Today, we are sharing a recent published manuscript from a collaboration between the swine group and the Center for Animal Health and Food Safety at the University of Minnesota. The project focused on biosecurity practices from the Secure Pork Supply plan and the consistency with which they were applied on farms. The full text is available in open access on the journal Animals’ website.
Methods
- Anonymous survey sent to 122 swine producers in the US Midwest
- Questions included:
- details on experience of the respondents in swine production,
- perception of FAD risk/threat and behavioral,
- normative and control beliefs regarding biosecurity practices as prescribed in the secure pork supply (SPS) plan
Results
- 44% response rate
- Respondents shared that they always (13/15) or sometimes (2/15) implemented biosecurity measures and that biosecurity was always (13/5) or sometimes (2/15) important to implement. [39 respondents chose not to answer.]
- 11/15 share that they always knew the disease status of their herd and that disease outbreaks on their farm were sometimes preventable.
Abstract
Effective biosecurity is crucial for preventing swine diseases, but there can be a gap between what producers intend and what actually happens on the farm. We conducted a cross-sectional, self-administered online survey of Midwestern US swine operations (N = 54) to explore beliefs and practices related to the Secure Pork Supply (SPS) plan. Because some questions had item-level nonresponse, we report proportions for the full sample (denominator = 54) and, where helpful, for those who responded to specific items (sample size varies). Across the full sample, 27.8% (15/54) said they use biosecurity measures always or sometimes. For enhanced biosecurity, 24.1% (13/54) marked always and 3.7% (2/54) sometimes-with all item responders (N = 15) indicating some level of use. Among those who answered, the influence of veterinarians was clear: 81.8% (9/11) said their vet’s opinion is always important when deciding on biosecurity (compared to 16.7% in the full sample). Confidence in controlling an outbreak was similarly high among those who responded: 92.9% (13/14) reported they could always or sometimes control spread (24.1% in the full sample). That said, uptake of several specific SPS components was low-for example, only 27.3% (3/11) reported always monitoring or recording crossings of the line of separation, while 63.6% (7/11) said never. No single biosecurity practice was universally adopted, and overall, fully SPS-aligned programs appeared uncommon in this Midwestern group. These descriptive findings point to clear targets for improvement-such as better monitoring of the line of separation-and highlight potential leverage points, especially the role of attending veterinarians, for outreach efforts. Because this was a convenience sample relying on self-report and had item nonresponse, the results are not statistically representative of the broader regional industry but do provide valuable insights into respondent practices.