Methods to assess on-farm biosecurity in Europe and beyond

Fernando Duarte; Lena-Mari Tamminen; Miroslav Kjosevski; Giovanna Ciaravino; Mattias Delpont; Carla Correia-Gomes; Bart H. P. van den Borne; Ilias Chantziaras; Laura Valeria Alarcón; Line Svennesen; Ina Toppari; Alessandra Piccirillo; Rreze M. Gecaj; Artur Zbikowski; Telmo Nunes; Jasna Prodanov-Radulovic; Marco De Nardi; Vitalii Nedosekov; Amelie Desvars-Larrive; Alberto Allepuz

doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2025.106486

You are here:

PHAIDRA
Detail o:4123

Open in new window

Title (eng)

Methods to assess on-farm biosecurity in Europe and beyond

Author

Fernando Duarte

Lena-Mari Tamminen

Miroslav Kjosevski

Giovanna Ciaravino

Mattias Delpont

Carla Correia-Gomes

Bart H. P. van den Borne

Ilias Chantziaras

Laura Valeria Alarcón

Line Svennesen

Ina Toppari

Alessandra Piccirillo

Rreze M. Gecaj

Artur Zbikowski

Telmo Nunes

Jasna Prodanov-Radulovic

Marco De Nardi

Vitalii Nedosekov

Amelie Desvars-Larrive

University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna

Alberto Allepuz

Abstract (eng)

The aim of this study was to identify which biosecurity assessment methods (BAMs) are currently used in practice in animal farms. To address this, a structured questionnaire was developed to gather information such as the animal species, main objectives, type of enforcement, output generated and feedback of the result. In the context of the BETTER Cost Action project, country representatives identified in each of their countries which BAMs were used and completed an online survey. The survey was prepared and translated in 23 languages. Besides a descriptive analysis, clusters of BAMs were determined using a multiple correspondence analysis. Responses, collected between December 2022 and July 2023, included 74 BAMs used in 28 countries. Most of them were used in a single country while three were used in multiple countries. This study provides a comprehensive picture of existing BAMs and insights into their diversity, such as variations in objectives, implementation, evaluators, respondents, feedback, or assessment outputs. Moreover, we identified four BAMs clusters differentiated by their objective, evaluator and type of feedback provided. This study might also represent the basis for future research on strengths and weaknesses of different BAMs.

Keywords (eng)

AnimalsEuropeSurveys and QuestionnairesBiosecurityAnimal Husbandry MethodsLivestockFarms

Type (eng)

journal article

Language

[eng]

Persistent identifier

https://phaidra.vetmeduni.ac.at/o:4123

DOI

10.1016/j.prevetmed.2025.106486

Is in series

Title (eng)