Biosecurity Measures and Practices in Livestock Farming

Biosecurity Measures and Practices in Livestock Farming

Shubhangi Warke¹ and Mehak Tikoo¹ 

¹ Department of Veterinary Microbiology, Nagpur Veterinary College, Nagpur-440006

 Abstract

Biosecurity is critical for animal and public health policies, as well as disease prevention and control initiatives. It entails managing farm biosecurity to prevent and contain the spread of illnesses. Infections, primarily caused by zoonotic agents, are common as a result of lax safety regulations and incorrect antibiotic use. Investing in biosecurity enhances animal health and productivity. Regulations for many species exist, but issues must still be addressed. Recent advances in biosecurity techniques have emerged in the new period, which merit further investigation. In-depth discussions of the farm’s biosecurity procedures and practices, as well as current developments and obstacles, are covered in this chapter.

Introduction

In underdeveloped nations, where livestock is essential for sustaining livelihoods through the provision of food, revenue, and other social services, the effects of animal diseases and poverty can be extremely difficult to overcome (Perry and Rich 2007; Randolph et al. 2007; Perry and Grace 2009). Numerous infectious diseases can spread on a farm through contaminated feed, water, and surroundings, as well as through diseased visitors, vectors, stray animals, and birds. India has always suffered enormous losses when trying to control disease outbreaks in poultry and cattle. Examples of the costs associated with dairy animal diseases in India include US$ 132.79 per buffalo and US$ 83.03 per cattle, which, when extrapolated nationally, have resulted in a net loss of US$ 640,131,519 (Singh et al. 2014). Biosecurity measures are defined as the implementation of rigid measures of separation, hygiene and management to prevent the entry, penetration, survival, or dissemination of pathogens within the farm or a geographical area (Huber et al., 2022).  Biosecurity is the part of one health concept focusing on prevention of spread of diseases between humans, animals and environment by exercising stringent measures to safeguard the health of humans and animals (Renault et al., 2022; van Herten et al., 2019). Movement of live animals and diversification of the food supply chains are potential risks for a public health emergency and the spread of foodborne diseases, hence mitigating these risks ensures strategies towards improved animal husbandry and health management to curb zoonotic outbreaks and well as ensure food safety and secure public health (Jones et al., 2013; Gilbert et al., 2021). The goal of proactive biosecurity is to prevent the spread of infectious agents that can lead to disease in a farm or herd by focusing on regular, everyday on-farm operations. Usually undetectable, infectious organisms can spread from one location to another through organic matter and a variety of other components that are commonly found in agricultural settings. In order to minimize exposure to dangerous organisms and parasites that could infect animals with diseases, effective biosecurity necessitates a number of elements, such as isolation, movement restriction, and sanitation. In order to reduce output losses, it has become a crucial and vital component of contemporary farm management techniques (DADF, 2016). Biosecurity plays a key role in intensive animal production to ensure the health and welfare of the animals. Thus, it is necessary to adhere to and put into practice appropriate biosecurity measures. In this chapter, we will discuss prevailing biosecurity measures and practices involved in livestock farming, recent advances, and challenges faced in the maintenance of biosecurity on farms.

Biosecurity guidelines in livestock farming

Biosecurity guidelines are described as a set of managemental rules applicable to the livestock farms in order to prevent the transmission of diseases. There a specified set of guidelines for different animal and poultry farms to ensure safety against zoonotic pathogens. These set of regulations are described in detail in the below sections.

Principles of biosecurity (Merck’s Vet Manual)

The major principles of biosecurity of animals according includes:

1. Disease transmission:It is essential to comprehend how diseases spread in order to create appropriate biosecurity measures. Although there are numerous dissemination routes for diseases to spread, direct animal-to-animal contact and contact with contaminated fomites are two of the more popular ways.
2. Disease prevention:Disease prevention requires strict bio exclusion to limit interaction between the disease-causing agent and the host, early discovery of a breach in biosecurity through diligent surveillance, and swift adoption of a ruthless biocontainment policy.
3. Disease control:In plans for disease control, the focus moves from preventing disease to lessening its effects or financial cost. In addition to avoiding or eliminating epidemic disease, many biosecurity methods also have positive side effects, like strengthening host resistance through vaccination and laying a solid foundation for controlling endemic and erosive diseases.
4. Disease management:An essential component of any animal management program must include disease-risk management. Since resource allocation needs to be in line with risk, economic analysis is an essential element in the creation of biosecurity plans. The ability to recognize and then manage infection risk is essential to the effectiveness of a disease control program.
5. Risk assessment:Estimating the likelihood of exposure to an agent, the likelihood that exposure will result in infection and disease, the likelihood that disease will spread, and the aftermath of such transmission are all done through risk assessment. Although statistical methods like the chi-square test can be used to determine whether a certain process or factor is associated with disease, they are unable to measure the level of disease risk. The risk ratio, which is calculated by dividing the chance of disease given exposure by the probability of disease given no exposure, is the association measure that is most commonly used to evaluate the level of risk.
6. Host resistance:The primary determinant of host resistance is immune effectiveness. An animal in good health has a suitable immune response that is adequate to fight infection and its effects on output. A response that is either too great or too little, on the other hand, will negatively impact performance and well-being. Genetic variations, which usually follow a Poisson distribution, are the main cause of individual disparities in resistance.
7. Epidemiology:Understanding the causal relationships between exposure and disease is essential for effective biosecurity since the occurrence and impact of any infectious disease are influenced by a complex interplay between a number of disease factors. To decide how best to distribute resources for efficient control measures, it is important to evaluate the epidemiology and relative risk of each disease. Furthermore, the most effective strategy to reduce present and future financial risk can be found using epidemiologic statistics.

Factors influencing epidemiology of disease are:

1. Source of infection
2. Transmission
3. Spread
4. Susceptibility
5. Prevalence
6. Morbidity and mortality
7. Recovery

Components of biosecurity (Merck’s Vet Manual)

1. Conceptual biosecurity:The main level of biosecurity, conceptual biosecurity, is concerned with the location of animal facilities and all of their constituent parts. Physical isolation is the most efficient means of reducing risk, hence it should be the main factor taken into account when locating new farms or confinement facilities. Although this isn’t always feasible, facilities and farms should ideally not be situated next to slaughterhouses, live-animal markets, agricultural fairs, or animal displays, or near other farms or public roadways, particularly in areas with a high density of animal facilities.
2. Structural biosecurity: The secondary level of biosecurity, known as structural biosecurity, addresses physical aspects such enclosed load-outs, air filtration systems, drainage, the number and placement of changing rooms, enclosed load-outs, enclosed load-outs, farm layout, and perimeter fencing. Traffic patterns, feed delivery and storage, and the on-site movement of trucks, equipment, and animals should all be taken into account in long-term planning and programming.
3. Procedural biosecurity: The tertiary level of biosecurity, procedural biosecurity, addresses standard practices to stop the introduction (bioexclusion) and spread (biocontainment) of infections within a facility. Examples include cleaning hands, disinfecting equipment at the point of entrance, and showering or changing personal clothing and shoes with farm-specific attire prior to entering the farm.

Importance of biosecurity

1. Disease Prevention: Prevents the introduction and spread of diseases among animals, plants, and humans.
2. Food Safety: Ensures the safety and quality of food products derived from animals and crops.
3. Genetic Integrity: Protects the genetic purity and health of breeding stock and crop varieties.
4. Environmental Protection: Prevents the spread of invasive species and pathogens into natural ecosystems.
5. Public Health: Reduces the risk of zoonotic diseases and enhances global health security.
6. Economic Stability: Minimizes economic losses from disease outbreaks in agriculture and related industries.
7. Regulatory Compliance: Facilitates compliance with national and international standards and regulations.
8. Sustainable Practices:  Supports sustainable agriculture by reducing reliance on antibiotics and chemical treatments.
9. Emergency Preparedness: Enhances readiness to respond to disease outbreaks and other biosecurity threats.
10. Research and Innovation: Promotes research and development of new technologies and management strategies to improve biosecurity measures.

Factors influencing biosecurity (FAO, 2007)

1. Global proliferation of food products
2. Innovations in food processing and agricultural production technology
3. Increased influx of trade in agricultural and food by-products
4. Legal responsibilities for parties to pertinent international agreements
5. An increase in cross-border travel and movement
6. Developments in telecommunication and worldwide availability of biosecurity data
7. Increased awareness of biodiversity, the environment, and how agriculture affects both
8. Effective biosecurity requires a transition from national independence to interdependence.
9. Lack of operational and technological resources
10. Certain countries’ heavy reliance on food imports

Common biosecurity practices in livestock farming

The following biosecurity measures are routinely implemented on farms:

1. Work with veterinarians to develop and carry out a successful herd health plan.
2. Add the Standard Operating treatments (SOP) in writing for medical treatments.
3. Provide a documented SOP for handling ill animals.
4. Every animal should be checked for symptoms of illness at least once a day, such as lethargy, lameness, appetite loss, salivation, or unexpected death.
5. A veterinarian should conduct a thorough examination of individual animals or the entire herd if symptoms of sickness are observed.
6. In the event that any animal dies for no apparent reason, a postmortem examination is particularly crucial.
7. If the source of a disease condition is not immediately apparent, biological specimens should be sent to a diagnostic laboratory.
8. Tractors, movable livestock chutes, manure loaders and spreaders, livestock trucks and trailers, and other items that can easily transfer illness from one location to another should receive extra attention. After every load, give the equipment a thorough cleaning.
9. Place delivery/loadout areas along the edge of the property.
10. Aside from terminal displays, livestock exhibits should be avoided at all costs.

Basic biosecurity measures at the farm level

Isolation: It is the most crucial and initial component of biosecurity. It entails separating possibly contaminated items and animals from healthy ones. Since no infection may occur if a pathogen does not enter a holding, segregation is thought to be the most efficient method of reaching the necessary levels of biosecurity. Unless it is absolutely required, no materials or animals, including humans, should enter or exit a pig holding. This includes not only pigs but also other species that may be infected with illnesses that can infect pigs.

Cleaning: Cleaning is the next best biosecurity measure. Cleaning will eliminate the majority of the contaminating pathogens from physical things because they are mostly found in feces, urine, or secretions that stick to the surface. It is important to thoroughly clean all materials that need to cross the segregation barrier, either way.

Disinfection: It should be considered the last “finishing” stage in biosecurity, employed after thorough and efficient cleaning, yet it is crucial when done regularly and appropriately. In rural areas, disinfectants are frequently unavailable, thus any program that promotes their usage will inevitably be hindered. Even when they are available, disinfectants are frequently utilized improperly. The efficiency of disinfection in field settings is not the same as that under perfect controlled circumstances. In order to be effective, disinfectants must be present in dirt for a sufficient amount of time and in sufficiently high concentrations. Additionally, organic things like wood or excrement inactivate a lot of disinfectants. Therefore, even though it’s crucial, disinfection may be the least successful biosecurity measure.

Steps to develop a practical biosecurity program for a farm

1. Explain the farm. A farm’s biosecurity policy can be better designed with information about the type, location, facilities, pigs, and diseases that are present on the farm.
2. Establish objectives aimed at the biosecurity procedures that must be adhered to and carried out.
3. Choosing the target pathogens for surveillance and monitoring of the disease’s spread.
4. Learn about the pathogen’s pathogenicity and its capacity to cause mild, moderate, or severe disease.
5. Put in place a biosecurity program. Examine potential biosecurity measures to reduce the likelihood of contracting the target pathogens. Choose the procedures that seem to work best for the farm.
6. Evaluation of the biosecurity program’s efficacy: This step entails routine testing to assess the biosecurity protocol’s performance. The biosecurity program should be monitored on a regular basis. The veterinarian can do necropsies and gather samples to isolate infections, harvest blood samples for serology to determine whether the animals have been exposed to a pathogen, or conduct slaughter checks to ensure that the procedures are being followed. Finally, it should be kept in mind that, similar to vaccines, biosecurity measures won’t always successfully prevent disease. The program’s objective should be to reduce the likelihood that the pigs may contract the target infection.

Recent advances in biosecurity measures for the prevention and control of diseases

Conventional biosecurity surveillance methods are labor-intensive, time-consuming, and costly. However, there is growing interest in using dogs’ sense of smell to detect chemical signatures of human pathogens and invasive alien plants (Otto et al., 2021; Arnesen and Rosell, 2021; Zahid et al., 2012). Future advances will rely on reliable sensor technologies like ultra-fast gas chromatography and autonomous surveillance systems like sensor networks and robotic systems (Wilson, 2018; Jurdak et al., 2015). The Internet of Things (IoT) and passive radio frequency identification devices (RFID) devices can improve tracing and tracking of biosecurity risks, such as tracking shipping containers, livestock, pets, and hospital patients (Rayhana et al., 2021; Navarro et al., 2020).

Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) and recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA) are portable tools used for point-of-care detection in biosecurity applications. These tools detect plant pathogens, livestock parasites, zoonotic pathogens, SARS-CoV-2, and invasive species in freshwater and marine ecosystems (Cao et al., 2021; Harper et al., 2010; Zhou et al., 2020; Foord et al., 2012; De Felice et al., 2022; Zirngibl et al., 2022). Model developments will promote wider implementation across sectors, ensuring objective, evidence-based, and cost-effective biosecurity threat declarations.

Artificial intelligence is being employed in laser-repeller systems to improve the effectiveness of preventing wild birds from entering feed mills and intensive animal operations, particularly poultry farms. These AI-controlled systems can recognize and track the target bird’s physical and behavioural traits, allowing for real-time monitoring and precise decision-making. Robots are also gaining popularity in the dairy industry for increasing production, lowering labor costs, and enhancing biosecurity protocols (Morstatter, 2023; Patel et al., 2022). Augmented reality (AR) is utilized to improve food visual appeal, monitor cow health, and predict milk supply (Holden, 2021; Kumar et al., 2020). Virtual reality (VR) is an effective technique for helping customers comprehend the origin of dairy products (Holden, 2021; Morstatter, 2023).

Environmental DNA analysis (eDNA) is a low-cost, rapid, and non-invasive approach of identifying species and pests. It is useful for monitoring introduced species and pests and may be more efficient at removing new invasive species. eDNA can help detect and track diseases (Smart et al., 2016; Dejean et al., 2012; Kamaroff and Goldberg, 2017).

Challenges

Biosecurity measures encounter obstacles due to social and economic reasons, including responsibility sharing, animal health, education, communication, difficulty maintaining high levels, disruption to daily routines, ambiguous rewards, and escalating dangers to farmers and public interest. Furthermore, facilities that raise animals must use a lot of materials, such feed and water, which might expose them to bacteria and other infections that are resistant to antibiotics (Otte et al., 2007; Sapkota et al., 2007; Crump et al., 2002; Hofacre et al., 2001). These facilities’ high animal population and stocking density can raise workplace exposure to diseases, and insufficient worker safety gear is a major worry (Graham et al., 2008; Guerin et al., 2007). The amount of excreta produced and the regional concentration of facilities make waste outflow from these facilities difficult. Manure pits and unprocessed animal waste can pollute the air, water, and land, leading to pest infestations that are linked to the development of numerous illnesses (FAS, 1997; USEPA, 2004; Steeves et al., 2007; Corry et al., 2002). Another problem is noncompliance with biosecurity regulations, as farmers may be reluctant to follow stringent guidelines because of the associated costs. The dangers associated with animal husbandry may present intolerable risks to the health of humans and animals, even in the face of stringent biosecurity measures (Shane, 2003).

Conclusion

The standardization of biosecurity practices is improving training for qualified authority staff, which promotes more international technical and intellectual interactions. Because it stops new infections from being introduced and restricts their spread, biosecurity is essential for animal productivity. A greater understanding of disease epidemiology can aid in the development of biosecurity initiatives. Collaboration with other disciplines and quantitative evaluation techniques can support the implementation of sustainable biosecurity plans. To comprehend additional elements impacting farmers’ adoption of biosecurity, more investigation is necessary. All farmers would benefit from more biosecurity assistance, and accessibility to interventions and outreach must be enhanced.

References

Alarcón, L. V., Allepuz, A. and Mateu, E. (2021). Biosecurity in pig farms: a review. Porcine Health Management. 7(1): 5.

Arnesen, C. H. and Rosell, F. (2021). Pest detection dogs for wood boring longhorn beetles. Scientific Reports. 11(1): 16887.

BAHS. 2023. Basic Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Statistics, 2022-23. Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries. Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India. 1-172.

Biosecurity and biosafety manual for bovines government of India ministry of agriculture and farmers welfare department of animal husbandry, dairying and fisheries https://course.cutm.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Session-3-7.pdf

Biosecurity guidelines for piggery. https://pashudhanharyana.gov.in/sites/default/files/documents/Animal_health/Piggery_Biosecurity.pdf

Cao, L., Guo, X., Mao, P., Ren, Y., Li, Z., You, M., Hu, J., Tian, M., Yao, C., Li, F., and Xu, F. (2021). A portable digital loop-mediated isothermal amplification platform based on microgel array and hand-held reader. ACS Sens. 6: 3564–3574. https://doi.org/10. 1021/acssensors.1c00603.

Corry, J. E., Allen, V. M., Hudson, W. R., Breslin, M. F. and Davies, R. H. (2002). Sources of Salmonella on broiler carcasses during transportation and processing: modes of contamination and methods of control. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 92(3): 424-432.

Crump, J. A., Griffin, P. M. and Angulo, F. J. (2002). Bacterial contamination of animal feed and its relationship to human foodborne illness. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 35(7): 859-865.

DADF website, (http://dadf.gov.in/about-us/divisions/ cattle-and-dairy-development ) as on August, 2016.

DADHF, 2016. Guidelines on biosecurity at sheep and goat farms. https://www.dof.gov.in/sites/default/files/2019-12/Biosecurity%20guidelines%20for%20sheep%20and%20goat%20.pdf

De Felice, M., De Falco, M., Zappi, D., Antonacci, A., and Scognamiglio, V. (2022). Isothermal amplification-assisted diagnostics for COVID-19. Biosens. Bioelectron. 205: 114101.    https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.bios.2022.114101

Dejean, T., Valentini, A., Miquel, C., Taberlet, P., Bellemain, E. and Miaud, C. (2012). Improved detection of an alien invasive species through environmental DNA barcoding: the example of the American bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus. Journal of Applied Ecology. 49(4): 953-959.

FAO, P. (2007). 1: Biosecurity principles and components. Biosecurity Toolkit. 1-20.

Foord, A.J., Middleton, D., and Heine, H.G. (2012). Hendra virus detection using Loop Mediated Isothermal Amplification. J. Virol. Methods 181, 93–96. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jviromet.2012.01.020.

Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1997. Livestock and poultry: world markets and trade. http://1.usa.gov/WzxYYM . Accessed October 7, 2012.

General Guidelines for Biosecurity at Central Poultry Development Organizations (Basic Tenets can be applied to State Poultry Farms and Private Poultry Farms) Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare Government of India 2015. https://archive.pib.gov.in/documents/rlink/2015/sep/p201591804.pdf

Gilbert, W., Thomas, L. F., Coyne, L. and Rushton, J. (2021). Mitigating the risks posed by intensification in livestock production: the examples of antimicrobial resistance and zoonoses. Animal. 15(2): 100123.

Graham, J. P., Leibler, J. H., Price, L. B., Otte, J. M., Pfeiffer, D. U., Tiensin, T. and Silbergeld, E. K. (2008). The animal-human interface and infectious disease in industrial food animal production: rethinking biosecurity and biocontainment. Public Health Reports. 123(3): 282-299.

Guerin, M. T., Martin, W., Reiersen, J., Berke, O., McEwen, S. A., Bisaillon, J. R. and Lowman, R. (2007). A farm-level study of risk factors associated with the colonization of broiler flocks with Campylobacter spp. in Iceland, 2001–2004. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica. 49: 1-12.

Harper, S.J., Ward, L.I., and Clover, G.R.G. (2010). Development of LAMP and real-time PCR methods for the rapid detection of Xylella fastidiosa for quarantine and field applications. Phytopathology. 100: 1282 1288. https://doi.org/10.1094/phyto-06 10-0168.

Hernández-Castellano, L. E., Nally, J. E., Lindahl, J., Wanapat, M., Alhidary, I. A., Fangueiro, D., Grace, D., Ratto, M., Bambou, J. C. and de Almeida, A. M. (2019). Dairy science and health in the tropics: challenges and opportunities for the next decades. Tropical animal health and production. 51(5): 1009–1017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-019-01866-6

Hofacre, C. L., White, D. G., Maurer, J. J., Morales, C., Lobsinger, C. and Hudson, C. (2001). Characterization of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in rendered animal products. Avian Diseases. 953-961.

https://www.farmbiosecurity.com.au/innovative-solutions-the-role-of-artificial-intelligence-and-laser-repellers-in-preventing-disease-transmission-in-animal-production-settings/

Huber, N., Andraud, M., Sassu, E. L., Prigge, C., Zoche-Golob, V., Käsbohrer, A., D’Angelantonio, D., Viltrop, A., Żmudzki, J., Jones, H., Smith, R. P., Tobias, T. and Burow, E. (2022). What is a biosecurity measure? A definition proposal for animal production and linked processing operations. One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 15, 100433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2022.100433

Jones, B. A., Grace, D., Kock, R., Alonso, S., Rushton, J., Said, M. Y., McKeever, D., Mutua, F., Young, J., McDermott, J. and Pfeiffer, D. U. (2013). Zoonosis emergence linked to agricultural intensification and environmental change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 110(21): 8399–8404. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1208059110

Jurdak, R., Elfes, A., Kusy, B., Tews, A., Hu, W., Hernandez, E., Kottege, N., and Sikka, P. (2015). Autonomous surveillance for biosecurity. Trends Biotechnol. 33, 201–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2015. 01.003.

Kamoroff, C. and Goldberg, C. S. (2017). Using environmental DNA for early detection of amphibian chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis prior to a ranid die-off. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. 127(1): 75-79.

Kumar, A., Gupta, S. and Singh, P. (2020). “Augmented reality in dairy farming: a review,” Applied Animal Science. 36(3): 442–451.

McDaniel, C. J., Cardwell, D. M., Moeller, R. B., Jr, and Gray, G. C. (2014). Humans and cattle: a review of bovine zoonoses. Vector borne and zoonotic diseases (Larchmont, N.Y.). 14(1): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2012.1164

Merck’s Veterinary Manual. https://www.msdvetmanual.com/public-health/biosecurity/the-three-levels-of-biosecurity-of-animals

Miller, G. D. and Auestad, N. (2013). Towards a sustainable dairy sector: Leadership in sustainable nutrition. International Journal of Dairy Technology. 66(3): 307-316.

Morstatter, B. 2023. Using artificial intelligence (AI) in dairy farms examples and opportunities for ai and machine learning in the dairy sector. Applied Animal Science, Elsevier.

Navarro,E., Costa, N., and Pereira, A.(2020). A systematic review of IoT solutions for smart farming. Sensors 20, 4231. https://doi. org/10.3390/s20154231

Otte, J., Roland-Holst, D., Pfeiffer, D., Soares-Magalhaes, R., Rushton, J., Graham, J. and Silbergeld, E. (2007). Industrial livestock production and global health risks. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Research Report.

Otto, C. M., Sell, T. K., Veenema, T. G., Hosangadi, D., Vahey, R. A., Connell, N. D. and Privor-Dumm, L. (2023). The promise of disease detection dogs in pandemic response: lessons learned from COVID-19. Disaster medicine and public health preparedness. 17: e20.

Patel, H., Samad, A., Hamza, M., Muazzam, A. and Harahap, M. K. (2022). Role of artificial intelligence in livestock and poultry farming. Sinkron: jurnal dan penelitian teknik informatika. 6(4): 2425-2429.

Perry BD and Grace D (2009) The impacts of livestock diseases and their control on growth and development processes that are pro-poor. Philos Trans R Soc B. 364:2643–2655

Perry BD and Rich KM (2007) The poverty impacts of foot and mouth disease and the poverty reduction implications of its control. Veterinary Record. 160:238–241

Pig Vaccination calendar https://alpco.assam.gov.in/information-services/vaccination-schedules

Poultry Vaccination calendar https://megahvt.gov.in/services/service-10.pdf

Randolph TF, Schelling E, Grace D, Nicholson CF, Leroy JL, Cole DC, Demment MW, Omore A, Zinsstag J and Ruel M (2007) Role of livestock in human nutrition and health for poverty reduction in developing countries. J Anim Sci. 85:2788–2800

Rayhana, R., Xiao, G., and Liu, Z. (2021). RFID Sensing Technologies for Smart Agriculture. IEEE Instrum. Meas. Mag. 24: 50–60.

Renault, V., Humblet, M. F. and Saegerman, C. (2021). Biosecurity Concept: Origins, Evolution and Perspectives. Animals. 12(1): 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12010063

1. Holden, “Artificial Intelligence,” University of Cambridge, Department of Computer Science and Technology, The Com puter Laboratory, William Gates Building, pp. 1–340, 2021, https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/sbh11/

Sapkota, A. R., Lefferts, L. Y., McKenzie, S. and Walker, P. (2007). What do we feed to food-production animals? A review of animal feed ingredients and their potential impacts on human health. Environmental health perspectives. 115(5): 663-670.

Shane SM. 2003. Disease continues to impact the world’s poultry industries. World Poultry 19(7):22-7.

Shortall, O., Ruston, A., Green, M., Brennan, M., Wapenaar, W. and Kaler, J. (2016). Broken biosecurity? Veterinarians’ framing of biosecurity on dairy farms in England. Preventive veterinary medicine. 132: 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.06.001

Singh, B., Prasad, S., Verma, M. R. and Sinha, D. K. (2014). Estimation of Economic Losses due to Haemorrhagic Septicaemia in Cattle and Buffaloes in India §. Agricultural Economics Research Review. 27(2): 271-279.

Smart, A. S., Weeks, A. R., van Rooyen, A. R., Moore, A., McCarthy, M. A. and Tingley, R. (2016). Assessing the cost‐efficiency of environmental DNA sampling. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 7(11): 1291-1298.

Steeves S and Williams R. 2007. Contained Animal Feeding Operations—Insect Considerations. Purdue Extension. http://bit.ly/WqJN2s . Accessed October 6, 2012.

The National Sheep On-Farm Biosecurity Standard, http://inspection.canada.ca/en/animal-health/terrestrial-animals/biosecurity/standards-and-principles/sheep-farm

Tilli, G., Laconi, A., Galuppo, F., Mughini-Gras, L. and Piccirillo, A. (2022). Assessing biosecurity compliance in poultry farms: a survey in a densely populated poultry area in north east Italy. Animals. 12(11): 1409.

United States Animal Health Association Committee on foreign and emerging diseases 2008. Foreign animal diseases, 7^th edition. https://www.usaha.org/upload/Disease%20Info/FAD.pdf accessed on 10 February, 2025.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Risk Management Evaluation For Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. (Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, pp. 35). http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=901V0100.txt. Accessed January 18, 2013.

Vaccination and Annual Health Calendar for Sheep and Goat, https://www.ivri.nic.in/Extension/Download/IVRI-FFL-8-2021.pdf

Van Herten, J. and Meijboom, F. L. B. (2019). Veterinary responsibilities within the one health framework. Food ethics. 3: 109-123.

Waghamare RN, Londhe SV, Ajabe SS, Khobe VV, Deshmukh V. (2022). Marketing Skills and Sanitary Status of Retail Meat Shops In relation to Butchers’ Educational Background in Maharashtra. Indian J Extension Educ. 58(2):129–134.

Wilson, A.D. (2018). Applications of electronic-nose technologies for noninvasive early detection of plant, animal and human diseases. Chemosensors 6, 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/ chemosensors6040045.

Zahid, I., Grgurinovic, C., Zaman, T., De Keyzer, R. and Cayzer, L. (2012). Assessment of technologies and dogs for detecting insect pests in timber and forest products. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. 27(5): 492-502.

Zhou, L., Chen, Y., Fang, X., Liu, Y., Du, M., Lu, X., Li, Q., Sun, Y., Ma, J., and Lan, T. (2020). Microfluidic-RT-LAMP chip for the point-of-care detection of emerging and re emerging enteric coronaviruses in swine. Anal. Chim. Acta 1125, 57–65. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.aca.2020.05.034.

Zirngibl, M., von Ammon, U., Pochon, X., and Zaiko, A.(2022). A rapid molecular assay for detecting the mediterranean fanworm Sabella spallanzanii trialed by non-scientist users. Front. Mar. Sci. 9, 861657. https://doi. org/10.3389/fmars.2022.861657.