Biosecurity levels of livestock enterprises in Turkey and factors affecting these levels

Biosecurity BS is a multidimensional preventive medicine approach that has health, technical, and financial aspects. The purpose of this study was to determine the differences of the BS scores belonging to the livestock enterprises depending on the geographical region and breeding types and to predict the socioeconomic factors having an impact over the BS level. The study was conducted with 517 breeders who live in 7 different regions of Turkey. The results have revealed that the enterprises performing "beef cattle fattening and dairy cattle breeding together"have higher BS scores than the enterprises in the other breeding category P

___

  • 1. Cox B. Biosecurity-the economics and benefits-are we fooling ourselves? In: Poultry Service Industry Workshop; Alberta, VA, USA; 2005. Pp. 33-43.
  • 2. Gunn GJ, Heffernan C, Hall M, McLeod A, Hovi M. Measuring and comparing constraints to improved biosecurity amongst GB farmers, veterinarians and the auxiliary industries. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2008; 84: 310-323.
  • 3. Moore DA, Merryman ML, Hartman ML, Klingborg DJ. Comparison of published recommendations regarding biosecurity practices for various production animal species and classes. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 2008; 233: 249-256.
  • 4. Fasina FO, Lazarus DD, Spencer BT, Makinde AA, Bastos ADS. Cost implications of African Swine Fever in smallholder farrow-to-finish units: economic benefits of disease prevention through biosecurity. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases 2012; 59: 244-255.
  • 5. Can MF, Altuğ N. Socioeconomic implications of biosecurity practices in small-scale dairyfarms. Veterinary Quarterly 2014; 34: 67-73.
  • 6. Fraser RW, Williams NT, Powell LF, Cook AJC. Reducing campylobacter and salmonella infection: two studies of the economic cost and attitude to adoption of on-farm biosecurity measures. Zoonoses and Public Health 2010; 57: 109-115.
  • 7. Jia B, Hilaire SS, Singh K, Gardner IA. Biosecurity knowledge, attitudes and practices of farmers culturing yellow catfish (Pelteobagrusfulvidraco) in Guangdong and Zhejiang provinces, China. Aquaculture 2017; 471: 146-156.
  • 8. Pinior B, Firth CL, Richter V, Lebl K, Trauffler M et al. A systematic review of financial and economic assessments of bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) prevention and mitigation activities worldwide. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2017;137: 77-92.
  • 9. Can MF. Farm level biosecurity: Challenges and suggestions. Dairy andVeterinary Science 2018; 7: 1-3.
  • 10. Pinto CJ, Urcelay VS. Biosecurity practices on intensive pig production systems in Chile. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2003; 59: 139-145.
  • 11. Nöremark M, Frössling J, Lewerin S. Application of routines that contribute to on-farm biosecurity as reported by Swedish livestock farmers. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases 2010; 57: 225-236.
  • 12. Brennan ML, Christley RM. Biosecurity on cattle farms: a study in North-West England. PLoS One 2012; 7: e28139.
  • 13. Toma L, Stott AW, Heffernan C, Ringrose S, Gunn GJ. Determinants of biosecurity behaviour of British cattle and sheep farmers-a behavioural economics analysis. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2013; 108: 321-333.
  • 14. Kouam MK, Moussala JO. Assessment of factors influencing the implementation of biosecurity measures on pig farms in the western highlands of Cameroon (Central Africa). Veterinary Medicine International 2018; 2018: 1-9.
  • 15. Vaillancourt JP, Carver DK. Biosecurity: perception is not reality. Poultry Digest 1998; 57:28-36.
  • 16. Israel, GD. Determining sample size. Fact Sheet PEOD-6, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Florida, US: University of Florida; 1992.
  • 17. Turkey Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry General Directorate of Food and Control. Number of Enterprises, Technical Report. Ankara, Turkey: Turkey Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry; 2019 (in Turkish).
  • 18. Turkey Statistical Institution. Animal production statistics: thematic map of cattle distribution by provinces. Publication number of 24656. Ankara, Turkey: Turkey Statistical Institution; 2018 (in Turkish).
  • 19. Çetin B. Agricultural Economics. 1st ed. Bursa, Turkey: Dora Publications; 2010 (in Turkish).
  • 20. Li Q, Amjath-Babu TS, Zander P. Role of capitals and capabilities in ensuring economicresilience of land conservation efforts: A case study of the grain for green project in China’s Loess Hills. Ecological Indicators 2016; 71: 636-644.
  • 21. Agha SR, Alnahhal MJ. Neural network and multiple linear regression to predict school children dimensions for ergonomic school furniture design. Applied Ergonomics 2012; 43: 979- 984.
  • 22. Arı A, Önder H. Regression models used for different data structures. Anadolu Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi 2013; 28, 168-174 (in Turkish with an abstract in English).
  • 23. Casal J, Manuel AD, Mateu E, Martin M. Biosecurity measures on swine farms in Spain: perceptions by farmers and their relationship to current on-farm measures. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2007; 82: 138-150.
  • 24. Backhans A, Sjölund M, Lindberg A, Emanuelson U. Biosecurity level and health management practices in 60 Swedish farrowto-finish herds. Acta VeterinariaScandinavica 2015; 57: 14.
  • 25. Sarrazin S, Cay AB, Laureynz J, Dewulf J. A survey on biosecurity and management practices in selected Belgian cattle farms. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2014; 117: 129- 139.
  • 26. United States Department of Agriculture. Animal and plant health inspection service. NAHMS dairy 2002, part III: reference of dairy cattle health and health management practices in the United States. Fort Collins, US: USDA; 2002.
  • 27. Can MF, Yalçın C. The Cost-benefit analysis of alternative brucellosis control strategies in Turkey. Kafkas Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi 2014; 20: 103-109.
  • 28. Turkey Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Annual Report. Ankara, Turkey: Turkey Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry; 2018 (in Turkish).
  • 29. World Organization of Animal Health. OIE fact sheets, official disease status. Paris, France: World Organization of Animal Health; 2019.
  • 30. Can MF. The interaction of Turkey livestock policies with the EU and its potential outcomes. Atatürk Üniversitesi Veteriner Bilimleri Dergisi 2018; 13: 242-250 (inTurkish with an abstract in English).
  • 31. Petersen E, Baekeland S, Memish ZA, Leblebicioglu H. Infectious disease risk from the Syrian conflict. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 2013; 17: e666-e667.
  • 32. Can MF, Ataseven V, Yalçın C. Estimation of production and reproductive performance losses in dairy cattle due to bovine herpesvirus 1 (BoHV-1) infection. Veterinarski Arhiv2016;86: 499-513
  • 33. Sayers RG, Sayers GP, MeeJF, Good M, BerminghamML, GrantJ, Dillon PG. Implementing biosecurity measures on dairy farms in Ireland. The Veterinary Journal 2013; 197: 259- 267.
  • 34. Rushton J. The economics of animal health and production. 1st ed. Oxfordshire, UK: CAB International; 2009.
  • 35. Thiermann AE. Globalization, international trade and animal health: the new roles of OIE. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2005; 67: 101-108.