Investigators have reported that cattle owners across a number of states generally fail to implement commonly recommended biosecurity practices.1–4,a,b In the USDA National Animal Health Monitoring System's study5 of biosecurity practices among dairy cattle producers, for instance, only a few dairy producers addressed potential contamination from people's feet by requiring the use of disposable boots or footbaths, only 13% reported controlling visitor access, only 44% had some controls in place for vehicle access, less than half had a vector control program, and less than 20% quarantined or tested new additions to the farm. Thus, there appears to be a gap between national biosecurity recommendations and on-farm practices. Producers may choose not to implement biosecurity recommendations because of a lack of awareness about the potential risks to their farms and the industry as a whole or, among those who are aware of the potential risks, because of a lack of understanding of the value of implementing recommendations, a belief that the benefits did not outweigh the costs, or apathy or denial about the potential risks. It is also possible that some producers choose not to implement biosecurity recommendations because of confusion as to the specific recommendations they should follow. A number of quality assurance programs and lists of recommended biosecurity practices have been created by national organizations, cooperative extension programs, and state departments of agriculture, and it is possible that variations in recommendations and the resulting confusion this engenders have contributed to producers' failure to implement recommended biosecurity practices. Therefore, the purpose of the study reported here was to compare published recommendations regarding biosecurity practices for various production animal species and classes. Specifically, we wanted to identify and categorize the components of biosecurity programs described in current educational materials for poultry and the major livestock species, identify gaps that might increase vulnerability to foreign animal (ie, transboundary) diseases, and provide suggestions on how to harmonize recommendations for biosecurity practices to potentially improve on-farm compliance.
Materials and Methods
A search of the literature and Internet was conducted to identify national quality assurance programs with biosecurity recommendations targeting dairy cattle, beef cattle, small ruminant, swine, and poultry producers. In addition, cooperative extension programs in animal and veterinary sciences as well as state and federal outreach materials on the World Wide Web were evaluated for biosecurity recommendations related to foreign animal diseases. Biosecurity recommendations specifically aimed at preventing the on-farm introduction of diseases and slowing the spread of endemic diseases were then compared within and among animal agricultural commodity groups. A standardized form was created to categorize and quantify recommendations, and themes in educational materials and biosecurity checklists that were identified were assigned to these predetermined categories. Only materials directed at animal agriculture producers were included.
Results
A single national organization was selected as representing each animal agriculture commodity group at the national level.6–10 A total of 53 university Web sites were visited, and 65 publications prepared by university cooperative extension services were identified and evaluated.11–73 In addition, Web sites for all 50 state departments of agriculture were searched for materials related to biosecurity. Twenty-nine states were found to have at least 1 publication related to biosecurity practices for animal agriculture producers, for a total of 46 publications (Table 1).74–119
Results of a search of cooperative extension service and state department of agriculture Web sites for educational materials providing biosecurity recommendations for animal agriculture producers.
| Species focus | University cooperative extension services | State departments of agriculture | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of institutions | No. of publications | No. of institutions | No. of publications | |
| General livestock | 15 | 22 | 16 | 17 |
| Dairy cattle | 9 | 12 | 4 | 4 |
| Beef cattle | 11 | 12 | 0 | 0 |
| Poultry | 12 | 13 | 20 | 25 |
| Swine | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Small ruminant | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
Evaluation of the biosecurity recommendations revealed wide variations among commodity groups (Table 2). For all commodity groups as a whole, the most common recommendations were vector control, equipment and tool disinfection, use of footbaths or disposable boots, and control of visitor access (approx 60% of the educational materials reviewed). About half of the educational materials specifically mentioned use of clean clothing, vehicle access control, and quarantining or isolating new additions or animals returning to the farm. Less than half of the educational materials discussed risk assessments of the farm's operational policies and infrastructure or animal identification. Overall, employee training, animal health record keeping, and restrictions on employee ownership of animals were rarely mentioned.
Biosecurity recommendations found in educational materials on the World Wide Web and targeting dairy cattle, beef cattle, poultry, swine, and small ruminant producers.
| Source of educational materials | Recommendation | Species focus | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General livestock | Dairy cattle | Beef cattle | Poultry | Swine | Small ruminant | ||
| National organization* | |||||||
| Risk assessment | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | |
| On-farm evaluation | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | |
| Footbaths or disposable boots | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | |
| Hand sanitation | No | No | No | No | No | No | |
| Clean clothing | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Restriction on home production | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Employee training | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | |
| Control visitor access | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Perimeter fence or other control | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | |
| Locked gates and doors | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | |
| Vehicle disinfection | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Control vehicle access | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Vector control | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Equipment and tool disinfection | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Manure management or methods to prevent feed and water contamination | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | |
| Animal or lot identification numbers | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | |
| Maintain health records | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | |
| Quarantine new additions or returning stock | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Closed herd or all-in-all-out | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Limit new additions | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Test new additions | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Young stock management | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | |
| Encourage disease awareness | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Vaccinate | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Encourage disease reporting | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | |
| Cooperative extension service† | |||||||
| Risk assessment | 6 (27) | 4 (33) | 1 (8) | 3 (23) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| On-farm evaluation | 4 (18) | 2 (17) | 1 (8) | 2 (15) | 0 (0) | 1 (33) | |
| Footbaths or disposable boots | 15 (68) | 7 (58) | 6 (50) | 10 (77) | 2 (67) | 1 (33) | |
| Hand sanitation | 7 (32) | 2 (17) | 3 (25) | 7 (54) | 1 (33) | 2 (67) | |
| Clean clothing | 12 (55) | 4 (33) | 5 (42) | 11 (85) | 2 (67) | 1 (33) | |
| Restriction on home production | 4 (18) | 0 (0) | 1 (8) | 9 (69) | 1 (33) | 0 (0) | |
| Employee training | 6 (27) | 0 (0) | 2 (17) | 2 (15) | 0 (0) | 1 (33) | |
| Control visitor access | 13 (59) | 6 (50) | 7 (58) | 9 (69) | 2 (67) | 3 (100) | |
| Perimeter fence or other control | 9 (41) | 3 (25) | 5 (42) | 6 (46) | 2 (67) | 1 (33) | |
| Locked gates and doors | 8 (36) | 2 (17) | 1 (8) | 6 (46) | 2 (67) | 0 (0) | |
| Vehicle disinfection | 9 (41) | 4 (33) | 5 (42) | 7 (54) | 2 (67) | 2 (67) | |
| Control vehicle access | 13 (59) | 6 (50) | 6 (50) | 6 (46) | 2 (67) | 3 (100) | |
| Vector control | 9 (41) | 6 (50) | 10 (83) | 12 (92) | 2 (67) | 3 (100) | |
| Equipment and tool disinfection | 14 (64) | 6 (50) | 9 (75) | 11 (85) | 2 (67) | 1 (33) | |
| Manure management or methods to prevent feed and water contamination | 9 (41) | 4 (33) | 5 (42) | 8 (62) | 2 (67) | 2 (67) | |
| Animal or lot identification numbers | 2 (9) | 0 (0) | 2 (17) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (33) | |
| Maintain health records | 5 (23) | 0 (0) | 2 (17) | 2 (15) | 0 (0) | 2 (67) | |
| Quarantine new additions or returning stock | 15 (68) | 6 (50) | 10 (83) | 3 (23) | 2 (67) | 3 (100) | |
| Closed herd or all-in-all-out | 6 (27) | 1 (8) | 4 (33) | 8 (62) | 1 (33) | 1 (33) | |
| Limit new additions | 12 (55) | 6 (50) | 7 (58) | 6 (46) | 2 (67) | 3 (100) | |
| Test new additions | 9 (41) | 6 (50) | 6 (50) | 2 (15) | 2 (67) | 2 (67) | |
| Young stock management | 5 (23) | 2 (17) | 3 (25) | 6 (46) | 1 (33) | 0 (0) | |
| Encourage disease awareness | 7 (32) | 1 (8) | 4 (33) | 3 (23) | 0 (0) | 1 (33) | |
| Vaccinate | 11 (50) | 8 (67) | 5 (42) | 4 (31) | 0 (0) | 2 (67) | |
| Encourage disease reporting | 5 (23) | 1 (8) | 4 (33) | 1 (8) | 1 (33) | 1 (33) | |
| State department of agriculture† | |||||||
| Risk assessment | 2 (12) | 2 (50) | NA | 3 (12) | NA | NA | |
| On-farm evaluation | 1 (6) | 2 (50) | NA | 1 (4) | NA | NA | |
| Footbaths or disposable boots | 15 (88) | 1 (25) | NA | 18 (72) | NA | NA | |
| Hand sanitation | 5 (29) | 0 (0) | NA | 0 (0) | NA | NA | |
| Clean clothing | 14 (82) | 1 (25) | NA | 17 (68) | NA | NA | |
| Restriction on home production | 3 (18) | 1 (25) | NA | 13 (52) | NA | NA | |
| Employee training | 3 (18) | 3 (75) | NA | 4 (16) | NA | NA | |
| Control visitor access | 14 (82) | 4 (100) | NA | 17 (68) | NA | NA | |
| Perimeter fence or other control | 7 (41) | 2 (50) | NA | 7 (28) | NA | NA | |
| Locked gates and doors | 3 (18) | 3 (75) | NA | 4 (16) | NA | NA | |
| Vehicle disinfection | 9 (53) | 0 (0) | NA | 11 (44) | NA | NA | |
| Control vehicle access | 11 (65) | 4 (100) | NA | 14 (56) | NA | NA | |
| Vector control | 11 (65) | 2 (50) | NA | 17 (68) | NA | NA | |
| Equipment and tool disinfection | 9 (53) | 2 (50) | NA | 17 (68) | NA | NA | |
| Manure management or methods to prevent feed and water contamination | 7 (41) | 3 (75) | NA | 10 (40) | NA | NA | |
| Animal or lot identification numbers | 3 (18) | 1 (25) | NA | 2 (8) | NA | NA | |
| Maintain health records | 2 (12) | 1 (25) | NA | 1 (4) | NA | NA | |
| Quarantine new additions or returning stock | 12 (71) | 3 (75) | NA | 11 (44) | NA | NA | |
| Closed herd or all-in-all-out | 1 (6) | 0 (0) | NA | 9 (36) | NA | NA | |
| Limit new additions | 9 (53) | 1 (25) | NA | 2 (8) | NA | NA | |
| Test new additions | 4 (24) | 1 (25) | NA | 1 (4) | NA | NA | |
| Young stock management | 1 (6) | 1 (25) | NA | 2 (8) | NA | NA | |
| Encourage disease awareness | 4 (24) | 1 (25) | NA | 14 (56) | NA | NA | |
| Vaccinate | 5 (29) | 1 (25) | NA | 2 (8) | NA | NA | |
| Encourage disease reporting | 8 (47) | 1 (25) | NA | 13 (52) | NA | NA | |
National organization refers to the national producer organization; data indicate whether each specific recommendation was or was not included in educational materials from the national producer organization.
Data are given as number (%) of publications that included each specific recommendation.
NA = Not applicable (no publications were identified).
For university cooperative extensive services, 22 publications addressed general livestock, 12 addressed dairy cattle, 12 addressed beef cattle, 13 addressed poultry, 3 addressed swine, and 3 addressed small ruminants. For state departments of agriculture, 17 publications addressed general livestock, 4 addressed dairy cattle, none addressed beef cattle, 25 addressed poultry, none addressed swine, and none addressed small ruminants.
Examination of the educational materials revealed 4 additional recommendations that had not been included in our initial categorization of biosecurity recommendations: disposal of dead stock, maintenance of visitor logs, on-farm biosecurity signage, and shower-in recommendations. The most common of these included maintenance of a visitor log, with approximately 25% of governmental materials for all species and approximately 30% of all cooperative extension materials mentioning visitor logs, and recommendations for disposal of dead stock, with 20% of governmental materials and 30% of cooperative extension materials providing recommendations on disposal of dead stock.
Isolation or quarantine of new farm arrivals was a common recommendation, with 50% of governmental materials and 61% of cooperative extension materials including this recommendation. However, recommended times for isolation varied widely. For example, 16 sources recommended isolation times for dairy cattle, with recommended times ranging from 14 to 30 days (mode, 14 days; median, 21 days). For beef cattle, recommended isolation times ranged from 14 to 60 days.
Educational materials that provided general biosecurity recommendations for livestock tended to be more complete than materials that provided recommendations specifically for dairy or beef producers. In addition, biosecurity recommendations contained in cooperative extension materials for dairy producers differed from recommendations in materials for other commodity groups. There were no recommendations for employee or owner restrictions on owning livestock or home production and no recommendations for employee training, animal identification, or health record keeping mentioned in the 12 publications reviewed. However, these recommendations were mentioned in general animal or livestock publications provided by cooperative extension services (21 total publications).
Materials for avian species had the most extensive and consistent set of biosecurity recommendations, followed by materials focused on swine. Cooperative extension materials for poultry producers generally recommended restrictions on employees and owners raising the same species of animals at home. Two important aspects of biosecurity were mentioned only twice: formal evaluation or assessment of the farm and employee training. It is likely that these recommendations were implied in the materials but not captured as explicit recommendations. The number of cooperative extension materials specific to swine was limited. Many university sites highlighted or recommended national swine biosecurity programs. Many of the small ruminant biosecurity recommendations related specifically to scrapie control.
Many of the publications containing biosecurity recommendations that had been created by state departments of agriculture were embedded within educational materials for specific diseases, such as foot and mouth disease and avian influenza. These materials primarily focused on general livestock, poultry, and dairy producers, in that order. Publications available at state department of agriculture Web sites regarding biosecurity recommendations for general livestock and poultry producers included discussions of footbaths or disposable boots, clean clothing, control of visitor access, quarantine and isolation of new or returning animals, vehicle access control, equipment and tool disinfection, and vector control (including control of pets, wild animals, and insects). Twenty-two state sites had links to the USDA national biosecurity materials for poultry.120 An additional item was a recommendation regarding the National Animal Identification System, which was developed to allow government regulatory officials to trace the movements of suspect animals within 48 hours after a foreign animal disease outbreak was identified.121 Forty-three state departments of agriculture made recommendations for such animal identification; 7 made no recommendation.
Discussion
Biosecurity recommendations in educational materials reviewed in the present study differed by source (ie, national organization, university cooperative extension service, or state department of agriculture) and within and between commodity groups. The present study focused on materials accessible through the World Wide Web and was not an exhaustive examination of all available educational materials. Nevertheless, our findings demonstrated substantive differences in recommendations within various production animal species and classes. The primary differences were in the extent of the recommendations provided (ie, how rigorous each recommendation was, such as hand sanitation vs shower-in–shower-out) and whether specific biosecurity practices were included in the recommendations.
Differences in recommended biosecurity practices for a given animal species or production class may encourage producers to select their favorite few recommendations and allow them to create an incomplete biosecurity program that does not substantially decrease the risk of introducing disease. Thus, we believe that harmonizing recommendations within each production class, especially when specific practices have been validated on the basis of empirical evidence, would be beneficial. As an example, quarantine times for new arrivals should be based on published findings and any wide ranges should be explained.
There is some question as to how extensive farm biosecurity programs need to be to prevent disease transmission. In the present study, we found that specific, detailed biosecurity recommendations had been published for the poultry and swine industries. The intense nature of these industries in combination with the nature of some of the specific disease problems they have encountered necessitates an extensive list of recommendations to prevent disease exposure to large numbers of confined animals. More extensive production industries, such as sheep and beef cattle, had less explicit recommendations with fewer recommendations regarding biosecurity practices. Questions that need to be considered when creating biosecurity recommendations include what aspects of their farms producers can reasonably secure and what costs and benefits can be associated with securing a farm. Recommendations provided to producers should be predicated on the specific risks associated with the specific species being raised, the potential severity of the disease threats, and the location and operation of the farm or ranch. In addition, the degree to which precautions are taken will vary depending on the threat level, with more precautions taken during a disease outbreak.
None of the published recommendations reviewed for the present study weighted particular biosecurity recommendations as more important than others. The importance of specific disease prevention recommendations depends on the species, the disease, the routes of transmission, and the likelihood of exposure. Thus, regardless of whether one is concerned about endemic disease control or preventing transboundary disease introduction, establishing procedures for bringing new animals onto the farm is likely more important than rodent control, for example, and should be weighted accordingly. However, risk perception among farmers does not always equate with risk aversion behavior. In a study122 of swine producers, for instance, the fact that a biosecurity practice was perceived as important was not necessarily associated with its implementation and swine producers were more likely to implement biosecurity measures that affected disease transmission through people and wildlife, rather than measures to prevent disease transmission from replacement animals, which are more important in terms of preventing disease transmission. Thus, providing a weighting system for biosecurity recommendations may help motivate producers to implement the most important practices.
A single set of biosecurity recommendations will not be appropriate for all farm operations because even within a commodity group, risks vary by the type of management. For this reason, on-farm risk assessment is likely the best starting point for educating producers about farm-specific risks for disease introduction and potential biosecurity breaches.123 However, few of the published materials examined in the present study provided information on biosecurity risk assessment tools. Examples of risk assessment tools that were identified include those developed by the US Poultry and Egg Association,6 the National Pork Board,124 the Milk and Dairy Beef Quality Assurance Center,10 the sheep industry,7 and the Iowa State University Center for Food Safety and Public Health (beef and dairy).125 In addition, disease-specific biosecurity risk assessment tools, such as for paratuberculosis, were identified.126
Biosecurity programs cannot simply be announced and will be adopted only if they address the realities faced by those who must implement them. Beyond this, biosecurity programs will be adopted only if they address everyday enzootic threats, while still incorporating practices to protect from catastrophic transboundary epizootic threats. It likely will take all parties, including the cooperative extension services, infectious disease research community, state departments of agriculture, and producer groups, to develop acceptable biosecurity programs incorporating weighted biosecurity recommendations. We speculate that all organizations that provide biosecurity educational materials hope to inspire or motivate producers to assess their risk for disease introduction and eventually change some management practices to better secure their operations. To do so, they must engage producers during the development of biosecurity recommendations to promote buy-in and to identify practical solutions for problems associated with implementation of specific recommended practices.
One factor that could motivate producers to adopt biosecurity practices for their operations is the potential to maintain business continuity during a disease outbreak. As an example, producers might be more likely to adopt biosecurity practices if they knew that feed, products, and animals would be allowed to move within or around quarantined areas if producers could demonstrate through regular assessment and third-party verification that they had met a set of standards for biosecurity within their industry. Such a provision to allow for the movement of products and animals on and off the farm in the event of a foreign animal disease outbreak could allow for less business disruption and a more rapid return to normal business operations.127
It is easy for mixed messages to reach producers because of disconnects in terminology use and interpretation.128 This is especially true when messages are developed by different sources. When this happens, producers can become confused and may not make a decision about a change in management with regard to biosecurity. Thus, groups developing biosecurity recommendations should consider the communication model they are using if they expect producers to change their behavior. One such model129 describes all the stages (ie, attention, comprehension, attitudes and beliefs, and motivation) an individual goes through before a behavior change is possible and helps to explain why some individuals do not always heed warnings about various hazards. At each point in the process, information can flow to the next stage or reach a bottleneck.130 The process begins with the source of the information and the channel by which the information is delivered (eg, through a Web site or on-farm risk assessment). For the information to effect a change in behavior, however, it must attract the attention of the receiver (ie, producers), who must comprehend the message and create meaning, accept the message as corresponding with their beliefs and attitudes, and be motivated to accept the information before they will ever make a change in their behavior (ie, adopt new management practices). Gaining the attention of the receiver is a critical element in changing behavior. The individual must see the issue as a problem or opportunity worthy of someone's effort; personalize it by understanding that it is worthy of his or her own effort; and determine that solutions exist that are attainable given the individual's time, location, learning style, and cost preferences. Without satisfying these components, the receiver is not likely to engage in active learning, and without engagement in active learning, behavioral changes cannot occur.
In conclusion, in the present study, the number and extent of specific biosecurity recommendations in educational materials varied both within and across animal agriculture commodity groups. We recommend that national producer organizations, state departments of agriculture, and cooperative extension services, working with producer input, review their biosecurity recommendations to develop standard lists of evidence-based recommendations. The lack of adoption of biosecurity practices by producers is a complex issue, but the lack of a consistent message likely plays an important role. The next logical step in motivating producers to adopt biosecurity measures is through on-farm assessments of risks.
Dalton J, Norell R, Chahine M. Biosecurity practices used during dairy herd expansion (abstr). J Dairy Sci 2005;88(suppl 1):300–301.
Dalton J, Norell R, Chahine M. Do dairy producers manage dairy bulls to limit biosecurity and infertility risk? (abstr). J Dairy Sci 2005;88(suppl 1):301.
References
- 1.
Rauff Y, Moore DA, Sischo WM. Evaluation of the results of a survey of dairy producers on dairy herd biosecurity and vaccination against bovine viral diarrhea. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1996;209:1618–1622.
- 2.
Faust MA, Kinsel ML, Kirkpatrick MA. Characterizing biosecurity, health, and culling during dairy herd expansions. J Dairy Sci 2001;84:955–965.
- 3.
Hoe FG, Ruegg PL. Opinions and practices of Wisconsin dairy producers about biosecurity and animal well-being. J Dairy Sci 2006;89:2297–2308.
- 4.
Sanderson MW, Dargatz DA, Garry FB. Biosecurity practices of beef cow-calf producers. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;217:185–189.
- 5.↑
USDA. Animal Plant Health Inspection Service Web site. Highlights of NAHMS Dairy 2002: part III. Available at: www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/ncahs/nahms/dairy/dairy02/Dairy02Highlights3.pdf. Accessed Apr 6, 2006.
- 6.↑
US Poultry and Egg Association Web site. Infectious disease risk management. Practical biosecurity resources for commercial poultry producers. Available at: www.poultryegg.org/Biosecurity/biosecurity.cfm. Accessed Apr 6, 2006.
- 7.↑
American Sheep Industry Association Web site. Biosecurity for sheep production ASI fact sheet. Available at: www.sheepusa.org/index.phtml?page=site/text&nav_id=3c081c2af5f98f1a054911d06824094f. Accessed Apr 6, 2006.
- 8.
USDA. Animal Plant Health Inspection Service Web site. Biosecurity on dairies. Available at: www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/ncahs/nahms/dairy/bamn/BAMNBiosDairy01.pdf. Accessed Apr 6, 2006.
- 9.
Purdue University Biosecurity Center Web site. Biosecurity guide for pork producers. Available at: www.biosecuritycenter.org/content/security.pdf. Accessed Jun 6, 2006.
- 10.↑
Carlson KR. Biosecurity—profit for the taking! Stratford, Iowa: Dairy Quality Assurance Center, 2003.
- 11.
Iowa State University Center for Food Safety and Public Health Web site. General prevention practices checklist. Available at: www.cfsph.iastate.edu/BRMForProducers/English/GeneralPrevention/GenPrevPracChecklist.pdf. Accessed Apr 13, 2007.
- 12.
Michigan State University Veterinary Extension Web site. Guidelines for purchasing cows and heifers. Available at: cvm.msu.edu/alumni-friends/continuing-education/extension/dairy/articles-and-bulletins/. Accessed Apr 19, 2007.
- 13.
South Dakote State University Extension Web site. Biosecurity considerations for beef producers purchasing animals. Available at: vetsci.sdstate.edu/xnews/BCBPPA.htm. Accessed Apr 25, 2007.
- 14.
University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service Web site. Farm and home biosecurity; livestock/row crop producer; biosecurity protection for beef cattle operations. Available at: www.aragriculture.org/biosecurity/producer/beef_cattle_operations.htm. Accessed Apr 25, 2007.
- 15.
University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service Web site. Biosecurity on today's dairy farm— protecting your investment. Available at: www.aragriculture.org/biosecurity/producer/dairy_farm.htm. Accessed Apr 25, 2007.
- 16.
University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service Web site. Biosecurity guidelines. Available at: www.aragriculture.org/biosecurity/producer/biosecurity_guidelines.htm. Accessed May 18, 2007.
- 17.
University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service Web site. Arkansas farm biosecurity plan. Available at: www.aragriculture.org/biosecurity/producer/farm_plan/plan.htm. Accessed May 18, 2007.
- 18.
University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service Web site. Arkansas farm biosecurity plan—biosecurity protocols for farm visitors. Available at: www.aragriculture.org/biosecurity/producer/farm_plan/visitors.htm. Accessed May 18, 2007.
- 19.
University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service Web site. Cattle biosecurity. Available at: www.aragriculture.org/biosecurity/producer/cattle_biosecurity.htm. Accessed Apr 25, 2007.
- 20.
University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service Web site. Arkansas farm biosecurity plan—biosecurity on the farm and assessment of your farm. Available at: www.aragriculture.org/biosecurity/producer/farm_plan/farm.htm#Biosecurity%20on%20the%20Farm. Accessed Apr 25, 2007.
- 21.
University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Web site. Biosecurity guidelines for the farmer or producer. Available at: www.agrosecurity.uga.edu/annexes/Annex03_Procedures.pdf. Accessed Apr 13, 2007.
- 22.
University of Minnesota Cooperative Extension Web site. Biosecurity protocols for farm visitors. Available at: www.extension.umn.edu/specializations/livestocksystems/components/farmbiosec.html. Accessed Apr 25, 2007.
- 23.
University of Illinois Cooperative Extension Web site. Suggestions to protect your livestock operation. Available at: www.livestocktrail.uiuc.edu/biosecurity/papers/protect.html. Accessed Apr 20, 2007.
- 24.
Utah State University Extension Web site. Biosecurity guide (outline), for specific farm; from “open-gate” to biosecure. Available at: extension.usu.edu/ah/files/uploads/htms/bioguide.htm. Accessed May 29, 2007.
- 25.
University of Vermont Cooperative Extension Web site. Farm biosecurity risk assessment. Available at: www.uvm.edu/∼ascibios/Assessment/Farm_Biosecurity_Risk_Assessment.html. Accessed May 29, 2007.
- 26.
Bowman GL, Shulaw WP. Ohio State University Extension Web site. Biosecurity fundamentals for extension personnel. Available at: ohioline.osu.edu/vme-fact/0005.html. Accessed Apr 20, 2007.
- 27.
Bowman GL, Shulaw WP. Ohio State University Extension Web site. On-farm biosecurity: traffic control and sanitation. Available at: ohioline.osu.edu/vme-fact/0006.html. Accessed Apr 25, 2007.
- 28.
Buhman M, Dewell G, Griffin D. University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension Web site. Biosecurity basics for cattle operations and good management practices (GMP) for controlling infectious diseases. Available at: www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/epublic/live/g1411/build/g1411.pdf. Accessed Apr 20, 2007.
- 29.
Carey JB, Prochaska JF, Jeffrey JS. Texas Agriculture Extension Service, Texas A&M University Web site. Poultry facility biosecurity. Available at: gallus.tamu.edu/Extension%20publications/l-5182.pdf. Accessed Apr 13, 2007.
- 30.
Chapa AM, Farmer WS. Mississippi State University Extension Service Web site. Biosecurity on the dairy. Available at: msucares.com/pubs/infosheets/is1672.pdf. Accessed Apr 13, 2007.
- 31.
Cunningham DL, Fairchild BD. University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Web site. Biosecurity basics for poultry growers. Available at: pubs.caes.uga.edu/caespubs/pubs/PDF/B1306.pdf. Accessed Apr 20, 2007.
- 32.
Daly R. South Dakota State University Extension Web site. Control of infectious reproductive disease: the role of biosecurity. Available at: vetsci.sdstate.edu/VetExt/Women%20in%20Ag%20Conference/04_Control%20of%20Infectious%20Reproductive%20Disease.htm. Accessed May 21, 2007.
- 33.
deGraft-Hanson J. West Virginia University Extension Service Web site. Poultry management; biosecurity for backyard flocks. Available at: www.wvu.edu/∼agexten/poultry/Biosec.pdf. Accessed May 29, 2007.
- 34.
Dement AL. Texas A&M University Cooperative Extension Web site. Biosecurity best management practices. Available at: extensionvetmed.tamu.edu/Train-the-trainers/Text/Chapter5.pdf. Accessed Apr 13, 2007.
- 35.
Eckman M, Hess J. Alabama Cooperative Extension System Web site. Bio-security: your defense against catastrophe. Available at: www.ag-security.com/Library/BioSecurity/Biosecurity%20Basics.pdf. Accessed Apr 13, 2007.
- 36.
Frame DD. Utah State University Extension Web site. Biosecurity principles: protecting your investment. Available at: extension.usu.edu/files/publications/publication/AG_Poultry_Health_Biosecurity_01.pdf. Accessed May 29, 2007.
- 37.
Frame DD. Utah State University Extension Web site. Biosecurity principles: protecting the Utah turkey industry. Available at: extension.usu.edu/files/publications/Biosecurity03.pdf. Accessed May 29, 2007.
- 38.
Gernat A. North Carolina State University and North Carolina A&T State University Cooperative Extension Web site. Poultry farm biosecurity field manual. Available at: www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/poulsci/tech_manuals/biosecurity_field_manual.pdf. Accessed Apr 6, 2007.
- 39.
Helm JD. Clemson University, Livestock Poultry Health Division Web site. Biosecurity: protecting animal agriculture. Available at: www.clemson.edu/LPH/BiosecuritygeneralJH4-4-06.pdf. Accessed Apr 13, 2007.
- 40.
Hopkins FM, Welborn M, Palmer G, et al. University of Tennessee Cooperative Extension Web site. Biosecurity for the beef herd. Available at: www.utextension.utk.edu/publications/spfiles/SP691.pdf. Accessed May 25, 2007.
- 41.
Huston CL. Mississippi State University Extension Service Web site. Biosecurity for beef producers. Available at: msucares.com/pubs/publications/p2326.pdf. Accessed Apr 13, 2007.
- 42.
Jeffrey JS. University of California Davis Cooperative Extension Web site. Biosecurity for poultry flocks. Available at: www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext/INF-PO_Biosecurity.html. Accessed May 18, 2007.
- 43.
Kirkpatrick JG, Selk G. Oklahoma State University Cooperative Extension Web site. Biosecurity in the beef cattle operation. Available at: www.ansi.okstate.edu/exten/cc-corner/biosecurity.html. Accessed Apr 20, 2007.
- 44.
Maas J, Storm J. University of California Davis Cooperative Extension Web site. Biosecurity considerations for ranches. Available at: www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext/INF-BE_cca/INF-BE_cca01/INF-BE_cca010708.html. Accessed Apr 20, 2007.
- 45.
Martin GP. Pennsylvania State University Cooperative Extension Web site. Core fundamentals for poultry biosecurity. Available at: www.personal.psu.edu/gpm10/Biosecurityfun402.pdf. Accessed Apr 6, 2007.
- 46.
McGuire D, Scheideler SE. University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension Web site. Biosecurity and the poultry flock. Available at: www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/epublic/live/nf597/build/nf597.pdf. Accessed May 25, 2007.
- 47.
McKinnon BR. Virginia Cooperative Extension Web site. Farm security—“treat it seriously”; security for animal agriculture: security checklist. Available at: www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/farmsecurity/445003/445-003.html. Accessed May 18, 2007.
- 48.
Maine Cattl. Health Assurance Program. University of Maine Cooperative Extension, MeCHAP Web site. Core module risk assessment guide. Available at: www.umaine.edu/livestock/MeCHAP/Core%20Risk%20Assessment%20Guide.doc. Accessed Apr 27, 2007.
- 49.
Merkel R. Langston University Web site. Introduction to a meat goat quality assurance program and HACCP. Available at: www.luresext.edu/goats/training/MGQA.pdf. Accessed Apr 26, 2007.
- 50.
Mobley R. Florida A&M University Web site. Biosecurity at the farm level. Available at: www.famu.edu/herds/UserFiles/File/Biosecurity_at_the_Farm_Level.pdf. Accessed Apr 25, 2007.
- 51.
Moore DA. University of California Davis Cooperative Extension Web site. Guarding against the 'trojan horse': practical biosecurity measures for dairy farms. Available at: www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext/INF-DI/trojanhorse-biosecurity.pdf. Accessed Apr 6, 2007.
- 52.
Morishita TY. Ohio State University Extension Web site. Biosecurity for poultry. Available at: ohioline.osu.edu/vme-fact/0009.html. Accessed Apr 20, 2007.
- 53.
Morrow M, See T. North Carolina State University Cooperative Extension Web site. NCSU biosecurity index; how does your biosecurity rank? Available at: mark.asci.ncsu.edu/Veterinary/Bioindex/biosecurity_Excel97.htm. Accessed May 21, 2007.
- 54.
Nelson TM, Mallinson ET. University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Web site. Biosecurity for poultry; stomp the invisible enemy. Available at: www.agnr.umd.edu/MCE/Publications/Publication.cfm?ID=645. Accessed Apr 20, 2007.
- 55.
Owsley WF. Alabama Cooperative Extension System Web site. Biosecurity for pork production. Available at: www.aces.edu/pubs/docs/A/ANR-1224/ANR-1224.pdf?PHPSESSID=d67e3b9f7b048f4348cb5e46aad01368. Accessed Apr 20, 2007.
- 56.
Parker R, Looper M, Mathis C, et al. New Mexico State University Cooperative Extension Service Web site. Biosecurity on the beef and dairy operation. Available at: cahe.nmsu.edu/pubs/_b/B-121.pdf. Accessed Apr 13, 2007.
- 57.
Pence M. University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Web site. Biosecurity and the purchase of a new bull. Available at: admin.caes.uga.edu/team/beef/MBiosecurity%20and%20purchase%20of%20new%20bull.pdf. Accessed Apr 13, 2007.
- 58.
Pescatore A. University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Web site. Biosecurity; what can a grower do? Available at: www.ca.uky.edu/ANR/Biosecurity.pdf. Accessed Apr 13, 2007.
- 59.
Ross D. Michigan State University Extension Web site. Security for animal agriculture: prevention. Available at: web1.msue.msu.edu/emergency/pubs/E2958.pdf. Accessed Apr 13, 2007.
- 60.
Sanderson M, Sargeant J, Spire M. Kansas State University Research and Extension Web site. Biosecurity; health protection and sanitation strategies for cattle. Available at: www.oznet.ksu.edu/fmd/biosecurity.htm. Accessed Apr 19, 2007.
- 61.
Seaman JS, Fangman TJ. University of Missouri-Columbia Cooperative Extension Web site. Biosecurity for today's swine operation. Available at: extension.missouri.edu/explorepdf/agguides/ansci/g02340.pdf. Accessed Apr 13, 2007.
- 62.
Stallings CC, Gwazdauskas FC, Jones GM. Virginia Cooperative Extension Web site. Farm security—“treat it seriously”; security for animal agriculture: prevention. Available at: www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/farmsecurity/445-001/445-001.html. Accessed May 29, 2007.
- 63.
Thrift TA, Hersom MJ, Irsik M. University of Florida IFAS Extension Web site. Florida cow-calf and stocker beef safety and quality assurance handbook: appendix 1. Available at: edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/AN/AN17400.pdf. Accessed May 25, 2007.
- 64.
Tylutki T. Cornell University Web site. Biosecurity on dairy farms; part 1. Available at: www.ansci.cornell.edu/tmplobs/doc47.pdf. Accessed Apr 6, 2007.
- 65.
Tylutki T. Cornell University Web site. Biosecurity on dairy farms; part 2. Available at: www.ansci.cornell.edu/tmplobs/doc48.pdf. Accessed Apr 6, 2007.
- 66.
Tylutki T. Cornell University Web site. Biosecurity on dairy farms; part 3: injections and baby calves. Available at: www.ansci.cornell.edu/tmplobs/doc49.pdf. Accessed Apr 6, 2007.
- 67.
Wallace RL. University of Illinois Cooperative Extension Web site. Practical and sensible farm biosecurity. Available at: www.livestocktrail.uiuc.edu/dairynet/paperDisplay.cfm?ContentID=367. Accessed May 25, 2007.
- 68.
Wallace RL. University of Illinois Cooperative Extension Web site. Biosecurity and animal health protocols during dairy herd expansion. Available at: www.livestocktrail.uiuc.edu/biosecurity/papers/herd_expansion.htm. Accessed Apr 20, 2007.
- 69.
Wells SJ. Biosecurity on dairy operations: hazards and risks. J Dairy Sci 2000;83:2380–2386.
- 70.
Wells SJ. University of Minnesota Cooperative Extension Web site. Biosecurity on dairy farms; biosecurity protocol for farm visitors. Available at: www.extension.umn.edu/specializations/livestocksystems/components/farmbiosec.html. Accessed Apr 13, 2007.
- 71.
White EC. Tufts University Web site. Biosecurity concerns for sheep and goat herds: a biosecurity plan for small ruminant farms. Available at: www.tufts.edu/vet/vet_common/pdf/petinfo/dvm/case_june2004.pdf. Accessed Apr 13, 2007.
- 72.
Whittier WD. Virginia Cooperative Extension Web site. Biosecurity issues for Virginia cattle operations: preventing a disease outbreak. Available at: www.ext.vt.edu/news/periodicals/livestock/aps-02_03/aps-078.html. Accessed May 29, 2007.
- 73.
Wolfgang DR. Pennsylvania State University Cooperative Extension Web site. Biosecurity; a practical approach. Available at: vetextension.psu.edu/Biosecurity/BiosecurityIRS.pdf. Accessed Apr 6, 2007.
- 74.
Alabama Department of Agriculture Web site. Biosecurity basics. Available at: www.agi.alabama.gov/uploads/-M/MX/MMX9bPeKt8QJDe8hGIA8g/Biosecurity_Basics.doc. Accessed May 29, 2007.
- 75.
Alaska Division of Agriculture Web site. How to protect your backyard flock from the threat of Avian Influenza. Available at: www.pandemicflu.alaska.gov/PDFs/Backyard_Flock_Biosecurity.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2007.
- 76.
Arizona Department of Agriculture Web site. Bird disease surveillance activities update: we need you! Available at: www.azda.gov/Main/PrecautionsArticle.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2007.
- 77.
California Department of Food and Agriculture Web site. Avian Influenza information for poultry producers and allied industries. Available at: www.cdfa.ca.gov/ahfss/ah/pdfs/ai_fc6._update_Jan06.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2007.
- 78.
California Department of Food and Agriculture Web site. Biosecurity—preventing disease in animals. Available at: www.cdfa.ca.gov/ahfss/ah/pdfs/biosecurity%20-%20preventing%20disease%20short%20version%20a4.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 79.
Colorado Department of Agriculture Web site. Livestock biosecurity. Available at: www.ag.state.co.us/animals/Biosecurity/Biosecurity.html. Accessed May 30, 2007.
- 80.
Georgia Department of Agriculture Web site. Livestock biosecurity guidelines. Available at: agr.georgia.gov/vgn/images/portal/cit_1210/36/37/67001007livestock%20biosecurity%20guidelines%209-27-06.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2007.
- 81.
Hawaii Department of Agriculture Web site. Avian Influenza information; biosecurity. Available at: www.hawaiiag.org/hdoa/ai_avian_influenza-biosecurity.htm. Accessed May 30, 2007.
- 82.
Hawaii Department of Agriculture Web site. Avian influenza information; HDOA biosecurity guidelines for farm personnel during an animal disease outbreak situation. Available at: www.hawaiiag.org/hdoa/ai_avian_infuenza-WorkerProtection.htm. Accessed May 30, 2007.
- 83.
Indiana State Board of Animal Health Web site. Avian/birds; a threat to US poultry. Available at: www.in.gov/boah/birds/avianinfluenza.htm. Accessed May 30, 2007.
- 84.
Indiana State Board of Animal Health Web site. Biosecurity. Available at: www.in.gov/boah/biosecurity/. Accessed May 18, 2007.
- 85.
Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship Web site. Avian influenza biosecurity; what poultry producers can do to prevent an AI outbreak. Available at: www.agriculture.state.ia.us/avianInfluenzaBiosecurity.htm. Accessed May 18, 2007.
- 86.
Kansas Animal Health Department Web site. Emergency planning for foreign animal disease. Available at: www.kansas.gov/kahd/emergency/emergency_planning.shtml. Accessed May 30, 2007.
- 87.
Louisiana Department of Agriculture Web site. Good neighbors protect poultry; 6 ways to keep poultry diseases “cooped up.” Available at: www.ldaf.state.la.us/divisions/ahs/good%20neighbors%20protect%20poultry.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2007.
- 88.
Maryland Department of Agriculture Web site. Biosecurity: the key to keeping your livestock and poultry healthy. Available at: www.mda.state.md.us/pdf/biosecur.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2007.
- 89.
Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources Division of Animal Health Web site. Biosecurity for dairy facilities. Available at: www.mass.gov/agr/animalhealth/bioterrorism/biosecurity_for_dairy_facilities.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2007.
- 90.
Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources Division of Animal Health Web site. Biosecurity for backyard poultry facilities. Available at: www.mass.gov/agr/animalhealth/bioterrorism/Biosecurity%20for%20Back%20Yard%20Poultry%20Facilities.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 91.
Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources Division of Animal Health Web site. Biosecurity for commercial poultry facilities. Available at: www.mass.gov/agr/animalhealth/bioterrorism/Biosecurity%20for%20Commercial%20Poultry%20Facilities.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 92.
Minnesota Department of Agriculture Web site. Avian influenza. a guide for small scale poultry flock owners. Available at: www.mda.state.mn.us/news/publications/animals/diseases&threats/ai_flockowners.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 93.
Minnesota Department of Agriculture Web site. Biosecurity tips for producers. Available at: www.bah.state.mn.us/index/publications/Bovine%20Tuberculosis/Biosecurity%20Insert.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 94.
Minnesota Department of Agriculture Web site. Biosecurity for the birds. Available at: www.bah.state.mn.us/index/publications/Biosecurity%20for%20the%20Birds/biosecurity_for_the_birds/eng.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 95.
Mississippi Department of Agriculture Board of Animal Health Web site. Biosecurity for poultry production facilities. Available at: www.mbah.state.ms.us/AI/PoultryBiosecurityBrochure.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 96.
Montana Department of Livestock Web site. Montana animal biosecurity information. Available at: mt.gov/liv/animalhealth/diseases/biosecurity/bio.asp. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 97.
Nebraska Department of Agriculture Web site. Avian influenza checklist. Available at: www.agr.state.ne.us/avian/ai_checklist.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 98.
Nebraska Department of Agriculture Web site. Avian influenza industry. Available at: www.agr.state.ne.us/avian/ai_industry_fact_sheet.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 99.
Nevada Department of Agriculture Web site. Highly pathogenic avian influenza: a threat to US poultry. Available at: agri.state.nv.us/Brochures/HighlyPathogenicAvianInfluenza.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 100.
North Dakota Department of Agriculture Board of Animal Health Web site. Standard poultry biosecurity plan. Available at: www.agdepartment.com/programs/livestock/boah/poultrybiosecurity.htm. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 101.
North Dakota Department of Agriculture Board of Animal Health Web site. Awareness in agriculture livestock security supplement. Available at: www.ag.ndsu.edu/prepare/livestock/supplement%20-%20Livestock%20Security.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 102.
North Carolina Department of Agriculture Web site. Farm biosecurity guidelines. Available at: www.ncagr.com/vet/biosecuritytxt.htm. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 103.
Ohio Department of Agriculture Web site. Farm security awareness. Available at: www.ohioagriculture.gov/dairy/frms/3500-009farmsecurityawareness.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 104.
Ohio Department of Agriculture Web site. Ohio Department of Agriculture educates bird owners, poultry workers, 4-H exhibitors on practicing backyard biosecurity. Available at: www.ohioagriculture.gov/news/news/2006/anim-080806-Biosecurity.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 105.
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Web site. On-farm biosecurity recommendations. Available at: www.agriculture.state.pa.us/agriculture/cwp/view.asp?A=364&Q=126290. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 106.
Texas Department of Agriculture Texas Animal Health Commission Web site. Avian influenza (AI). a threat to US poultry. Available at: www.tahc.state.tx.us/news/brochures/AI.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 107.
Texas Department of Agriculture Texas Animal Health Commission Web site. No ‘Germs’ IN - No ‘Germs’ OUT; biosecurity basics to protect livestock & poultry health. Available at: www.tahc.state.tx.us/news/brochures/biosecurity.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 108.
Utah Department of Agriculture and Food Web site. UCHAP core module background and best management practices. Available at: ag.utah.gov/animind/uchap.html. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 109.
Washington Department of Agriculture Web site. Avian disease prevention training course. Available at: agr.wa.gov/FoodAnimal/AnimalHealth/docs/AvianHlthPrevCourse.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 110.
Washington Department of Agriculture Web site. Biosecurity measures for Washington farms. Available at: agr.wa.gov/FoodSecurity/BiosecurityMeasures.htm. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 111.
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection Web site. Advice to farmers. Available at: www.datcp.state.wi.us/ah/agriculture/animals/disease/foot-mouth-disease/farmer.jsp. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 112.
New Jersey Department of Agriculture Web site. Avian influenza. Available at: www.state.nj.us/agriculture/divisions/ah/diseases/avian_influenza.html. Accessed May 18, 2007.
- 113.
Cardona C. North Carolina Department of Agriculture Web site. Avian influenza recommendations. Available at: www.ncagr.com/vet/English_AI_Recommend.htm#bio. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 114.
Colorado Department of Agriculture Web site. Bioterrorism alert; Colorado livestock bioterrorism protocol. Available at: www.ag.state.co.us/animals/biosecurity/BioterrorismGuideCVMA.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2007.
- 115.
New York Department of Agriculture Web site. New York State cattle health assurance program; core module—best management practices. Available at: nyschap.vet.cornell.edu/module/core/section1/core1.asp. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 116.
Holland SD. South Dakota Department of Agriculture Animal Industry Board Web site. Avian influenza. Available at: www.state.sd.us/aib/Pamphlets/Avian%20Influenza%20-%20web%20ready.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 117.
California Department of Food and Agriculture Web site. Biosecurity and California dairies. Available at: www.cdfa.ca.gov/ahfss/ah/pdfs/Biosecurity_and_California_Dairies.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2007.
- 118.
Nevada Department of Agriculture Web site. Biosecurity for farm and ranch operations. Available at: agri.state.nv.us/Animal2_farm_biosecurity.htm. Accessed May 18, 2007.
- 119.
Watson J. Mississippi Department of Agriculture Board of Animal Health Web site. Poultry biosecurity. Available at: www.mbah.state.ms.us/Poultry/Poultry_Biosecurity_CAFO_Training.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 120.↑
USDA. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Web site. Biosecurity for the birds. Available at: www.aphis.usda.gov/vs. Accessed May 31, 2007.
- 121.↑
USDA. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Web site. Questions and answers on the National Animal Identification System. Available at: www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/fsheet_faq_notice/faq_ahaids.html. Accessed May 18, 2007.
- 122.↑
Casal J, De Manue A, Mateau E, et al. Biosecurity measures on swine farms in Spain: perceptions by farmers and their relationship to current on-farm measures. Prev Vet Med 2007;82:138–150.
- 123.↑
Sischo WM, Kiernan NE, Burns CM, et al. Implementing a quality assurance program using a risk assessment tool on dairy operations. J Dairy Sci 1997;80:777–787.
- 124.↑
National Pork Board. American Association of Swine Practitioners Web site. Biosecurity guide for pork producers. Available at: www.pork.org/Producers/Security%20Biosecurity/SecurityBiosecurity.aspx. Accessed Jun 6, 2006.
- 125.↑
Center for Food Safety and Public Health. Iowa State University Web site. Biological risk management. Available at: www.cfsph.iastate.edu/BRM/. Accessed Jun 6, 2006.
- 126.↑
National Johnes Working Group. US Animal Health Association Web site. Risk assessment tools for dairy and beef herds. Available at: www.johnes.org/handouts/index.shtml#prevention_articles. Accessed Feb 27, 2008.
- 127.↑
Tickel J, Slenning B. Introduction and purpose of National FMD Business Continuity Workshop, in Proceedings. Natl FMD Bus Contin Assess Workshop Anim Health Emerg 2007;1–14.
- 129.↑
Wogalter MS, DeJoy DM, Laughery KR. Warnings and risk communication. In: Wolgalter MS, DeJoy DM, Laughery KR, eds. Organizing theoretical framework: a consolidated communication-human information processing (C-HIP) model. London: Taylor and Francis, 1999;15–24.
- 130.↑
Conzola V, Wolgalter MS. A communication-human information processing (C-HIP) approach to warning effectiveness in the workplace. J Risk Res 2001;4:309–322.
