Creating a framework for the prioritization of biosecurity risks to the New Zealand dairy industry

Abstract

The New Zealand dairy sector relies on robust biosecurity measures to control and mitigate a wide range of threats to the industry. To optimize the prioritization of organisms and manage the risk they pose to the sector in a transparent and credible way, the Dairy Biosecurity Risk Evaluation Framework (D-BRiEF) was developed. This comprehensive framework was specifically designed for decision support, using a standardized approach to address the full spectrum of biosecurity threats to the sector, including exotic and endemic animal disease organisms, pest plants and insects. D-BRiEF is underpinned by three main processes, namely (i) hazard identification; (ii) multicriteria risk assessment; and (iii) communication for risk management. Expert knowledge and empirical data, including associated uncertainty, are harnessed in a standardized format. Results feed into a probability-impact model that was developed in close collaboration with dairy sector economists to provide overall comparative 10-year quantitative economic impact estimates for each assessed risk organism. A description of the overarching framework, which applies to diverse organism groups, is presented with detailed methodology on both endemic and exotic animal disease risk organisms. Examples of visual outputs are included, although actual ranking results are not reported due to industry confidentiality. D-BRiEF can provide a decision advantage to DairyNZ biosecurity risk managers and sector stakeholders by creating a transparent process that can be interrogated and updated at multiple levels to fully understand the layers of risk posed by different organisms.

Biosecurity practices in the dairy farms of southern Brazil

“…Based on this score, we proposed a scale for the degree of risk assessment based on articles in scientific literature on cattle and other animal species (8, [10][11][12]. The level of biosecurity was divided into six categories according to the percentage of best biosecurity practices adopted: very high for less than 25% (0-125 points), high for 26-50% (126-250 points), medium-high for 51-75% (251-375 points), medium for 76-80% (376-399 points), medium-low for 81-90% (400-449 points), and low for 91-100% (450-500 points).…”

Aotearoa New Zealand: Participatory science and bicultural knowledge communication

“…There was more emphasis placed on obtaining external funding for research and on research for commercialisation. The push for modern developments in science communication gradually gained support from the scientific community, as many perceived a need to gain acceptance for new ideas or technologies (Douglas, 1988;Levitin, 2015;Csiszar, 2017), as well as a need to communicate clearly during natural disasters, such as earthquakes and volcanoes (Orchiston, 2010;Blake et al, 2018) or biosecurity emergencies (Bewsell et al, 2012;Warner, 2012;Muellner et al, 2018).…”

Self-Reporting of Risk Pathways and Parameter Values for Foot-and-Mouth Disease in Slaughter Cattle from Alternative Production Systems by Kenyan and Ugandan Veterinarians

“…"Expert" in this usage can refer to a person who can provide information about the question based on their experience with the subject matter of interest [28,29]. This approach has been used within veterinary science to estimate parameter values or prioritize risk factors [30][31][32][33][34][35]. However, when trying to collect information about local systems or informal pathways, a challenge is that those familiar with the subject may not have an academic understanding of the techniques being used.…”