; writing—original draft preparation, G.M.; writing—review and editing, G.M., S.E. and J.S.; project administration, S.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by a United States Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture Grant # 2019-41210-30094.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Dargatz, D.A.; Garry, F.B.; Traub-Dargatz, J.L. An Introduction to Biosecurity of Cattle Operations. Food Anim. Pract. 2002, 18, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Kuster, K.; Cousin, M.-E.; Jemmi, T.; Schüpbach-Regula, G.; Magouras, I. Expert Opinion on the Perceived Effectiveness and Importance of On-Farm Biosecurity Measures for Cattle and Swine Farms in Switzerland. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0144533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Huber, N.; Andraud, M.; Sassu, E.L.; Prigge, C.; Zoche-Golob, V.; Käsbohrer, A.; D’Angelantonio, D.; Viltrop, A.; Żmudzki, J.; Jones, H.; et al. What is a biosecurity measure? A definition proposal for animal production and linked processing operations. One Health 2022, 15, 100433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Maye, D.; Chan, K.W. On-farm biosecurity in livestock production: Farmer behaviour, cultural identities and practices of care. Emerg. Top. Life Sci. 2020, 4, 521–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Waage, J.K.; Mumford, J.D. Agricultural biosecurity. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2008, 363, 863–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. USDA. Small Farms, Big Differences. 2021. Available online: https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2010/05/18/small-farms-big-differences (accessed on 11 March 2021).
  7. USDA-ERS. Farm Structure. 2021. Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-structure-and-organization/farm-structure/ (accessed on 6 January 2021).
  8. Eise, J. How to Feed the World; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  9. Can, M.F.; Altuğ, N. Socioeconomic implications of biosecurity practices in small-scale dairy farms. Vet. Q. 2014, 34, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Oliver, S.P.; Jayarao, B.M.; Almeida, R.A. Foodborne pathogens in milk and the dairy farm environment: Food safety and public health implications. Foodbourne Pathog. Dis. 2005, 2, 115–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. World Health Organization. Zoonotic Disease: Emerging Public Health Threats in the Region; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  12. Otte, J.; Pica-Ciamarra, U. Emerging infectious zoonotic diseases: The neglected role of food animals. One Health 2021, 13, 100323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hulme, P.E. One Biosecurity: A unified concept to integrate human, animal, plant, and environmental health. Emerg. Top. Life Sci. 2020, 4, 539–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fan, S.; Pandya-Lorch, R. Reshaping Agriculture for Nutrition and Health; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  15. Mackenzie, J.S.; Jeggo, M. The One Health approach—Why is it so important? Trop. Med. Infect. Dis. 2019, 4, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tomley, F.M.; Shirley, M.W. Livestock infectious diseases and zoonoses. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2009, 364, 2637–2642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Hall, D.C.; Ehui, S.; Delgado, C. The livestock revolution, food safety, and small-scale farmers: Why they matter to us all. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2004, 17, 425–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wijerathna, A. Big Challenges Small Farms; Hebrew University of Jerusalem: Jerusalem, Isarael, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  19. Wilkinson, K.; Grant, W.P.; Green, L.E.; Hunter, S.; Jeger, M.J.; Lowe, P.; Medley, G.F.; Mills, P.; Phillipson, J.; Poppy, G.M.; et al. Infectious diseases of animals and plants: An interdisciplinary approach. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2011, 366, 1933–1942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Jones, B.A.; Grace, D.; Kock, R.; Alonso, S.; Rushton, J.; Said, M.Y.; McKeever, D.; Mutua, F.; Young, J.; McDermott, J.; et al. Zoonosis emergence linked to agricultural intensification and environmental change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 8399–8404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Morse, S.S. Factors in the emergence of infectious diseases. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 1995, 1, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Schuck-Paim, C. Intensive animal farming conditions are a major threat to global health. Anim. Sentience 2020, 5, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Shutske, J. Development of model biosecurity programs. J. Dairy Sci. 2004, 87, 120. [Google Scholar]
  24. Morse, S.S. Factors and determinants of disease emergence. Rev. Sci. Technol.-Off. Int. Épizooties 2004, 23, 443–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rohr, J.R.; Barrett, C.B.; Civitello, D.J.; Craft, M.E.; Delius, B.; DeLeo, G.A.; Hudson, P.J.; Jouanard, N.; Nguyen, K.H.; Ostfeld, R.S. Emerging human infectious diseases and the links to global food production. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 445–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. USDA. Small and Mid-Sized Farmer Resources. 2020. Available online: https://www.usda.gov/topics/farming/resources-small-and-mid-sized-farmers (accessed on 23 January 2020).
  27. Nicholson, C.W.; Campagnolo, E.R.; Boktor, S.W.; Butler, C.L. Zoonotic disease awareness survey of backyard poultry and swine owners in southcentral Pennsylvania. Zoonoses Public Health 2020, 67, 280–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lewerin, S.S.; Österberg, J.; Alenius, S.; Elvander, M.; Fellström, C.; Tråvén, M.; Wallgren, P.; Waller, K.P.; Jacobson, M. Risk assessment as a tool for improving external biosecurity at farm level. BMC Vet. Res. 2015, 11, 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Mee, J.F.; Geraghty, T.; O’Neill, R.; More, S.J. Bioexclusion of diseases from dairy and beef farms: Risks of introducing infectious agents and risk reduction strategies. Vet. J. 2012, 194, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Merrill, S.C.; Koliba, C.J.; Moegenburg, S.M.; Zia, A.; Parker, J.; Sellnow, T.; Wiltshire, S.; Bucini, G.; Danehy, C.; Smith, J.M. Decision-making in livestock biosecurity practices amidst environmental and social uncertainty: Evidence from an experimental game. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0214500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Beam, A. Study of Small-Scale Farms in the United States: Characteristics and Practices Relevant to Animal Disease Prevention and Control. Ph.D. Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  32. Campbell, V.L. Active Assessment of US Livestock Biosecurity and Policies; Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange: Knoxville, TN, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kohlhagen, K.R. Analysis and Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a Poultry Biosecurity and Disease Prevention Curriculum. Ph.D. Thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  34. Schemann, K.; Firestone, S.M.; Taylor, M.R.; Toribio, J.-A.; Ward, M.P.; Dhand, N.K. Horse owners’/managers’ perceptions about effectiveness of biosecurity measures based on their experiences during the 2007 equine influenza outbreak in Australia. Prev. Vet. Med. 2012, 106, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Simon-Grifé, M.; Martín-Valls, G.E.; Vilar, M.J.; García-Bocanegra, I.; Martín, M.; Mateu, E.; Casal, J. Biosecurity practices in Spanish pig herds: Perceptions of farmers and veterinarians of the most important biosecurity measures. Prev. Vet. Med. 2013, 110, 223–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Toma, L.; Stott, A.W.; Heffernan, C.; Ringrose, S.; Gunn, G.J. Determinants of biosecurity behaviour of British cattle and sheep farmers—A behavioural economics analysis. Prev. Vet. Med. 2013, 108, 321–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pileri, E.; Mateu, E. Review on the transmission porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus between pigs and farms and impact on vaccination. Vet. Res. 2016, 47, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Traub-Dargatz, J.; Kopral, C.; Wagner, B. Relationship of biosecuriy practices with the use of antibiotics for the treatment of infectious disease on US equine operations. Prev. Vet. Med. 2012, 104, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Penrith, M.L.; Bastos, A.; Chenais, E. With or without a vaccine—A review of complementary and alternative approaches to managing african swine fever in resource-constrained smallholder settings. Vaccines 2021, 9, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Negrón, M.; Raizman, E.A.; Pogranichniy, R.; Hilton, W.M.; Lévy, M. Survey on management practices related to the prevention and control of bovine viral diarrhea virus on dairy farms in Indiana, United States. Prev. Vet. Med. 2011, 99, 130–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hoe, F.G.H.; Ruegg, P.L. Opinions and practices of Wisconsin dairy producers about biosecurity and animal well-being. J. Dairy Sci. 2006, 89, 2297–2308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Owiny, J.R. Small-Scale Urban Agriculture in Northern Colorado. Ph.D. Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  43. Garcia, J.D.; Huff, A.G.; Huff, E.S.; Garcia, J.D.; Huff, A.G.; Huff, E.S. Understanding farmers’ biosecurity beliefs and behaviours related to antimicrobial resistant bacteria in Michigan, USA. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2020, 60, 674–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Honhold, N.; Douglas, I.; Geering, W.; Shimshoni, A.; Lubroth, J. Good emergency management practice: The essentials. In FAO Animal Production and Health Manual, No.11; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2011; Available online: https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20113378148 (accessed on 15 July 2023).
  45. NSABB. Proposed framework for the oversight of dual use life sciences research: Strategies for minimizing the potential misuse of research information. In A Report of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB); National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, Office of Biotechnology: Bethesda, MA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  46. Coffey, B.; Mintert, J.; Fox, J.A.; Schroeder, T.C.; Valentin, L. The Economic Impact of BSE on the U.S. Beef Industry: Product Value Losses, Regulatory Costs, and Consumer Reactions. Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service. 2005. Available online: https://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/handle/2097/12460 (accessed on 15 July 2023).
  47. Fasina, F.O.; Lazarus, D.D.; Spencer, B.T.; Makinde, A.A.; Bastos, A.D. Cost implications of African swine fever in smallholder farrow-to-finish units: Economic benefits of disease prevention through biosecurity. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2012, 59, 244–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Belay, E.D.; Kile, J.C.; Hall, A.J.; Barton-Behravesh, C.; Parsons, M.B.; Salyer, S.; Walke, H. Zoonotic Disease Programs for Enhancing Global Health Security. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2017, 23 (Suppl. S1), S65–S70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Galanopoulos, K.; Abas, Z.; Laga, V.; Hatziminaoglou, I.; Boyazoglu, J. The technical efficiency of transhumance sheep and goat farms and the effect of EU subsidies: Do small farms benefit more than large farms? Small Rumin. Res. 2011, 100, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Peterson, W.L. Are Large Farms More Efficient? No. 1701-2016–139230; AgEcon Search: St. Paul, MN, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hamilton, L.; Evans, N.; Allcock, J. “I don’t go to Meetings”: Understanding farmer perspectives on bovine TB and biosecurity training. Vet. Rec. 2019, 184, 410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Mankad, A. Psychological influences on biosecurity control and farmer decision-making. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 36, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Federal statutes that have great significance in small-scale farming biosecurity legislation.
Table 1. Federal statutes that have great significance in small-scale farming biosecurity legislation.
StatutesYear Adopted
Food Safety Modernization Act, 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq2011
Animal Enterprise Terrorism 18 U.S.C. §432006
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act 107 U.S.C. §1882002
Homeland Security Act 6 U.S.C. §101–5572002
Animal Health Protection Act 7 U.S.C. §8301–83222002
Virus-Serum-Toxin Act 21 U.S.C. §151–1591913
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Morris, G.; Ehlers, S.; Shutske, J. U.S. Small-Scale Livestock Operation Approach to Biosecurity. Agriculture 2023, 13, 2086. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13112086

AMA Style

Morris G, Ehlers S, Shutske J. U.S. Small-Scale Livestock Operation Approach to Biosecurity. Agriculture. 2023; 13(11):2086. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13112086

Chicago/Turabian Style

Morris, Glen, Shawn Ehlers, and John Shutske. 2023. "U.S. Small-Scale Livestock Operation Approach to Biosecurity" Agriculture 13, no. 11: 2086. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13112086

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop