The tenets of biosecurity have long been recognized by veterinarians.
Interest in biosecurity as a scientific discipline has surged because of disease outbreaks that have threatened or devastated agricultural economies, bioterrorism, and the need to ensure food security, public health, and the sustainability of food animal production systems.
The meaning of the term "biosecurity" and the structure and focus of biosecurity programs have evolved to more accurately reflect advances in disease knowledge and the impacts of particular diseases, as well as the needs of consumers, veterinary professionals, and producers and owners.
In modern animal medicine, biosecurity is probably best defined as all procedures implemented to decrease the risk and consequence of infection with a disease-causing agent. This broad definition recognizes that disease is a complex interaction between the host, the disease-causing agent, and the environment.
Biosecurity can be considered in terms of individual animals or in terms of animal populations (flocks or herds), economic entities (production facilities or companies), or geographical regions (counties, states, countries, or continents), thus facilitating compartmentalization for trade purposes.
Importantly, biosecurity addresses strategies for disease prevention, control (limiting the consequence of infection) and elimination.
Benefits of effective biosecurity programs include optimized animal health and welfare and, in the case of food animal medicine, improved productivity and end product value, decreased economic losses, improved food security and sustainable animal agriculture systems, safe regional or international trade, and protection of public health.
Although implementation of a comprehensive biosecurity plan or program has obvious benefits, allocation of resources must be economically or emotionally justified. Unless a disease poses a specific risk to human health or animal welfare or is likely to result in substantial economic losses, its mere presence in an individual animal or population of animals might not warrant major interventions. Intervention strategies are thus chosen on the basis of both their economic and biological efficiency.
Dynamic and integrated epidemiological and economic analysis is required to determine and quantify the negative effects of a particular disease, as well as the anticipated positive response to the proposed intervention strategy. Such integrated analysis has become very important in intensive production systems.
The economic impact of disease can be difficult to assess, particularly in intensive production systems in which economic return is governed by both animal productivity and product quality. In addition, the consequential loss from disease challenge is, at best, only partially recoverable.
Using the cost of disease to justify intervention overemphasizes the consequence of inaction, and it is useful only in justifying intervention strategies directed at preventing disease challenge.
For More Information
