Biosecurity is essential for the livestock industry to produce a safe and reliable food supply. Different sectors, including poultry, beef, pork, dairy, participate in Secure Food Supply programs. Producers most often have biosecurity plans in place. Yet, despite the existence of biosecurity plans and multiple programs to reduce disease rates, disease and pathogen risks continue to increase in livestock production (Fasina et al. 2024; SHIC 2026; Kappes et al. 2023). There are identified gaps between having a biosecurity plan and the effective, continued implementation of the plan over time. Research suggests such gaps often result from human factors.
Human Factors Linked to Biosecurity Fail Points
Gelalcha et al. (2026) conducted interviews on biosecurity with large Midwest pork integrators. The participants, representing commercial entities that together produce up to 3.6 million hogs annually, unanimously agreed: employee compliance and understanding is the primary weakness and the most solvable aspect of biosecurity systems. The study categorized human factors and biosecurity risks as follows:
- Human behavior: communication strategies, training consistency and timing, perception of risks, and employee workload levels (the influence of inadequate staffing or time pressure).
- Physical: barn infrastructure that does not support biosecurity measures, entry layout problems, lack of functional lines of separation (LOS), inadequate shower facilities, and limited personnel hygiene and equipment disinfection spaces.
- External: transportation, equipment sharing, manure handling, and packing plants and cull markets.
Physical Risks and Human Factors
Racicot et al. (2022) used RFID chips in boot soles and motion tracking with behavior observations to identify factors contributing to biosecurity compliance. They found the physical layout (infrastructure) poses a barrier to compliance if the entryway is too small or barn entry is complicated. Simple infrastructure improvements can support biosecurity. For example, using a bench as a physical barrier for the LOS increased compliance over a line on the floor. Using the alerts based on motion tracking, the study identified that real-time alerts for a missed biosecurity step improved compliance. Gamification, such as peer competition, also increased biosecurity maintenance.
Not surprisingly, the Racicot et al. (2022) study found that biosecurity compliance increased after training or a disease event, then dropped off over time. Humans tend to become overfamiliar with required actions, and behaviors lapse, especially when there is not always an immediate negative outcome. Unlike animal care issues, lapses in biosecurity actions will not result in any immediate issues -- until a disease event. However, lapses in animal care can and will have rapidly visible impacts on production.
Human Behavior Risks to Biosecurity
Habit contributes to biosecurity failures, along with complacency, and the urge to minimize time and effort on tasks (Merrill et al. 2019). How workers perceive biosecurity risk also informs their decisions to comply. These perceptions are shaped by the availability of information on disease infection risk, trust in the credibility of the information source, messaging consistency and format, and if the messaging links human behavior directly to disease risk (Gelacha et al. 2026).
There are also differences in how individuals perceive and self-report their actions compared to reality. One such difference is the competence–performance discrepancy. Competence is an individual’s ability to perform activities. Actual performance of an activity, such as biosecurity measures, however, results from a mix of the individual’s competence, motivation, effort, and willingness. To be effective, a biosecurity program must account for such human factors underlying workers’ actions and decisions. Yet this facet of biosecurity is often overlooked. (Smith et al. 2026).
Biosecurity is Limited by Real World Conditions
Workers’ awareness of biosecurity requirements does not always translate to implementation in the field (Millman et al. 2017). Key barriers to biosecurity maintenance include time pressure, lack of equipment or poorly functioning equipment, and biosecurity measures that are not feasible to implement during real-world activities or adverse conditions. These barriers include wearing protective clothing in the heat, changing into slick-bottom boots that are unsafe in barn conditions, or poor equipment. Workers’ ability to do their jobs and their personal safety may outweigh the less probable risk of animal disease. For the poultry workers in the Millman et al. (2017) study, education, including realistic on-the-job training from a trusted source, and incentives improved biosecurity buy-in and implementation.
Applying a Human-Centered Biosecurity Approach
Producers that are interested in improving long-term implementation of biosecurity should take steps to account for human factors:
- Assess your biosecurity plan as written and your infrastructure, equipment, and employee participation. Identify and address any physical barriers to implementing your biosecurity plan.
- Engage workers in the review of your biosecurity program and request their input on the reality of consistently implementing measures in context of their work conditions. Discussion and inclusion can foster ownership in the system and employee buy-in.
- Review your training program and communications materials for consistency and effectiveness. This review should include identifying how employees perceive the information and how they assess risk levels.
- Identify if employee incentives prioritize biosecurity or if incentives like time pressure introduce risk.
- When interviewing or surveying employees, you may need to provide an anonymous and safe format to gain accurate and transparent input.
Producers need to think beyond just another biosecurity audit. A human-centered approach should include gathering employee feedback, facilitating collaboration and buy-in, conducting objective facility observations, and a training program and plan assessment.
The SES team has decades of program development experience for the livestock sector. Our agriculture security team conducts agriculture response planning that requires consensus and collaboration across a diverse mix of stakeholders. We help the private sector and federal, state, and local agencies prepare for animal disease emergencies and develop response and training programs. Contact us if you are interested in our services to help close the human factors gap between biosecurity plan and effective implementation.
References
Fasina, Y. O., Suarez, D. L., Ritter, G. D., Gerken, E. C., Farnell, Y. Z., Wolfenden, R., & Hargis, B. (2024). Unraveling frontiers in poultry health (part 1) – Mitigating economically important viral and bacterial diseases in commercial Chicken and Turkey production. Poultry Science, 103(4), 103500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.103500
Gelalcha, B. D., Chepkwony, M. C., Akinyede, O., Das, M., Yoder, C., Perez, A., Aguirreburualde, M. S. P., Corzo, C., Makau, D. N., & Mahero, M. W. (2026). Barriers and Breakthroughs in U.S. Swine Biosecurity: A Key Informant Exploration of the role of human behavior in Enhanced Biosecurity compliance. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, 2026(1), 5537668. https://doi.org/10.1155/tbed/5537668
Kappes, A., Tozooneyi, T., Shakil, G., Railey, A. F., McIntyre, K. M., Mayberry, D. E., Rushton, J., Pendell, D. L., & Marsh, T. L. (2023). Livestock health and disease economics: a scoping review of selected literature. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 10, 1168649. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2023.1168649
Merrill, S. C., Moegenburg, S., Koliba, C. J., Zia, A., Trinity, L., Clark, E., Bucini, G., Wiltshire, S., Sellnow, T., Sellnow, D., & Smith, J. M. (2019). Willingness to comply with biosecurity in livestock facilities: evidence from experimental simulations. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 6, 156. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00156
Millman, C., Christley, R., Rigby, D., Dennis, D., O’Brien, S. J., & Williams, N. (2017). “Catch 22”: Biosecurity awareness, interpretation and practice amongst poultry catchers. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 141, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2017.04.002
Racicot, M., Cardinal, A., Tremblay, D., & Vaillancourt, J. (2022). Technologies monitoring and improving biosecurity compliance in barn anterooms. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 9, 1005144. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.1005144
Smith, J. M., Fountain, J., Manyweathers, J., Toribio, J., Gupta, S. D., Brookes, V. J., & Hernandez-Jover, M. (2026). How can we change behavior to bolster biosecurity? A scoping review and recommendations. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2026.1851630
Swine Health Information Center. (February 3, 2026). Swine Disease Reporting System- Advisory Group Report # 96. https://www.swinehealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/SDRS-report-96.pdf