Background
Work Package 4 works to address how best-fit practices in biosecurity can be extended to lower productivity systems, focusing on livestock production in remote and island settings.
Biosecurity is a term which is often understood to mean different things to different stakeholders, this in turn can lead to confusion and means that messaging around, and the uptake of, on-farm biosecurity measures are difficult to communicate and quantify. In addition, there is a recognition that different farming contexts will have varied needs and abilities to implement biosecurity guidelines. The development of a series of ‘levels’ of biosecurity will help farmers align themselves to different standards and aid in understanding and uptake of these practices. In addition to naming the levels there needs to be clear, practical advice associated with the levels and the practices at each level.
A multi-stakeholder discussion group, bringing together experts from interested and invested sectors, known as the ANImal HUsbandry Biosecurity living lab (ANIHUB) will be convened to address these challenges. The ANIHUB will work together to produce a suite of measures at each of the proposed biosecurity levels. These discussions will focus on the case studies of cattle roundworm and sheep scab, thus providing a rich context for the in-depth discussions.
Current work
In the first year of the project the ANIHUB has met twice, once in December 2022 and once March 2023.
In the first meeting the ANIHUB group discussed the concept of biosecurity (do all farmers understand and apply the principles of biosecurity in the same way?), the terminology used (what does biosecurity mean? Are there other, better terms?) and the challenges associated with implementing it on farms (the sources of disease risk, barriers to uptake of biosecurity practices, and trigger events that motivate farmers to change their practice). The group suggested that the ANIHUB should focus on two exemplar diseases and use these to focus the development of biosecurity options which were clear and achievable for farmers.
In the second meeting the ANIHUB group convened to discuss how to best engage farmers in discussions around biosecurity. The group also began to establish suites of biosecurity practices for three different contexts and at three biosecurity levels – that of ‘basic’, ‘best fit,’ and ‘good’ practice. The contexts considered were, first, for general livestock biosecurity, second, for cattle roundworm, and third, for sheep scab. The range pf practices suggested by the group included those around farmer education and training, the infrastructure and physical properties of farms, and farmer knowledge of their farm and livestock.
Next steps
The biosecurity levels and associated practices co-produced by the ANIHUB and will further explored. An evaluation of the costs and benefits associated with each practice will be developed. This will then be used in farmer training activities. The members of the ANIHUB will also be engaged to help co-develop a public engagement campaign aimed at farmers, to raise awareness, overcome barriers and trigger behavioural change around on-farm biosecurity. This will include the development of an innovative virtual tour with embedded materials such as podcasts, videos, and reflective pieces, and is expected to include farmer training events. Following this will be a period of upscaling and dissemination of the tools co-produced by the ANIHUB. The group will engage with policymakers and producer groups in the Animal Health and Welfare Division and with the Centre of Expertise on Animal Disease Outbreaks (EPIC) to encourage broader dissemination through an event at the Royal Highland Show.
The ANIHUB will directly link to primary research conducted in in other RESAS programmes related to animal disease.
Publications