Measuring the costs of biosecurity on poultry farms: a case study in broiler production in Finland
Full text
RESEARCH Open Access
Measu ing he cos s o biosecu i y on
poul y a ms: a case s udy in b oile
p oduc ion in Finland
Ki si-Maa i Siekkinen
1
, Jaakko Heikkilä
2*
, Niina Tammi an a
1
and Heidi Roseng en
1,3
Abs ac
Backg ound: Fa m-le el biosecu i y p o ides he ounda ion o biosecu i y along he en i e p oduc ion chain.
Many isk managemen p ac ices a e cons an ly in place, ega dless o whe he he e is a disease ou b eak o no .
None heless, he a m-le el cos s o p e en i e biosecu i y ha e a ely been assessed. We examined he cos s
incu ed by p e en i e biosecu i y o Finnish poul y a ms.
Me hods: We used a semi-s uc u ed phone in e iew and ob ained esul s om 17 b oile p oduce s and om 5
ha ching egg p oduce s, co esponding o abou 10% o all p oduce s in Finland.
Resul s: Ou esul s indica e ha he a e age cos o biosecu i y is some 3.55 eu ocen pe bi d o b oile
p oduce s (0.10 eu ocen pe bi d pe ea ing day) and 75.7 eu ocen pe bi d o ha ching egg p oduce s (0.27
eu ocen pe bi d pe ea ing day). Fo a ba ch o 75,000 b oile s, he o al cos would be €2,700. The o al cos s
pe bi d a e dependen on he annual numbe o bi ds: he highe he numbe o bi ds, he lowe he cos pe
bi d. This impac is p ima ily due o dec easing labou cos s a he han di ec mone a y cos s. La ge a ms seem
o u ilise less labou pe bi d o biosecu i y ac ions. The e a e also di e ences ela ing o he p ocesso wi h which
he p oduce is associa ed, as well as o he gende o he p oduce , wi h emale p oduce s in es ing mo e in
biosecu i y. Bi d densi y was ound o be posi i ely ela ed o he labou cos s o biosecu i y. This sugges s ha
when he bi d densi y is highe , g ea e labou esou ces need o be in es ed in hei heal h and wel a e and
hence disease p e en ion. The use o coccidios a s as a p e en i e measu e o con ol coccidiosis was ound o
ha e he la ges cos a iance be ween he p oduce s, con ibu ing o he di ec cos s.
Conclusions: The edesign o cos -sha ing in animal diseases is cu en ly ongoing in he Eu opean Union. Be o e
we can asse how he isk should be sha ed o eso o he ‘pollu e pays’p inciple, we need o unde s and how
he cos s a e cu en ly dis ibu ed. The ongoing s udy con ibu es owa ds unde s anding hese issues. The nex
challenge is o link he cos s o p e en i e biosecu i y o he bene i s hus acqui ed.
Keywo ds: Biosecu i y, Poul y, On- a m cos s, In ec ious disease, P e en ion, B oile p oduc ion
In oduc ion
Biosecu i y can be de ined as he exclusion, e adica ion
and e ec i e managemen o isks posed by pes s and
diseases o he economy, en i onmen and human
heal h [1]. Risk managemen o biological haza ds such
as pes s, pa hogens and diseases can be b oadly di ided
in o ac ions which: i) ake place be o e he biological
haza d has ma e ialised (p e en i e measu es); ii) ake
place du ing an ou b eak (e adica ion o con ol); and
iii) aim a educing he consequences in he p esence o
he haza d (con ol o adap a ion). Howe e , biosecu i y
is a weakes link public good, whe e he o al amoun o
p o ec ion app oxima ely equals he le el o he weakes
p o ide [2,3]. I ma e s li le ha e e yone else in he
p oduc ion chain unde akes high biosecu i y, i one o
he key agen s (’ he weakes link’) does li le o p e en
he en y o diseases. Hence, incen i es o high biose-
cu i y in p oduc ion sys ems should be buil in o app o-
p ia e policies. The Eu opean Union (EU) has
* Co espondence: jaakko.heikkila@m . i
2
MTT Economic Resea ch, La oka anonkaa i 9, FI-00790 Helsinki, Finland
Full lis o au ho in o ma ion is a ailable a he end o he a icle
Siekkinen e al.Ac a Ve e ina ia Scandina ica 2012, 54:12
h p://www.ac a e scand.com/con en /54/1/12
© 2012 Siekkinen e al; licensee BioMed Cen al L d. This is an Open Access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e
Commons A ibu ion License (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/2.0), which pe mi s un es ic ed use, dis ibu ion, and
ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal wo k is p ope ly ci ed.
o mula ed he new Common Animal Heal h Policy
2013, wi h he slogan “p e en ion is be e han cu e”
[4]. This p omo es a shi in policy om e adica ion o
p e en ion.
Al hough a ew s udies ha e assessed p e en i e
ac ions agains al e na i e s a egies ( e iewed in [5]),
he a m-le el cos s o p e en i e biosecu i y ha e
a ely been assessed. A good biosecu i y s a us equi es
in es men s in p e en ion. In o de o assess he e i-
ciency o biosecu i y as a whole, we also need o
accoun o he cos s which ensue a hose imes when
he e a e no disease ou b eaks. A numbe o ecen
s udies ha e iden i ied key on- a m biosecu i y mea-
su es in he p oduc ion o bee [6], po k [7,8] and
poul y [9,10]. The e ha e also been s udies assessing
he bene i s o p e en i e ac ions in gene al [11], as
well as s udies on a m-le el economics ela ed o op i-
mal con ol o animal diseases [12,13]. Howe e , he
a m-le el cos s o p e en i e biosecu i y measu es
ha e gene ally no been assessed. An excep ion is
Sheppa d [14], whose p ima y in e es , howe e , was in
assessing he o al cos componen s in b oile p oduc-
ion and, hence, included only accina ion and medica-
ion cos s. The e a e also h ee s udies om he Uni ed
S a es da ing back wo decades. Sischo e al. [15] in es-
iga ed he cos s o p e en i e biosecu i y in 43 dai y
he ds in Cali o nia and ound he cos o disease p e-
en ion o be US$10.72 pe cow-yea . Mille and Do n
[16,17] unde ook a simila exe cise in Ohio swine and
dai y p oduc ion and ound p e en i e cos s o US
$6.91 pe pig-yea o 13 swine p oduce s and o US
$36.69 pe cow-yea o 16 dai y ope a ions.
The a m-le el cos s a e impo an o a leas ou
easons. Fi s , many managemen p ac ices a e in place
e en in he absence o an ou b eak, bu an ou b eak
may inc ease hese cos s. Cos ly p e en i e ac ions may
educe he esou ces equi ed and he cos s o e adica-
ion in he e en o a disease ou b eak, al hough his
impac has a ely been s udied. Second, a m-le el bio-
secu i y p o ides he ounda ion o biosecu i y in he
en i e p oduc ion chain. This is pa icula ly impo an
in a sys em such as he EU, whe e he p oduc ion s a -
egy is based on biosecu i y and sa e y in he en i e p o-
duc ion chain. Thi d, he a m-le el cos s in pa
de e mine he incen i es which p oduce s ha e in p o-
iding biosecu i y, which is o a la ge ex en a weakes
(o weake ) link public good
a
[3]. Iden i ying hese cos s
can help in designing incen i e schemes o be e biose-
cu i y. Finally, he EU is cu en ly looking in o se e al
cos -sha ing schemes ela ed o animal diseases [18].
One ac o which should be aken in o accoun in cos
sha ing is he cu en le el o expenses incu ed o he
di e en pa ies, including p oduce s. The e o e, he dis-
ibu ion o cos s and bene i s in animal disease
ou b eaks and policies is an impo an issue o u he
s udy, as highligh ed by he OECD [19].
We con ibu e owa ds illing he in o ma ion gap
ega ding he cu en cos s o biosecu i y a a m le el
by examining he cos s incu ed by p e en i e biosecu -
i y o Finnish poul y a ms. Ou aims we e: 1) o es i-
ma e he o al le el o mone a y and labou cos s o
p e en i e biosecu i y in poul y a ms, 2) o iden i y
he la ges and smalles cos componen s wi hin he
a ms and 3) o ob ain in o ma ion ega ding he a -
iance o p oduce in es men s in speci ic componen s o
biosecu i y and o examine wha explains his a ia ion.
The in o ma ion ob ained could, o ins ance, be used in
designing cos -e icien isk managemen measu es.
Me hods
The si ua ion ega ding poul y diseases in gene al is
ela i ely good in Finland compa ed o many o he
coun ies in Eu ope and wo ldwide [20,21]. All pa s o
he ood chain, including eed, he animal and ood
indus y as well as he go e nmen , a e easonably com-
mi ed o he policy o p e en i e biosecu i y. The p e-
alence o Salmonella in Finnish poul y is no mally
below 1%, and as o o he poul y diseases, in 2009
he e we e i e cases o Ma ek’s disease, and no cases o
Gumbo o, a ian in luenza o Newcas le disease [21].
The o e all mo ali y a es in b oile p oduc ion a e also
low.
This s udy an om Feb ua y o Decembe 2007 and
in ol ed in e iews wi h 22 poul y a ms (17 b oile
p oduce s and i e ha ching egg p oduce s). All he p o-
duce s pa icipa ed in he s udy olun a ily. They we e
selec ed wi h he assis ance o Finnish poul y p oces-
so s and hei e e ina ians who p o ided he con ac
de ails as well as ga e assis ance in pe suading he p o-
duce s o pa icipa e. The p oduc ion o poul y in Fin-
land is e ically highly in eg a ed, meaning ha each
a m is associa ed wi h a pa icula poul y p ocesso .
They ha e a comp ehensi e ag eemen ega ding he
de ails o p oduc ion, including some aspec s o biose-
cu i y, bu hese con ac s a e no publicly a ailable. As
a esul , he p ocesso has a ela i ely la ge in luence on
he ac ions o he p oduce . In he s udy, he p opo ion
o he a ms o each o he h ee p ocesso s is consis-
en wi h hei ma ke sha e.
The da a we e acqui ed h ough a elephone su ey o
he a ms and conce ned he 2006 p oduc ion yea . The
ques ionnai e was designed wi h he ex ensi e help and
consul a ion o expe s in poul y p oduc ion, and i
deal wi h di e en ypes o ac ions ela ed o biosecu -
i y a he a m le el. Only ac ions p ima ily aken o
disease managemen pu poses we e included in he
ques ionnai e. The ques ions we e di ided in o 14 ca e-
go ies, p esen ed in Table 1.
Siekkinen e al.Ac a Ve e ina ia Scandina ica 2012, 54:12
h p://www.ac a e scand.com/con en /54/1/12
Page 2 o 8
Theques ionnai e(a ailableupon eques om he
au ho s) was sen o he p oduce s oughly one week in
ad ance o he ac ual in e iew call. Pe sonal in e iews
we e equi ed in o de o p esen he complex issues
cohe en ly o he p oduce s, as well as o a oid double
coun ing o di e en ypes o cos s [22]. The in e iew
was semi-s uc u ed: all he p oduce s answe ed he
same se o ques ions, bu hei answe s we e no
es ic ed in any way. Fu he ques ions we e asked o
check he consis ency o he answe s. Fo ins ance, i
he p oduce indica ed a ce ain componen cos ing
€100 pe mon h, i was men ioned ha his would mean
an annual cos o €1,200, and he p oduce was asked
whe he his was co ec .
The answe s gi en by he p oduce s we e in ei he
eu o ( o di ec cos s o pu chased se ices) o in hou s
o labou . A summa y o he da a is p esen ed in Table
2. In ela ion o he 48-hou equi emen o s ay away
om he poul y p emises a e a ip ab oad (included
in Ca ego y 10, ope a ional hygiene), only 50% o he
hou s we e aken in o accoun . One ou lie obse a ion
ega ding he bi d densi y o a a m was excluded om
he calcula ions.
The biosecu i y cos s we e calcula ed o each o he
ca ego ies using Mic oso Excel (Mic oso Co po a ion,
Redmond). The cos s we e di ided in o di ec mone a y
cos s and cos s in e ms o labou . These we e also
ans o med in o cos s pe bi d pe yea , whe e he
annual numbe o bi ds p oduced was used.
In addi ion, we unde ook o dina y leas squa es
eg ession analysis wi h SPSS s a is ical so wa e (SPSS
Inc., Chicago) o examine how he cos s a e ela ed o
he uni size and which ac o s a e p ima ily esponsible
o he cos a ia ion be ween he a ms. On he basis o
backg ound da a on he co esponden s, we pos ula ed
he ollowing ela ionship o explain he a ia ion in
cos s:
Cos /bi d
i
=α+β
1
bi ds
i
+β
2
p ocesso B
i
+β
3
p ocesso C
i
+β
4
emale
i
+ε
i
(1)
Table 1 Ques ionnai e ca ego ies and examples.
Ca ego y numbe and name Examples
1. Biosecu i y plan Ad ise ees o wo king hou s o designing and upda ing w i en disease p o ec ion plan
2. P e en i e medica ion Cos o p e en i e medica ion, including he use o coccidios a s as a p e en i e measu e o con ol
coccidiosis and he use o a compe i i e exclusion p oduc (B oilac
®
) o he p e en ion o in es inal
dis u bances in newly ha ched chicks; also includes accina ion
3. Pes con ol Wo king hou s o pu chased pes p o ec ion (bi ds, oden s, insec s), pes icides, aps, sca ec ows,
en ila ion sa e y ne s, e c.
4. Equipmen Cos (o wo king hou s) o machines, appliances and equipmen and hei main enance conce ning
disease p e en ion, e.g. p o ec i e clo hing, su ace wa e handling
5. Educa ion Wo king hou s spen on educa ion, main enance and upda ing p o essional skills conce ning disease
p o ec ion
6. Addi ional cleaning Measu es in addi ion o no mal washing be ween he lo s o disease p e en ion pu poses (e.g. gassing)
7. Con ac s o pu chases and sales Cos (o wo king hou s) o pu chase con ac s o disease p e en ion pu poses (e.g. o eed) and wo king
hou s spen on cla i ying and ce i ying he heal h o he lock when selling
8. Cons uc ion plans, in es men s and
subsidies
Wo king hou s spen on conside ing disease p o ec ion when planning cons uc ions, cos s o in es men s
in connec ion wi h disease p e en ion; subsidies ecei ed
9. Heal h moni o ing p og ammes Cos s and wo king hou s associa ed wi h di e en kinds o exis ing heal h ca e p og ammes o
ag eemen s
10. Ope a ional hygiene Time spen in showe ing be o e en e ing he p oduc ion p emises, as well as he ime when he p oduce
was ou o he p oduc ion acili iesdue o he qua an ine a e a ip ab oad; cos s o wo ke s’Salmonella
ce i ica e
11. Time pe iod o keeping p oduc ion
p emises emp y
Possible p olonged pe iod du ing which he p emises a e held emp y o disease p e en ion pu poses
12. P oduc ion moni o ing Cos s o ca e o sick animals, labo a o y cos s, no i ica ions and book-keeping on animal diseases and ca e
13. Insu ance Annual insu ance ees agains animal diseases
14. Con ol and inspec ions Wo king hou s and ees ela ed o ex e nal inspec ion o animal heal h (by slaugh e -house e e ina ians,
municipal e e ina ians, e c.)
Table 2 Bi d densi ies and p oduc ion da a
B oile p oduce s Ha ching egg
p oduce s
Bi ds/
yea
Densi y
(m
2
/bi d)
Bi ds/
ba ch
Ba ches/
yea
Bi ds/
yea
Densi y
(m
2
/bi d)
Mean 330,053 0.05 52,447 6.4 12,900 0.18
Median 315,000 0.05 45,000 6.5 14,800 0.19
Minimum 90,000 0.04 15,000 5.5 5,400 0.16
Maximum 774,000 0.05 129,000 7.0 18,000 0.19
Siekkinen e al.Ac a Ve e ina ia Scandina ica 2012, 54:12
h p://www.ac a e scand.com/con en /54/1/12
Page 3 o 8
The a ia ion in he o al cos pe bi d was assumed
o depend on he size o he p oduc ion uni imeasu ed
in e ms o he numbe o bi ds p oduced annually
(bi ds
i
) as well as on he p ocesso wi h whom he p o-
duce has a con ac . The e we e h ee p ocesso s in
ou sample, and we included dummy a iables o wo
o hem, ea ing he hi d p ocesso as he e e ence
le el. We also pos ula ed ha he gende o he p odu-
ce may ma e and deno ed emale p oduce s wi h a
dummy a iable. The las e m ε
i
is he e o e m.
Th ee al e na i es o he dependen a iable we e
conside ed: 1) he o al cos pe bi d, 2) he di ec
mone a y cos pe bi d and 3) he labou cos pe bi d.
The o al cos is he sum o he di ec mone a y cos
and he labou cos . Wo k cos s we e measu ed in
hou s o labou and con e ed in o eu o using an hou ly
wage a e o €12 pe hou , he igu e used in he Fa m
Accoun ancy Da a Ne wo k (FADN). Addi ionally, in
one analysis, he densi y o bi ds was used as an expla-
na o y a iable ins ead o he numbe o bi ds. Reg es-
sion analysis was only pe o med o he b oile
p oduce s, as he small sample size o he ha ching egg
p oduce s did no allow s a is ical es ing.
Resul s
The a e age o al cos o p e en i e biosecu i y o he
b oile p oduce s in ou sample popula ion was 3.55
eu ocen pe bi d (90% con idence in e al 2.56-4.40
eu ocen pe bi d). Fo ha ching egg p oduce s, he
expenses we e highe , he mean expense being 75.7
eu ocen pe bi d (39.3-115.5 eu ocen pe bi d). The
small numbe o ha ching egg p oduce holdings did
no allow o eliable s a is ical es ing. When ans-
o med in o cos s pe ea ing day, by di iding he cos
by he a e age numbe o ea ing days
b
, he igu es we e
0.10 eu ocen pe bi d pe ea ing day o b oile s and
0.27 eu ocen pe bi d pe ea ing day o ha ching egg
p oduce s. The gene al esul s a e p esen ed in Table 3.
Fo b oile p oduce s, he di ec mone a y cos was on
a e age 2.51 eu ocen pe bi d (71% o cos s) and he
labou cos 1.04 eu ocen pe bi d (29%). Fo ha ching
egg p oduce s, he co esponding igu es we e 49.5
eu ocen (65%) and 26.2 eu ocen (35%). On a pe bi d
pe ea ing day basis, he co esponding igu es we e
0.07 and 0.03 eu ocen o b oile p oduce s and 0.18
and 0.09 eu ocen o ha ching egg p oduce s.
The cos s we e u he di ided in o ca ego ies acco d-
ing o he ca ego isa ion p esen ed in Table 1. Ca ego y
11 ( ime pe iod o keeping he p oduc ion p emises
emp y) was no included in he esul s, as he e we e no
cases whe e he p oduc ion p emises had been kep
emp y o a p olonged pe iod o ime o disease man-
agemen pu poses. The cos s pe bi d in ela ion o he
ca ego y a e p esen ed in Figu e 1, whe e he boxes
display he median as well as he 25
h
and 75
h
pe cen-
iles o he cos s. The whiske s show he 5
h
and 95
h
pe cen iles.
The igu e illus a es ha only a ew ca ego ies p o-
duce he majo i y o he expenses. The main cons i uen
o he cos s was p e en i e medica ion (Ca ego y 2),
which includes he use o coccidios a s in b oile eed as
a p e en i e measu e o con ol coccidiosis and he use
o a compe i i e exclusion p oduc (B oilac
®
) o he
p e en ion o in es inal dis u bances in newly ha ched
chicks. The wo o he la ge componen s we e pes con-
ol (Ca ego y 3) and ope a ional hygiene (Ca ego y 10).
Fo ha ching egg p oduce s, he equipmen o biose-
cu i y (Ca ego y 4) cons i u ed he la ges cos compo-
nen , ollowed by p e en i e medica ion including
accina ion (Ca ego y 2) and insu ance agains animal
diseases (Ca ego y 13). The smalles cos componen s
o bo h he b oile and he ha ching egg p oduce s
included he biosecu i y plan (Ca ego y 1), con ac s o
pu chases and sales (Ca ego y 7), cons uc ion plans and
in es men s (Ca ego y 8) and heal h moni o ing p o-
g amme (Ca ego y 9), he las o which can ha dly be
a ec ed by he p oduce . Pes con ol (Ca ego y 3), edu-
ca ion (Ca ego y 5) and ope a ional hygiene (Ca ego y
10) had a simila sha e o o al expenses o bo h he
b oile and he ha ching egg p oduce s, each cons i u -
ing abou 6-10% o o al biosecu i y expenses.
The cos s na u ally a ied among he p oduce s. The
la ges cos a iances in e ms o mone a y cos s we e
ound in he use o p e en i e medica ion ( he di e -
ence be ween he highes and he lowes alues o he
90% con idence in e al was 0.70 eu ocen ), disposable
equisi es o pes con ol such as pes icides (0.25 eu o-
cen ), and insu ance o he han Salmonella (0.15
Table 3 The cos s pe bi d o p e en i e biosecu i y measu es in Finnish poul y ( he cos s pe bi d pe ea ing day
in b acke s)
Cos pe bi d (eu ocen ) 90% con idence in e al
Mean Median Minimum Maximum
B oile p oduce s 3.55
(0.099)
3.60
(0.100)
2.52
(0.070)
4.90
(0.136)
2.56-4.40
(0.071-0.122)
Ha ching egg p oduce s 75.73
(0.271)
82.98
(0.296)
37.39
(0.134)
122.11 (0.436) 39.34-115.49 (0.146-0.428)
Siekkinen e al.Ac a Ve e ina ia Scandina ica 2012, 54:12
h p://www.ac a e scand.com/con en /54/1/12
Page 4 o 8
eu ocen ). Salmonella insu ance and an ex a le el o
p oduc ion hygiene also s ood ou (bo h abou 0.25
eu ocen ) and, in hese cases, he e we e la ge numbe s
o a ms wi h ze o expense in hese ca ego ies.
Simila ly, o labou expenses, by a he la ges cos
a iance (90% o a ia ion) was ela ed o he ime aken
o showe o disease p e en ion pu poses, which a ied
be ween he a ms by abou 1.5 seconds, o by 0.50
eu ocen , pe bi d. The o he p ima y easons o a -
iance in labou cos s we e pes con ol, as well as he
ime which he p oduce was ou o he p oduc ion
acili ies due o qua an ine (bo h abou 1.0 seconds, o
0.30 eu ocen , pe bi d), educa ion, p oduc ion moni o -
ing and heal h moni o ing p og ammes, and con ol and
inspec ions (all h ee abou 0.75 seconds, o 0.25 eu o-
cen , pe bi d).
Rega ding he impac o he uni size and o he ac o s
(equa ion 1), he esul s o he base eg ession using he
h ee dependen a iables a e p esen ed in Table 4. In
he able, each column ep esen s one eg ession, wi h
he dependen a iable a he op and he independen
a iables in he ollowing ows. All h ee eg essions
we e signi ican a he 95% con idence le el, which is a
good esul conside ing ha he sample size was mod-
es . As expec ed, he la ge he uni size (measu ed by
he annual numbe o bi ds), he lowe was he cos o
biosecu i y pe bi d. Fu he mo e, emale p oduce s had
a highe in es men in biosecu i y han hei male coun-
e pa s. The e we e also di e ences among he p oces-
so s, wi h p oduce s o p ocesso s B and C being
simila , bu he p oduce s associa ed wi h p ocesso A
ha ing a signi ican ly lowe cos o biosecu i y pe bi d.
When bi d densi y was subs i u ed o bi d numbe in
he eg ession, bo h p ocesso dummies became posi i e
and signi ican a he 95% le el. The bi d densi y a i-
able i sel was posi i e and signi ican a he 95% le el.
Bi d densi y had no s a is ical impac on he di ec
mone a y cos s o biosecu i y (p = 0.797), bu i had a
s a is ically signi ican impac on biosecu i y labou
cos s (p = 0.039) as well as on he o al cos (p = 0.027).
As he sign o he coe icien is posi i e, i sugges s ha
one mo e bi d pe squa e me e inc eases he labou
cos o biosecu i y pe bi d by abou 0.20 eu ocen .
Discussion
This s udy ep esen s one o he i s a emp s o de e -
mine he o al a m-le el cos s o biosecu i y du ing a
disease- ee pe iod. Ou esul s indica e ha he a e age
cos o biosecu i y is some 3.55 eu ocen pe bi d o
b oile p oduce s (0.10 eu ocen pe bi d pe ea ing
day) and 75.7 eu ocen pe bi d o ha ching egg p odu-
ce s (0.27 eu ocen pe bi d pe ea ing day). Fo a
ba ch o 75,000 b oile s, he o al cos would be €2,700.
This ep esen s some wo pe cen o he o al p oduc-
ion cos s and is simila in magni ude o he cos o
logis ics (loading and anspo a ion) (unpublished in o -
ma ion). The esul s also indica e ha he wo k ime
de o ed o biosecu i y ep esen s some 8% o he o al
wo k ime on b oile a ms and abou 5% on b oile
b eede a ms. The cos s a e in he same ange as he
&RVWVE FDWHJRU
%LRVHFXULW SODQ
3UHYHQWLYH
PHGLFDWLRQ
3HVWFRQWURO
(TXLSPHQW
(GXFDWLRQ
$GGLWLRQDO
FOHDQLQJ
&RQWUDFWVIRU
SXUFKDVHVDQG
VDOHV
&RQVWUXFWLRQ
SODQVLQYHVWPHQWV
DQGVXEVLGLHV
+HDOWKPRQLWRULQJ
SURJUDPPHV
2SHUDWLRQDO
K JLHQH
3URGXFWLRQ
PRQLWRULQJ
,QVXUDQFH
&RQWURODQG
LQVSHFWLRQV
HXURFHQWVELUG
Figu e 1 Median on- a m biosecu i y cos s o b oile p oduce s by ca ego y and pe bi d, oge he wi h he 25
h
and 75
h
(boxes)
and he 5
h
and 95
h
(whiske s) pe cen iles.
Siekkinen e al.Ac a Ve e ina ia Scandina ica 2012, 54:12
h p://www.ac a e scand.com/con en /54/1/12
Page 5 o 8
cos o accines and o he e e ina y se ices in Eng-
land, whe e hey we e ound o amoun o 1.2% o o al
expenses and o 1.4 pence (abou 1.9 eu ocen ) pe bi d
[14]. The esul s a e also quali a i ely in line wi h hose
o s udies unde aken on cows and pigs in he Uni ed
S a es, whe e in all cases i was ound ha he cos o
medica ion and biologics we e he p ima y cons i uen s
o he disease p e en ion cos s [15-17].
The highe cos o biosecu i y pe bi d o he ha ch-
ing egg p oduce s is logical, since he bi ds spend a
much longe pe iod o ime in he p oduc ion acili ies.
Howe e , also he cos pe bi d pe ea ing day was
abou h ee imes highe o he ha ching egg p oduce s.
Thismaysugges ha hebi dsa emo e aluable o
he p oduce and hence wo h in es ing mo e. We ha e
no compa ed he cos s o biosecu i y o he income
gene a ed by he bi ds in his pape . Also he highe
amoun o a ic in ha ching egg p oduc ion may
explain he highe cos .
Some basic conclusions can be d awn om he eg es-
sion esul s. Fi s o all, eg ession 1 (Table 4) sugges s
ha he o al cos s pe bi d a e dependen on he
annual numbe o bi ds. The sign o he coe icien is
also as expec ed: he highe he numbe o bi ds, he
lowe he cos pe bi d. In o he wo ds, la ge uni s
incu lowe cos s o p e en i e biosecu i y pe bi d. Sec-
ond, eg essions 2 and 3 e eal ha his impac is p i-
ma ily due o dec easing labou cos s a he han di ec
mone a y cos s. La ge a ms seem o u ilise less labou
pe bi d o biosecu i y ac ions. The magni ude o he
impac is such ha one housand mo e bi ds annually
dec ease he cos s by 0.00235 eu ocen . In o he wo ds,
ha ing abou 425,000 mo e bi ds annually dec eases he
cos s by one eu ocen pe bi d (abou 28%). The impac
o he inc eased uni size on cos s pe bi d was pa icu-
la ly s ong in Ca ego y 14 (inspec ions and con ol).
Fu he mo e, i appea s ha he impac o p ocesso B
canno be dis inguished om ha o p ocesso C, bu
he a ms associa ed wi h p ocesso A ( he e e ence
le el) ha e an app oxima ely one eu ocen lowe cos o
p e en i e biosecu i y han he a ms associa ed wi h
he o he wo p ocesso s. This e ec was main ained
e en when new a iables (such as bi d densi y) we e
included in he model. When examined ca ego ically,
he impac was pa icula ly s ong in Ca ego ies 2 (p e-
en i e medica ion), 3 (pes con ol) and 6 (addi ional
cleaning). Whe he his is due o mo e cos -e ec i e
ac ions, less s ingen equi emen s o he classi ied p o-
duc ion con ac s o di e en disease p essu e canno
be asce ained wi h his s udy, as we ha e no in o ma-
ion on he disease his o y o he a ms. Howe e , since
poul y p oduc ion in Finland is o a la ge ex en con-
olled by he p ocesso s, i is clea ha he a i udes,
guidelines and ins uc ions gi en by he p ocesso ha e
an impo an impac a he a m le el.
Female p oduce s (24% in he sample) we e also ound
o in es mo e in biosecu i y. I has been obse ed in
many s udies ha women a e mo e sensi i e owa ds
isks in gene al [23,24] and, hence, as p oduce s, hey
may also be mo e willing o in es in educing he isks.
The impac o a emale owne was pa icula ly isible in
Ca ego ies 3 (pes con ol), 5 (educa ion), 8 (cons uc-
ion plan, in es men and subsidies) and 9 (heal h moni-
o ing p og ammes). Un o una ely, no u he
backg ound in o ma ion on he p oduce s was a ailable.
In he da ase , bi d densi y a ied om 19 o 24 bi ds
pe m
2
. When he impac o bi d densi y on he cos s
was examined, i was ound ha bi d densi y was posi-
i ely ela ed o he labou cos s o biosecu i y. This
sugges s ha when he bi d densi y is highe , g ea e
labou esou ces need o be in es ed in hei heal h and
wel a e and hence disease p e en ion. This may be due,
Table 4 Analysis o he ac o s a ec ing he p e en i e biosecu i y cos s on Finnishb oile a ms
Reg ession 1 Reg ession 2 Reg ession 3
Dependen a iable To al cos pe bi d Di ec cos pe bi d Labou cos pe bi d
In e cep 3.673
(p = 0.000)
2.417
(p = 0.000)
1.256
(p = 0.001)
Annual numbe o bi ds -0.00000235
(p = 0.004)
-0.0000007353
(p = 0.190)
-0.00000161
(p = 0.031)
P ocesso B (dummy) 0.945
(p = 0.006)
0.592
(p = 0.025)
0.353
(p = 0.244)
P ocesso C (dummy) 0.582
(p = 0.028)
0.339
(p = 0.100)
0.243
(p = 0.326)
Female p oduce 0.528
(p = 0.026)
0.090
(p = 0.606)
0.438
(p = 0.060)
Reg ession s a is ics F = 11.437
Sig. = 0.000
R
2
= 0.792
F = 2.602
Sig. = 0.089
R
2
= 0.465
F = 5.028
Sig. = 0.013
R
2
= 0.626
Siekkinen e al.Ac a Ve e ina ia Scandina ica 2012, 54:12
h p://www.ac a e scand.com/con en /54/1/12
Page 6 o 8
o ins ance, o he ac ha he po en ial disease p es-
su e is highe when he bi d densi y is high.
In he analysis, he use o coccidios a s was ound o
ha e he la ges cos a iance be ween he p oduce s,
con ibu ing o di ec cos s. The eason o his emains
unclea , as he sepa a e eg essions unde aken o his
cos componen could no eliably ela e i o any o he
explana o y ac o s. The answe may ha e o do wi h
he disease his o y o he a m, bu ha in o ma ion was
no a ailable o his s udy.
Theda a o hiss udywe ecollec edbysemi-s uc-
u ed in e iews, which we e all ca ied ou by he same
pe son in o de o ensu e in e - a m compa abili y. We
belie e ha pe sonal in e iews, despi e being ime-con-
suming, a e he bes way o ga he ela i ely complex
da a on disease p e en ion in a compa able way. A w i -
en ques ionnai e could esul in mo e esponses and
hus mo e da a o es , bu he quali y o he da a would
su e , hence esul ing in p oblems wi h s a is ical es -
ing. As a esul o his ype o da a acquisi ion, he
amoun o da a collec ed canno be ex emely la ge.
Howe e , ou da ase co e s abou 10% o Finnish p o-
duce s o bo h p oduc ion ypes (b oile and ha ching
egg). We also belie e ha he quali y o he da a mo e
han compensa es o he modes quan i y.
Al hough he main objec i e in he cu en s udy was
o examine he magni ude and cons i uen s o p e en-
i e biosecu i y a he le el o poul y p oduc ion a ms,
we also had some me hodological issues in mind. In he
u u e, he cu en me hodology and he ques ionnai e
could be applied: 1) o in es iga e he cos s a o he
poin s in he poul y p oduc ion chain as well as o
de e mine how much he chain as a whole is in es ing
in biosecu i y and 2) o explo e he cos s o di e en
ypes o animal p oduc ion chain, including he p oduc-
ion o po k and bee . Howe e , o applica ion in o he
coun ies, some modi ica ions need o be made. Poul y
p oduc ion legisla ion and p ac ices a y somewha
wi hin he EU, and na ional egula ions may di e .
Hence, he ques ionnai e used in his s udy may equi e
some e ision o be applicable elsewhe e.
Thea e agesizeo he a msin hesampleissome-
wha la ge han he a e age size o all b oile a ms in
Finland. Howe e , as he end is owa ds inc easing
a m sizes, we belie e ha he esul s a e easonably
close o he cu en si ua ion and a e ep esen a i e o
he si ua ion which we will sho ly be acing. The esul s
also sugges ha i inc easing a m sizes also lead o
inc eased bi d densi y, hen g ea e esou ces will need
o be in es ed in p e en i e biosecu i y.
The ob ious nex ques ion is whe he he incu ed
cos s e ec i ely p e en he in oduc ion o diseases.
Fu he mo e, we need o know how he uni size a ec s
he op imal le el o in es men on a pe bi d basis on
p e en i e biosecu i y. These ques ions canno be
answe ed by he esul s p esen ed he e. Howe e , iden i-
ying he cos s associa ed wi h p e en i e biosecu i y is a
necessa y i s s ep in unde s anding ha biosecu i y is
no a ee lunch.
Conclusion
The edesign o cos -sha ing in animal diseases is cu -
en ly ongoing in he EU. Be o e we can asse how he
isk should be sha ed o eso o he ‘pollu e pays’
p inciple, we need o ha e an idea o how he cos s a e
cu en ly dis ibu ed. We in es iga ed he cos s paid by
he p oduce s o p e en i e biosecu i y, de e mined he
la ges cos componen s and explained he a ia ion in
hese cos s. Ou esul s indica e ha he a e age cos o
biosecu i y is some 3.55 eu ocen pe bi d o b oile
p oduce s and 75.7 eu ocen pe bi d o ha ching egg
p oduce s. Fo b oile p oduce s he main cons i uen s
o he cos s we e p e en i e medica ion, pes con ol
and ope a ional hygiene. The o al cos s pe bi d a e
dependen on he annual numbe o bi ds: he highe
henumbe o bi ds, helowe hecos pe bi d.This
impac is p ima ily due o dec easing labou cos s a he
han di ec mone a y cos s.
Endno es
a) Biosecu i y is a public good because i is non-exclud-
able in p oduc ion and non- i al in consump ion. Non-
excludabili y means ha once p o ec ion agains he dis-
ease is p o ided, no agen (e.g. no a m) can be excluded
om enjoying he bene i s. Fo ins ance, i disease en y
is p e en ed, nobody can be p e en ed om enjoying
ha . Non- i al y means ha one agen ’s consump ion o
p o ec ion does no educe he amoun o p o ec ion
enjoyed by o he s. These a e he wo elemen s o a pu e
public good. Mo eo e , biosecu i y is o en o he ‘weak-
es link’ ype, because i s e ec i eness depends on he
weakes link in he p o ec ion chain. I does no ma e
how well o he pa s o he chain p o ide p o ec ion i
he disease ge s in o he coun y h ough he weakes
con ol poin . A milde e sion o his a gumen (a
weake link) can be ound in [2]. In his case, he in es -
men o hose who in es mo e on p o ec ion is nega-
i ely a ec ed by hose who in es less, bu hose who
in es mo e a e s ill be e p o ec ed han hose who
in es less.
b) The ea ing imes in Finland a he ime o his s udy
we e app oxima ely 33-39 days o b oile s and abou 40
weeks, i.e. 280 days, o he pa en s (pe sonal communica-
ion, e e ina ian o a Finnish poul y p ocesso ).
Acknowledgemen s
The au ho s exp ess hei hanks o he pa icipa ing p oduce s and
p ocesso s o hei aluable ime. The au ho s also wish o hank wo
Siekkinen e al.Ac a Ve e ina ia Scandina ica 2012, 54:12
h p://www.ac a e scand.com/con en /54/1/12
Page 7 o 8
anonymous e e ees o hei commen s. This s udy was suppo ed by
esea ch unding om he Finnish Minis y o Ag icul u e and Fo es y.
Au ho de ails
1
Risk Assessmen Uni , Finnish Food Sa e y Au ho i y E i a, Mus ialanka u 3,
FI-00790 Helsinki, Finland.
2
MTT Economic Resea ch, La oka anonkaa i 9, FI-
00790 Helsinki, Finland.
3
Sjundeå Ve e inä e Ab, Aleksis Ki i ägen 2, 02580
Sjundeå, Finland.
Au ho s’con ibu ions
KMS designed he ques ionnai e, unde ook he in e iews, p ocessed and
analysed he da a, and d a ed he manusc ip . JH helped in designing he
ques ionnai e, analysed he da a and d a ed he manusc ip . NT helped in
designing he ques ionnai e and in d a ing he manusc ip . HR ini ia ed he
s udy, helped in designing he ques ionnai e and in analysing he da a, and
d a ed he manusc ip . All au ho s ead and app o ed he inal manusc ip .
Compe ing in e es s
The au ho s decla e ha hey ha e no compe ing in e es s.
Recei ed: 3 Oc obe 2011 Accep ed: 28 Feb ua y 2012
Published: 28 Feb ua y 2012
Re e ences
1. Biosecu i y Counci: Tiakina Ao ea oa. P o ec New Zealand: he biosecu i y
s a egy o New Zealand New Zealand: Biosecu i y Council; 2003.
2. Bu ne KM: In oduc ions o in asi e species: ailu e o he weake link.
No heas e n Ag icul u al and Resou ce Economics Associa ion’s (NAREA)
wo kshop on In asi e Species, Annapolis, Ma yland; 2005.
3. Pe ings C, Williamson M, Ba bie EB, Del ino D, Dalmazzone S, Shog en J,
Simmons P, Wa kinson A: Biological in asion isks and he public good:
an economic pe spec i e. Cons Ecol 2002, 6:1.
4. Eu opean Communi ies: A new Animal Heal h S a egy o he Eu opean
Union (2007-2013) whe e “P e en ion is be e han cu e”.COM 539,:
inal. Luxembou g: O ice o O icial Publica ions o he Eu opean
Communi ies; 2007, 2007.
5. Heikkilä J: Economics o biosecu i y ac oss le els o decision-making: a
e iew. Ag on Sus De el 2011, 31:119-138.
6. B and AW, Sande son MW, DeG oo BD, Thomson DU, Hollis LC:
Biocon ainmen , biosecu i y, and secu i y p ac ices in bee eedya ds. J
Am Ve Med Assoc 2008, 232:262-269.
7. Casal J, De Manuel A, Ma eu E, Ma in M: Biosecu i y measu es on swine
a ms in Spain: pe cep ions by a me s and hei ela ionship o cu en
on- a m measu es. P e Ve Med 2007, 82:138-150.
8. Ribbens S, Dewul J, Koenen F, Min iens K, De Sadelee L, de K ui A,
Maes D: A su ey on biosecu i y and managemen p ac ices in Belgian
pig he ds. P e Ve Med 2008, 83:228-241.
9. Eas IJ: Adop ion o biosecu i y p ac ices in he Aus alian poul y
indus ies. Aus Ve J 2007, 85:107-112.
10. Ga be L, Hill G, Rod igues J, G ego y G, Voelke L: Non-comme cial poul y
indus ies: su eys o backya d and game owl b eede locks in he
Uni ed S a es. P e Ve Med 2007, 80:120-128.
11. Finno D, Shog en JF, Leung B, Lodge D: Take a isk: p e e ing
p e en ion o e con ol o biological in ade s. Ecol Econ 2007,
62:216-222.
12. Chi JW, Wee sink A, VanLeeuwen JA, Kee e GP: The economics o
con olling in ec ious diseases on dai y a ms. Can J Ag Econ 2002,
50:237-256.
13. Hennessy DA: Biosecu i y and sp ead o an in ec ious animal disease.
Ame J Ag Econ 2007, 89:1226-1231.
14. Sheppa d A: The s uc u e and economics o b oile p oduc ion in
England. Special S udies in Ag icul u al Economics No. 59. Uni e si y o
Exe e , Cen e o Ru al Resea ch; 2004.
15. Sischo WM, Hi d DW, Ga dne IA, U e back WW, Ch is iansen KH,
Ca pen e TE, Danaye-Elmi C, He on BR: Economics o disease occu ence
and p e en ion on Cali o nia dai y a ms: a epo and e alua ion o
da a collec ed o he na ional animal heal h moni o ing sys em, 1986-
87. P e Ve Med 1990, 8:141-156.
16. Mille GY, Do n CR: Cos s o dai y ca le diseases o p oduce s in Ohio.
P e Ve Med 1990, 8:171-182.
17. Mille GY, Do n CR: Cos s o swine diseases o p oduce s in Ohio. P e Ve
Med 1990, 8:183-190.
18. Eu opean Commission: E alua ion o he Communi y Animal Heal h
Policy (CAHP) 1995-2004 and al e na i es o he u u e. Final epo .
B ussels: Eu opean Commission; 2006.
19. OECD: Impac o animal disease ou b eaks and al e na i e con ol
p ac ices on ag icul u al ma ke s and ade. Backg ound pape and
li e a u e e iew. TAD/CA/APM/WP(2007)12/FINAL. Pa is 2007.
20. Heikkilä J, Niemi JK: Eläin au i ahinkojen ahoi us aih oehdo : käy ännö ,
kannus ime ja kus annukse (Al e na i es o inancing animal disease
epidemics: p inciples, p ac ice and p oposi ions). MTT:n sel i yksiä 168.
Helsinki: MTT Ag i ood Resea ch Finland; 2008.
21. E i a: Eläin audi Suomessa 2009 (Animal diseases in Finland,: E i an
julkaisuja 8/2010. Helsinki: E i a; 2009, 2010.
22. Babbie E: The p ac ice o social esea ch. 6 edi ion. Belmon , Cali o nia:
Wadswo h Publishing Company; 1992.
23. Hammi JK, Haninge K: Willingness o pay o ood sa e y: sensi i i y o
du a ion and se e i y o illness. Ame J Ag Econ 2007, 89:1170-1175.
24. Heikkilä J, Pou a E, Fo sman-Hugg S, Mäkelä J: Consume isk pe cep ions
o zoono ic, chemical and gm isks: he case o poul y pu chase
in en ions in Finland. 13 h Cong ess o he Eu opean Associa ion o
Ag icul u al Economis s (EAAE), Zu ich, Swi ze land; 2011.
doi:10.1186/1751-0147-54-12
Ci e his a icle as: Siekkinen e al.: Measu ing he cos s o biosecu i y
on poul y a ms: a case s udy in b oile p oduc ion in Finland. Ac a
Ve e ina ia Scandina ica 2012 54:12.
Submi you nex manusc ip o BioMed Cen al
and ake ull ad an age o :
• Con enien online submission
• Tho ough pee e iew
• No space cons ain s o colo igu e cha ges
• Immedia e publica ion on accep ance
• Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Schola
• Resea ch which is eely a ailable o edis ibu ion
Submi you manusc ip a
www.biomedcen al.com/submi
Siekkinen e al.Ac a Ve e ina ia Scandina ica 2012, 54:12
h p://www.ac a e scand.com/con en /54/1/12
Page 8 o 8