ASABE Technical Library - Abstract

Click on “Download PDF” for the PDF version or on the title for the HTML version.
If you are not an ASABE member or if your employer has not arranged for access to the full-text, view access and subscription options

Development and Evaluation of a Practical Biosecure Entry System in Animal Farm

Published by the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan www.asabe.org

Citation:  2026 ASABE Annual International Meeting  2600808.(doi:10.13031/aim.202600808)
Authors:   Teng Teeh Lim, Corinne Bromfield, Tamara Gull, Solomon Wole Odemuyiwa
Keywords:   Biosecurity; disinfectant spraying; Canine distemper virus; Feline calicivirus; Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus; electrolyzed water; human-associated contaminated surfaces

Abstract. The most widely used biosecure entry systems to minimize the spreading of disease-causing pathogens in animal farms are conventional shower-in/-out, and Danish entry systems (DES). However, these systems can be impractical or troublesome for some farms, especially when farm staff do not always adhere to the biosecurity protocols and standards. This study evaluated the effectiveness of multiple alternative biosecurity interventions - including air shower (AS), disinfectant spraying (DS), disinfectant fogging (DF), and their combinations - with and without integration of the DES and hair nets (HN). Another treatment was a Modified-DES (MO.DES), which was DES utilizing hand sanitizer instead of hand soap. Three representative surfaces, coverall or t-shirt (represents cloth), leather or pigskin (human skin), and faux fur (human hair), were contaminated with two bacteria, Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus, Gram-positive) and Escherichia coli (E. coli, Gram-negative), and two viruses, Canine distemper virus (CDV, enveloped) and Feline calicivirus (FCV, non-enveloped), to assess the efficacy of the individual and/or combined treatment methods. For bacterial load reduction, standard plate count method was used to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment in reducing E. coli and S. aureus from cloth, skin, and hair surfaces. For the viral load reduction test, cycle threshold (Ct) values were measured using RT-qPCR on samples recovered from control and treated sample surfaces. Across all surfaces, DS and AS+DS were effective treatments, achieving greater than 2 log reductions in bacteria mitigation, while AS, DF, and AS+DF yielded negligible reductions (<0.3 log). Incorporation of DES or HN enhanced efficacy, with DS+DES, AS+DS+DES, and DS+HN reaching 3-4 log reductions. Strictly followed shower protocol showed better efficacy on hair samples, although mean value of bacterial load reduction was not significantly different from AS+DS+HN. For viruses (FCV and CDV), only DES- or HN-based combinations achieved meaningful reductions, with AS+DS+DES for skin and AS+DS+HN for hair treatments performing close to the shower protocol. Notably, MO.DES showed better efficacy in hand cleaning compared to the traditional hand-washing protocol. The findings indicated that while single treatments alone were ineffective, multi-step approaches offered a better pathogen reduction across all three tested surfaces as an alternative to traditional shower in/out system.

(Download PDF)    (Export to EndNotes)