Biosecurity requires the adoption of a set of attitudes and behaviours by people to reduce the risk of disease in all activities involving animals and their products (Haggag et al., 2018). Biosecurity was defined as the “implementation of measures that decrease the risk of introducing and spreading disease agents. A pair of attitudes & behaviors need to be adopted by humans to reduce risks in all works involving domestic, captive/exotic & wild animals & their products” (FAO, 2008; Monterubbianesi et al., 2019). Again biosecurity was defined as a set of management procedures that prevent the risk of introducing new diseases to a farm and to minimize or to eliminate the spread of disease within the herd (Fasina et al., 2012; Can and Altuğ, 2014). The significant reasons for high incidence of zoonotic and other infectious diseases of animals are breach in biosecurity in livestock management, closer contact between wildlife and humans and rearing of livestock in close association with people (Brown, 2004; Manuja and Manuja, 2014). Thus the natural environment surrounding the farm is significant for understanding the disease risks (OIE, 2013; Hayle et al., 2020). 

Risk of diseases increases, if the farm located near other farms, abattoirs, livestock markets, waste dispositions, hatcheries and carcass centre. The location closer to animal transport routes and waterways also adds to the risk. So, orientation of barns, buildings, ventilation inlets and outlets, unloading and loading areas, treatment and isolation or quarantine locations should be designated in such a manner that minimizes the risk of disease introduction & spread (Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2011; Manuja and Manuja, 2014). Segregated rearing areas for young, sick & new animals with visibly demarcated boundaries decrease the risk of disease transmission. Natural features, including vegetation, waterways and topography, can benefit a bio-security plan by providing natural barriers and drainage (Manuja and Manuja, 2014). Biosecurity was founded on knowledge of the epidemiology of transmissible diseases, including the duration of the contagiousness period in infected animals, the main routes of pathogen shedding, the survival of the pathogen in the environment, and the routes of infection (Mon-terubbianesi et al., 2019). In intensive cattle production, the incidence of infectious diseases plays an significant role in profitability. Damage incurred by disease can cause severe direct & indirect economic losses due to reduced growth and/or production rate, impaired fertility, or increased susceptibility to other diseases (Najdrowski, 2005; Hassen et al., 2022).

On-farm biosecurity can be assessed by analyzing patterns of practices (Delpont et al., 2018). Some studies regarding biosecurity in cattle farms have found that the overall application of biosecurity measures was low (Renault et al., 2018a; Damiaans et al. 2019). The most frequently cited reasons for this low level of biosecurity are the expected required investment in labor, time, and capital (Damiaans et al., 2018). Study reported that cattle owners across a number of states generally fail to implement commonly recommended biosecurity practices (Moore et al., 2008). Biosecurity practices and farmers perception were investigated in different countries (Sayers et al., 2013; Laanen et al., 2014; Dewulf et al., 2014; Gunn et al., 2008; Robert-son, 2019; Compo et al., 2017) emphasized that although many farmers were aware of biosecurity practices, many failed to adopt the protocols recommended for their establishments. Traditionally intensive industries, implement biosecurity more effectively than smallholder or extensive industries; however others have emphasized the significant role of education ensuring that biosecurity practices are adopted by the livestock industries to decrease the risk of disease entry, in order to enable maximum productivity from these industries (Robertson, 2019).

Study were  done on bio-security practices in middle Ethiopian goats feedlots (Alemayehu & Leta, 2014). These studies have reported poor implementation of bio-security measures by farmers, as well as various constraints & challenges focused by cultivars such as cost, utility, importance, work load and lack of transparency and knowledge. In order to advise farmers and facilitate behavioral changes, it is better to understand the perceived importance, efficacy and cons-traints related to biosecurity measurement, from the farmers point of view. This would allow us to com-municate more effectively with the farmers. The work was done: to fill the gap on bio-security status and prioritization of key biosecurity areas on dairy farm and to appreciate the biosecurity status between the study areas of Harar & Dire Dawa.

Review of Literature

The term biosecurity has been defined in various ways. Often its scope is limited to management measures that reduce the risk of an animal introducing an infectious disease (Caldow, 2004; Brennan and Christley, 2012). Again, OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code defined biosecurity as ‘a set of management and physical measures designed to reduce the risk of introduction, establishment & spread of animal diseases, infections or infestations to, from and within an animal population (Bellini, 2018). Instances of certain common livestock diseases have increased in recent years and it is widely claimed that better biosecurity practices are needed to improve animal welfare and enhance the financial viability of the dairy sector. The 2004 Animal health & welfare strategy for Great Britain emphasized the responsibility of animal owners in managing animal health risks and stated that veterinarians uniquely placed to promote animal health, welfare and should be at the forefront of delivering proactive disease (PD) control services (Defra et al., 2004). Again veterinarians have been focused as one of the most significant (Gunn et al., 2008 & Derks et al., 2012) and the most reliable & credible sources of informations for cultivars on biosecurity (Garforth et al., 2013; Bekere et al., 2022).

In essence, the biosecurity part of dairy-cattle addres-ses the risks associated with diseases and pests by focusing on three key actions: prevent the introduction of  pathogens to cattle on dairy-farms, prevent the spread of pathogens among cattle within a dairy farm and prevent the exit of pathogens between cattle farms or from dairy farms to other animal populations (Anon, 2014). Combating diseases of livestock in developing countries can make a substantial contribution to poverty alleviation by generating employment, providing funds for education and training, improving opportunities for trade in livestock and animal products and supplying raw materials to industry. Animal diseases were found among the most significant limiting factors for livestock production. Their impact can vary from reduced productivity and restricted market access to the elimination of entire flocks & herds, with the resultant loss of biodiversity and valuable genetic resources. Some emerging or evolving infectious diseases have the potential to move quickly from local to international significance and to pass from animals to humans (Bellini, 2018; Gammada et al., 2022).

Thus Farm-level biosecurity was a series of management practices designed to minimize or prevent and control the introduction of infectious disease agents onto a farm, spread within a farm production operation, and export of these disease agents beyond the farm that may have an adverse effect on the economy, environment and human health. It is an essential aspect of on farm food safety, keeping food products wholesome and of having highest quality, which is important for the health and welfare of consumers (Cook, 2013). Biosecurity is important not only to avoid catastrophic or exotic animal diseases, but also to decrease risk of endemic diseases, such as; Digital dermatitis, Johnes disease, infectious mastitis &/or enzootic bovine leucosis (Bickett-Weddle and Ramirez, 2004). Biosecurity practices also designed to be adapted when emerging diseases are discovered, such as Schmallenberg virus in Europe in 2012 (Brennan et al., 2012). Thus biosecurity measures necessary for recently occurring pandemic (COVID,19) to limiting its spreads. Bio-security plans refer to health management strategies, comprise key components like; formal dis-eases risk identification and risk assessment on a particular farm. These plans make proper use of the issues into a set of working instructions or protocols. These are a protocol on general hygiene procedures, a protocol on entrance, procedures for animals, cars, professionals, cattle, a protocol on disease diagnostics and animal treatment, or a protocol on good medicine application practice (Noordhuizen and Cannas da Silva, 2009; Stankovi and Zlatanovi, n.d). The success of a dairy farm business depends on the quality of management decisions that depend on the continuous evaluation of new information and technology (Bergevoet et al., 2004; Joerger, 2016; Islam et al., 2020; Bekere et al., 2022). 

With the farm managers time often being the most limited resource (Holland et al., 2014), it is important to examine which of the crucial areas of management that dairy farmers must focus greater attention.  Mana-ging facilities or equipment on a regular basis by livestock producers may be part of the recipe for economic success; additionally the fundamental aspects of management and decision-making are still integrally important (Campe et al., 2015). In addition to management decision-making: farm size, milk production levels and milking systems used are also identified as factors that influenced dairy farm profitability positively. Research instructs that uptake of biosecurity measures on cattle farms is lower with a few practices being rarely completed (Sayer  et al. 2013). Study taken in the UK & Ireland suggests lower uptake of bio-security practices, even though cattle farmers consider biosecurity as significant (Brennan & Chris-tley, 2013). Milk production shortage was estimated at 128 million liters by 2020 and consumption in urban areas was estimated at a minimum 290 Million liters of milk in 2011 (with Ethiopia very low average of 19 liters/ year/person) and would expected to reach 375 million liters by 2020 (with 4% annual growth) Con-sumption (Confidential, 2015). These indicate excess demand for dairy product, which necessitate intensification of dairy farming. However, there was ignorance of implementation of bio-security, the pillars of dairy business success especially, in developing country. Inadequate planning to the accomplishment of bio-security in such circumstances could have advantageous negative impact on cattle health, with attendant economic losses (Van Schaik et al., 2002) as well as public health risk. Bio-security in this period is the management levels accomplished to demises the risk of introducing severe pathogenic disease to herd (Cal-dow, 2004), preventing financial losses & protection of peoples health. 

Previous studies have examined the accomplishment of bio-security in various agricultural enterprises (Mee et al., 2012), most highlighting that awareness of bio-security may exist but its accomplishment at the farm level is often weak. Biosecurity is the prevention of disease causing agents entering or leaving any place where farm animals are present, it involves a number of measures and protocols designed to prevent disease causing agents from entering or leaving a property and being spread. However designing control methods that result in a biosecurity farm is not as simple and most difficult aspect of implementing a bio-security plan is, deciding which control measures to use and then determining how these measures will be implemented (Villarroel and Vet, 2014). Some diseases are zoonotic and they can be transmitted between humans and animals, and therefore it demand public and occupational health reasons for having biosecurity measures.

Importance of Bio-security Measure

There are a range of benefits proposed to arise from implementation of bio-security practices to assist in the prevention & control of disease on cattle farms. These include improved animal welfare (MAFF/ DEFRA, 2002), increased profit margins improvement in vaccine effectiveness and reduction in incidences of antimicrobial and anthelmintic resistance. In addition, consumer factors such as the demand for quality assured products (Hennessy, 2008) and public awareness of zoonoses (Dargatz, 2002) encourage uptake of preventive practices. Different studies have shown positive associations between bio-security and some production parameters and between bio-security and farm profitability (Corrégé et al., 2012; Siekkinen et al., 2012; Rojo-Gimeno et al., 2016; Col-lineau et al., 2017). In addition, a higher bio-security level had a positive impact on reducing the amount of antimicrobials used in production (Postma et al., 2016; D. Maes et al., 2017). A disease outbreak in any herd could be financially devastating to the operation thus a program designed to prevent diseases are, a tight biosecurity program that designed to maximize disease resistance and minimize herd exposure to infectious agents. By identifying some of the diseases that are likely to be of greatest risk, prevention & control measures can be developed and implemented to focus on ones that are most likely to create problems (Wallace et al., 2003). 

Infectious diseases commonly found on dairy farms such as; bovine respiratory syncytial virus, bovine viral diarrhea virus, clostridial diseases; contagious mastitis from Staphy aureus, Streptococcus agalactiae, Mycoplasma bovis, Haemophilus somnus, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, digital dermatitis, leptospirosis, listeriosis, Mycobacterium paratuberculosis, respiratory form of mycoplasmosis and pasteurellosis, etc. All of these diseases can limit productivity from lower milk production to reduced milk quality, from impaired reproduction to reduced calf survivability, from chronic debilitating infection to death. Any one of these diseases can become established in a naive, resident herd when new cattle are introduced. Pandemics, epidemics, zoonoses and emerging infectious diseases seem to speak of a generalized threat to life, affecting people, wild animals and livestock as well as plant life (Hin-chliffe et al., 2013).In the two decades prior to 2001, one estimate suggests that there were 177 new or re-emergent human diseases, three-quarters of which were thought to have originated from animals and animal products (Taylor et al. 2001; Hinchliffe et al., 2013). This alarm at the unpredictability and mutability of disease, most of which tend to fall under the catch all of bio-security (Gole and Hamido, 2020). 

The concept of BRM recognizes that cattle diseases cannot be terminated, but that livestock producers can manage disease risk through effective control measures. For diseases that are always present (endemic), reducing the value of infectious parts the animal was exposed to can positively affect the farms economic impact & help justify the cost of implementing BRM (Hersom et al., 2017). The rise in emerging & re-emerging pathogenic diseases, increasing globalization and increased human interaction with animals justify implementation of biosecurity. 

Traffic Control System 

Depend on literature, list of on-farm bio-security measures should be created, which focuses on spreading characteristics of infectious agents. Since animals (livestock, wild animals, pets), people (farmers, workers, visitors), vehicles, equipment, water, feedstuff, bedding, manure and air can all be carriers of infectious agents, the measures were grouped into their  corresponding categories. The most important biosecurity measure for dairy farms are minimizing the intro-duction of off premises cattle, feedstuffs, movement of people, vehicles and equipment where animals are kept. Other possible measure implementing best practice (hygiene and protective clothing) in situations where there is direct contact with animals. Consider points where disease could enter the ranch/farm, and how it could spread. Traffic control with in an operation should be designed to stop or minimize contamination of animals, feed, and equipment. It is important to remember that traffic includes more than vehicles. Limit visitors access to barns and lots, post a warning sign asking visitors to keep out and giving instructions or a telephone number to call instead of entering the operation. Keep a record of all visitors that enter the premises. Visitors to a ranch/farm operation present several potential problems (Hersom et al.,  2017). People who have traveled outside of the countries should be denied access to a ranch/farm for a minimum  of 14 days to control accidental introduction of foreign goat diseases. Traffic control with in the operation should be designed to stop or minimize contamination of livestock, feed, feed handling equipment, & equipment used on animals.

Quarantine and Isolation System

This includes all animals that have been in facilities other than the subject dairy farm: markets, shows, temporary housing at other farms & veterinary clinics. Every time that an animal meets premises other than the subject dairy, it can become colonized or infected with pathogens. The best control method to avoid introduction of disease via off-premises cattle is the establishment of an isolation area. The objective of having an isolation area is to prevent direct and indirect contact between animals in the isolation area and resident animals. Off-premises animals should be isolated for 3-4 weeks to allow enough time for manifestation of clinical signs of disease that the animals may have acquired recently prior to introduction to the dairy. New animals should be tested for highly problematic diseases such as bovine viral diarrhea (BVD), brucellosis, tuberculosis, Johnes disease and trichomoniasis. If lactating cows are imported, their milk should be cultured for the presence of contagious mastitis pathogens. All diagnostic tests should be performed prior to introducing the animals onto the dairy. A specific testing protocol should be designed for BVD, where incoming animals are tested prior to arrival and if pregnant, their offspring should be tested at birth to prevent retaining PI calf (persistently infected). The most important step in disease control is limiting contact, co-mingling, and movement of livestock. This issue is of special importance for new animals arriving on the farm/ranch, including replacement animals, breeding animals, or animals returning from livestock shows. An important bio-security option on ranches is to separate livestock by age and/or production groups. Isolate animals with unfamiliar symptoms or those with symptoms that do not improve with usual treatment (Hersom et al., 2017).

Feedstuffs and water

Now a days, many feedstuffs purchased and therefore can originate in multiple locations. Visual inspection of such feedstuffs may be the good that a cultivar can do because testing all batches of all feed stuffs for any disease creating agent is difficult, and thus biosecurity can be break in this area. Every feedstuff until that batch is lossed without incidents. In the case of a feed-related disease, samples will be available for sampling (Villarroel & Vet, 2014). The water source and the water delivery system, because both can become contaminated with disease-causing agents such as toxins from spills from manure contamination (Harun et al., 2022).

Water quality should be tested regularly to make sure it is potable as it is a high potential for diseases, pests and weeds to be carried in feed and water supplies, thus protecting the health of your livestock or crops, which is important to minimize the risks associated with feed and water (Beggs, 2017). Contaminated feed and water can result in the introduction of diseases such as toxoplasmosis from contamination with Toxoplasma gondii cysts from cats (Rego et al., 2016; Cenci Goga et al., 2013), and ingestion of pasture contaminated with eggs of Echinococcus spp is important in the infection of small ruminants (Abdulhameed et al., 2018). Ensuring that feed sheds and water sources are protected from vermin and other animals is essential in reducing these risks.

Movement restriction of wildlife, and other vectors

There are highly significant infectious diseases of cattle that can be carried and transmitted over long distances by other animals for example; bovine tuberculosis is known to exist in several wildlife species, particularly badgers and deer. Securing a herd against these vectors can be very challenging; geographical location may be the strongest defense, but many wildlife risks are unmanageable. Insect and arachnid vectors create specific risks for diseases such as Blue Tongue and Red Water disease (Ridge et al., 2014). Dead animals should be removed and disposed of by burning, burial, or composting to decrease the survival of pathogens and to avoid access by scavengers (Carr and Howells, 2018; Abdulhameed et al., 2018; Roberston, 2019). Manure and used bedding material should also be composted and disposed off to prevent access by other animals (Van Limbergen et al., 2018), control of vectors particularly of birds, rodents, flies, and other insect that have the potential to transfer pathogens to livestock should be implemented (Curran et al., 2014).

The introduction of equipment contaminated with feces and other animal products (e.g., hair, feathers, saliva) to a farm is also a potential disease introduction risk (Ranjan et al., 2011). Workers on livestock enterprises should be discouraged & prevented from working at other livestock enterprises & from keeping similar livestock (Oliveira et al., 2017). Staff should also be discouraged from visiting other livestock units, animal markets, animal shows, and slaughter houses, or if they do, should have no contact with animals on the employing enterprise for at least three days after such events (Guercio, 2012). The density of livestock enterprises, proximity to neighboring same-species units, and proximity to slaughter houses and major transport routes have also been proposed to influence the risk of disease introduction to a herd/flock (Desrosiers, 2011; Robertson, 2019). 

Vehicles and people 

People working with dairy cattle should be given appropriate training and should be tested by a recognized agricultural authority body. In reality, however, this was very interesting how many farm workers were trained to work with animals. On many farms in Hungary there are workers who, after losing a job not related to agriculture in a town or in a city, had the only option to find a job on a dairy farm (Gudaj and Brydl, 2014). People visiting livestock enterprises including veterinarians, livestock advisors, inseminators, hoof-trimmers, and feed suppliers are also a potential risk for disease introduction into a unit (Oliveira et al., 2017). To reduce risk, only essential visitors should be allowed to visit the area/ buildings where animals are housed, and protective clothing and footwear should be provided by the enterprise to these visitors (Oliveira et al., 2017. So, protective clothing and footwear should be provided for all workers and visitors, and should not be used on any other unit or outside the enterprise. Similarly, visitors and workers should be required to shower-in and shower out of enterprises in order to reduce the risk of disease introduction and escape from an enterprise (Robertson, 2019).

Service sector personnel and visitors are required to follow the bio-security conditions set by the producer with respect to limited access, clothing, and footwear worn, and movement of equipment and vehicles. Training, good communication, and regular updates are essential for all personnel (Robertson, 2019). Many vehicles travel from farm to farm-delivering products (semen, cleaning products, etc.) and services (veterinarian, hoof trimmer, AI technician) or collecting animals (cull animals, bull calves, carcasses) and milk. To prevent introduction of disease agents with vehicles, it is recommended that outside vehicles have no access to areas where the animals are housed. Vehicles should deliver and collect products in designated areas that are at the entrance of the farm, away from the animal pens. Clear signs restricting access to unauthorized vehicles should be placed in visible areas. Since most dairies use artificial insemination, monitor semen tanks and use these biosecurity practices: Purchase semen from known sources with certified production techniques, buy semen, embryos or bulls from suppliers, who have control programs for infectious diseases, know the bulls health history, keep semen tanks locked and allow only qualified people to handle semen. The importance of implementing biosecurity to aid in controlling infectious disease at farm level was recognized internationally (Negrón et al., 2011), and the process can be particularly relevant in regions experiencing a changing agricultural demographic, including farm enterprise expansion. Documenting the implementation of on-farm bio-security measures is beneficial in providing baseline data to monitor ‘bio-security uptake by farmers, and in establishing further sociological and demographic studies that identify training requirements within farming communities. ¬Bio-security practices and farmers perception were investigated in different countries (Gunn et al.,2008; Compo et al., 2017) emphasized that although many farmers were aware of bio-security practices, many failed to adopt the protocols recommended for their establishments. Traditionally intensive industries, implement biosecurity more effectively than small holder & extensive industries; however others have emphasized the im-portant role of education in ensuring that biosecurity practices are adopted by the livestock industries to reduce the risk of disease entry, in order to enable maximum productivity from these industries. Moreover specifically, study were done on biosecurity practices in middle Ethiopian goats feedlots (Alema-yehu & Leta, 2014). This works reported a poor implementation of bio-security measures by the producers, along with the various constraints & challenges expressed by the producers such as cost, usefulness, importance, work load & lack of clarity & knowledge. Disease control & prevention in a dairy require a multifaceted approach with knowledge of the current disease situation in an enterprise, the likely disease threats, and how the risk of introduction can be minimized. Such approach requires a sound knowledge of the discipline of livestock epidemiology, with a understanding of disease transmission and spread, risk factors for disease, and methods to prevent disease. It can be concluded that, biosecurity was critical to ensuring the health & productivity of livestock within an enterprise, region, & country, and that knowledge of veterinary epidemiology is essential for developing sound biosecurity practices. To smooth the adoption & emphasize the key concepts of bio-security and bio-containment within enterprises, a series of acronyms have been developed the same as (Smith, 2007), inclu-ding isolation, resistance and sanitation (IRS) and (PennState, 2019), sanitation, traffic control, assess-ment, isolation, resistance, and security (STAIRS) as well again, isolation, traffic-control, sanitation as de-fined by FAO, (2008), & animal physiology manage-ment was used to smooth the adoption and emphasize major areas biosecurity that needs improvements. 

Locations and Study Area 

Present work was carried out collaborately in the two countries Ethiopia and Bangladesh in milk sheds. Diyar Dawa city is located in the lowlands at an altitude of 1276 meters above sea level (m.a.s.l.). Harar, additionally, is a walled city in east Ethiopia, a regional city of Harari region and a regional capital of East Hararghe region of Oromia region. The city has a projected population of 231,000 for the year 2014 (CSA, 2013; Dairy et al., 2016) and located at about 524 km from Addis Ababa located at an elevation of 1,884 m.a.s.l. These two (2) towns are home to privately own commercial dairy farms and are the main milking centers of eastern Ethiopia. Apart from these modern dairy farms, the vast surrounding rural districts are other sources of supply of milk and milk products (CSA, 2013; Dairy et al., 2016). Milk shed areas comprised several privately owned dairy farms comprising different numbers of predominantly cross-bred and Holstein Fresian dairy cattle.

Methodology and Study Design 

The survey was a cross-sectional census survey, which involves collection of informations from all dairy farms established in Dire Dawa & Harar cities. Therefore, it does not require sampling. At first, in this proposed survey all dairy farms was identified using official registry of dairy-farms & located with the help of local veterinary health officials or snowball tech-nique until all farms were included and then, farm owners or their managers were requested to parti-cipate in the study and the required informations was gathered, after obtaining their verbal consent. Again, the number of those dairy owners who refused to participate also documented. 

The farms were classified according to herd size & level of production into smallholder farm (<10 animals), medium farms (11 to 51 animals) & large farms with more than 51 animals (Megersa et al., 2011).

Fig. 1: Representing the Maps of the study area. 

Collection of the Data 

A questionnaire based survey was undertaken to study the frequency of used of different biosecurity measures. Information about biosecurity was obtained through on farm observations & interviews taken with owners & workers using a structured questionnaire. In the questionnaire contained 124 questions, mainly closed & semi-closed. 

Questionnaire design

The question paper was divided into four (4) sections and the 1^st question set consisted of gender, age, marital status, & occupation, education level, experiences, previous training in dairy-farm management, mem-bership of a dairy farm cooperative, demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the farm owners, and knowledge of bio-security among others. The 2^nd part was awareness of disease control and biosecurity such as owners understanding of livestock diseases, knowledge of biosecurity, sources of biosecurity information, and the importance of biosecurity & presence of a biosecurity plan. The 3^rd category was farm characteristics such as farm area, year of establishment, farm size (m2), presence of buildings on the farm, presence of cattle barns, number of cattle (herd size), and cattle breed. The last category was bio-security measures such as isolation, traffic control, sanitation as defined by the FAO, (2008), and animal health management which was developed to collect data on bio-security practices. Before starting the field work, the questionnaire was pretested and the questions were adjusted accordingly. The investigators among small samples of dairy farmers carried out pre-testing of the questionnaire. Adjustments were made by replacing some words, deleting irrelevant questions, and reformulating and splitting some questions as (Kouam, 2018).

Analysis of Data 

Data collected in the work were stored in Microsoft Excel spreadsheets & analyzed used Statacorp statistical software version 20. They were analyzed used descriptive statistics to analyze frequencies and percentages. Goats farms were classified on the basis of biosecurity status according to the method described by the Wijesinghe et al. (2017) with thin modification. A total of 124 marks were allotted in the questionnaire according to the strength & importance of biosecurity. The total mark achieved by each farm was converted into a percentage and a farm above or equal to 51% was said to have "good bio-security" and below 51% poor biosecurity. The conglomerate of respondents de-mographic and socio-economic and farm characteristics with bio-security compliance was assessed using Fishers exact tests statistics. The statistical significant conglomerate was tell to exist when P < 0.05.

Demographic Features of the Farm Owners

Total of the 21 dairy-farm owners were interviewed in this work. From the respondents, 13 (71%) were Male while 6 (30%) were Female. Of the interviewed, 12 (60%) were older than 44 years age, 17 (85%) were married, and 14 (74%) had higher education level.

Table 1: Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics cattle farm owners. 

Regarding their occupation, 16% were civil servants, 31% were traders & 56% had occupations other than the two (2). 61% of the owners had experience of one to ten (10) years while 41% had more than ten (10) years experience. 85% didnt have previous training on farm management, only 6% were producers of dairy co-operatives and 36% claimed to have knowledge of bio-security.

Aware on Disease-Control & Biosecurity

As represented in Table 2, from 20 farm owners interviewed 16(81%) disclosed their understanding of goat diseases particularly those affecting dairy cows. Mejority respondents replied that prevention of diseases was cheapest method whereas 84% of them said prevention was less consuming while 15% described treatment was less costly. Majority of owners interviewed (65%) responded did not have knowledge on biosecurity while the remaining 35% claimed.

Table 2: Rate of livestock owners aware of animal disease-control & biosecurity. 

Farm Characteristics

Each 10 (51%) of the farms were situated in Harar & Dire Dawa and majority of dairy-farms, nine (45%), were established according to Ethiopian Calendar (Eth. Cal.) between the years 2001 and 2005 whereas each 4 (20%) were made on the years 1996 to 2000 and the years 2006 to 2010. All of the farms were established on areas lower than 5002 m² in size. A great majority of cattle farms (6 that is 35%) were established on areas of less than 1001 m² while 13 (61%) had sizes between 2002 and 5001 m². All of the farms had buildings in the farm, however, 4 (24%) described there were no cattle barns. Majority (66%) of dairy farms comprised <101 animals and of Holstein Friesian breed.

Table 3: Features of the animal farms established in Harar & Dire Dawa towns.

Biosecurity Status

Total of the 35 bio-security practices were included to assess implementation level of the traffic-control component of bio-security measure (Table 4). The biosecurity score ranged from 12-21 and the percentage varied from 34.3% - 60% and number of farms with “Good” biosecurity level for the traffic-control were 9 and that of “Poor” level were 11 and with regard to the iso-lation component, 32 bio-security practices were selec-ted and used to evaluate the adoption level. The bio-security score and percentage of isolation component varied from 11-27 and 34.4%-84.4%, respectively. Only 3 dairy farms gained “Good” in the implementation of the isolation component of bio-security measure while the remaining 17 were “Poor”. Alarmingly sanitation practices, a total of 46 bio-security practices were chosen & evaluated. The bio-security score & percentage of sanitation practices extended from 3-25, ad 6.5% – 54.3% in that order. The implementation level was “Good” for 5 farms & “Poor” for 14 farms. Finally, 12 bio-security practices were considered for the estimation of animal physiology management. The bio-security score ranged from 1-5 and percentage extended from 8.3% - 41.7% and the adoption score was evaluated as “Poor” for all the 21 cattle farms included in the work.

Table 4: Level of bio-security practices of the traffic-control bio-security component.

Traffic control system

The traffic-control component of bio-security practices with high adoption levels (> 90%) were included; no vehicles frequently move off-property, go-to-property, sale yard, abattoir &/or show & then return, no equip-ment used for different activities, no sharing of eq-uipment & machinery with other farms, no more than one (>1) main entry point to the farm, locating animal entry areas away from the rest of the storage, not gra-zing resting pastures recent spread with wastes, work from young to old animal, separation of material for young and old animals and when entry animals the lorry & truck didnt enter the stable. The least imple-mented measures (less than 20%) were, no driveway, transfer information including animal health records for all new animals, outgoing animals moved off the farm with information on animals health status, keep-ing records of cattle movements, presence of entry restriction sign post, use own vehicle to transport visi-tors, record presence to the routine, maintaining and monitoring heath records for individual animals, use own vehicle for animal movements, no purchase of replacement animals is done and availability of visitors logbook. The respective range of the traffic-control component for dairy farms was 12 to 21 and 16.94 ± 2.4 with a maximum score of 35 points.

Isolation

Table 5: Ratio of bio-security practices of the isolation bio-security component.

More than 90% of farmers disclosed or applied isolation bio-security measures such as no-pasture area, fence off dead animal pits & garbage-tips, fencing off stock access to water courses, no maintain contact of pre-weaned calves with the older cattle, maintain no contact of dry cows with lactating cows, no mixing of different species, separate calves & young stock from the older animals. Bio-security practices of the isolation component with the least adoption levels were (< 20%) included; farm located > 501 m from the main road, farm located > 501 m from residential area, presence of maternity pen and calving takes place in a separated calving box or maternity pen. The range, mean and standards deviation of isolation score of biosecurity component for the dairy farms was 11 to 27 and 19.24 ± 3.91 respectively with a maximum score of 32 points.

Sanitation

No found higher adoption levels of the sanitary bio-security measures (greater than 90%). The least imple-mented measures (less than 21%) were asking visitors to wash their hands before and after contact with your livestock (5%), presence of protective clothing for visi-tors, encourage come clean (0%), go clean practices for visitors (0%), ensuring visitors cleaning and disin-fection after visits (0%), if lent, clean down equipment and vehicles before use on farm (5%), provide clean down equipment or facilities for visitors to clean boots and equipments (5%), clean vehicles and equipment prior to moving from one farm to the other, provision of protective clothing for visitors (0%), have written instructions for cleaning and disinfecting different types of equipment (0%), have written sanitation, disinfection procedures and schedules for all animal holding areas/facilities (0%), specific cleaning and sanitizing protocols for higher-risk practices (e.g. AI & treatment of sick animals) (11%), nonprofessional visi-tors use farm-specific foot wear (0%), nonprofessional visitors use farm-specific clothing (0%), check for visitors use of a disinfection footbath, professional visitors wear or dressed in herd-specific protective clo-thing (5%), presence of dis-infection footbaths at the gate (0%), presence of car-wash dip at the gate (0%) and presence of disinfectant footbaths between pre-mises (0%). The range of bio-security score was 3-25 and the mean bio-security score of the farms was 16.64 ± 6.82 for a maximum level of 46 points.

Table 6: Percentage of bio-security practices of the sanitation and hygiene bio-security components.

Management of the Animal health 

Bio-security measures associated with management of animal health with implementation level of greater than 90% were not present. Besides, animal health management measures with adoption level lower than 20% included testing animals moving onto the farm (0%), presence of accurate disease record (0%), recor-ding of the number of animals that died or we dest-royed (0%), documenting of relevant disease manage-ment strategies (0%), routine diagnostic testing farm stock (0%), recording the number of animals with disease (0%) and test all purchased animals (0%). The range and mean biosecurity score of the traffic control component for the assessed dairy farms was 0 to 4 and 3.24±1.06, respectively, for a maximum score of 12 points.

Table 7: Level of the bio-security practices of management of cattle health bio-security component.

Table 8: The bio-security score & bio-security level associated with the bio-security components. 

Overall, total of 124 bio-security practices were considered to evaluate the bio-security status of study farms. As focused in Table 9, the bio-security score of dairy farms out of 124 ranged from 33 to 74. The ranges of the bio-security score varied from 27. 1% to 61%. From the 21 dairy-farms included in the present study nine (9) farms gained a ranges of score greater than (>) or equal (=) to 51% (ranging from 50.3% to 61%), thus their bio-security compliance was evaluated as “Good”. The remaining 12 farms attained a ranges score lower than (<) 51% (varying from 27.1% to 47.4%) & therefore, marked as “Poor”.

Table 9: Summary of bio-security level, percentage score, and bio-security status of cattle farms. 

Table 10: Evaluation of association between respondents demographic & socioeconomic and farm characteristics & bio-security status (*Significant). 

Factors with Overall Bio-security Measures 

Several demographic and sociodemographic characteristics as well as farm features were evaluated for their conglomerate with the overall bio-security adoption level using Fishers exact test. Among those characteristics only location the farm (Fishers exact value = 9.91; p < 0.005) was statistically significantly asso-ciated with the level of bio-security measure. From ten (10) dairy farms located in Harar town, only one (11%) was evaluated to have “Good” bio-security implementation level. Furthermore, from ten (10) study dairy farms of Dire Dawa town, eight one (81%) were examined to have “Good” bio-security adoption level.

The current work, a comparatively small sample size was used. An important factor was that the experiment list was created by the scientists at each farm, rather than sending a questionnaire to the farms. The researchers believe that more reliable data on bio-security practices can be obtained by conducting farm visits, but this requires more time and resources than mailing questionnaires. Moreover, it was not always easier to get producers permission to visit their farms. According to this studies, out of 50 dairy farmers only 20 farmers, willing and participated and 6 farmers were not willing for different reason. The study provides significant informations on the demography and socio-economic features of farm owners, farm characteristics, and awareness on disease prevention and bio-security aspects of BPs in dairy farms and assessed for their conglomerate with the overall bio-security adoption level using Fishers exact test. 

Among those features, only location of the farm (Fishers exact value = 9.91; p<0.005) was statistically significantly conglomerated with the level of bio-security measure, this will be, due to culture, climate, & a variation in the training & technical support between regions. From ten (10) cattle farms located in Harar town, only one (11%) was examined to have “Good” bio-security implementation level and on the other hand, from ten (10) cattle study dairy farms of Dire Dawa town, eight one (81%) were evaluated to have “Good” bio-security adoption level. In the work there was nothing found regarding the effects of education in implementation of bio-security? However, others study reported that the important role of research in ensuring bio-security practices (Robertson, 2019 and Wolff et al., 2017).

Despite lower uptake of bio-security practices, in the work dairy farmers considering biosecurity as important. On this work only 15% participant got sources of information on bio-security from veterinarian whichs in contrast to (Gunn et al., 2008 and Derks et al., 2012;) that veterinarians have been isolated as one of the most important and the most reliable & credible sources of information for farmers on bio-security. Among 21 dairy cattle producers in harar & dire dawa, the larger believed that bio-security (Control) was more cost-effective (Cheaper method) (101%, n = 21) and more time-efficient (Low time consuming) (86%, n = 18) than treating disease on-farm, which are the same & even more implemented. Some farmers (46%, n=10) also believed that benefits (Very importance) could be joined by implementing even a small number of bio-security measures. The interview revealed that the larger are not aware (65%, n = 13) of bio-security which is in contrast to (Mee et al., 2012), & the larger highlighted awareness of bio-security exist and 45% informed for bio-security measures, (14%, n =3) were veterinarians, followed by Internet (11%) and Professional (11%) in contrast focysed by (Col-lineau and Stärk, 2017) as information channels for bio-security measures were primarily private vete-rinarians (93%, n=52) followed by articles/profess-sional press (77%, n = 43). On this work, the larger highlighted that awareness of bio-security does not find but its implementation at farm area was also poor the same as (Mee et al., 2012) but there is sta-tistical significant difference between study areas (location), at Dire Dawa it is implemented as good enough but in Harar poor. This study provided a baseline assessment of biosecurity practices on dairy cattle farms in Harar & Dire Dawa towns of Ethiopia. In the current work only one factor associated or affected bio-security status, which was study area this due to accessibility to different facility, climate, culture, & a diversity in the training and technical support between regions , which are the similar focused by the Sayers et al. (2013).

Traffic Bio-security

High adoption levels (> 90%), included no vehicles frequently move-off wealth, go to property, abattoir sale yard, &/or show & then return, no equipment used for different purposes, no sharing of equipment & ma-chinery with other farms, no more than one (>1) main entry point to the farm, locating animal loading areas away from the rest of the stock, not grazing resting pas- tures presently spread waste, work from young to old animal, separation of material for young & old ani-mals and when loading animals the lorry or truck did nt enter the stable. Having an insect &/or rodent control plan 15 (75%) were more  implemented than (Can & Altuğ, 2014) which was (46%). Presence of entry res-triction sign post 1 (5%), use own vehicle to transport visitors 0 (0%), keeping records of livestock move-ments 0 (0%), outgoing animals moved-off the farm with information 0 (0%), transfer information inclu-ding animal health, records for all new animals 0 (0%), 40% no additions to the herd and 60% add to the herd on animals health status. 51% visitors do not have direct access point to the stables or barns. Closing gates & seeing newers by appointment 9 (45%) and 11 (55%) are not, this results different with (Da-miaans et al., 2020), reporting (64%) access to the stables was regulated by a closed gate and a requirement for visitors to announce themselves before entering. Traffic components biosecurity were found the second mostly implemented by status as there were 11 participant poor statuses and 9 (Nine) participants received good status. 

Dont sharing of equipments & machinery with other farms 100% and No vehicles frequently move off property, go to property, abattoir or show and then return 100% performed. Presence of permanent rodent control 15 (75%) better than around 64%.

Sanitation Bio-security

In the current study none of the cultivars provided protection clothing for visitors which less than (Can and Altug, 2014) reported 32 %, & Less than 40% (Nore-mark et al. 2010) 33% of the cultivars provided pro-tective clothing for visitors and Less than 41% of the producers reported that they provide protective clo-thing for visitors. Measures based on farm-specific clothing & boots were not well implemented by most visitors (5%). Professional visitors wear or dressed in herd-specific defensive clothing and19 (95%) are not. Measures regarding farm-specific clothing and boots were not well implemented by most visitors (5%) Professional visitors wear or dressed in herd-specific protective clothing and 19 (95%) are not, which are the same to (Damiaans et al.,2019). Regarding sanitation, the implementation status by farmers were found poor by 15 farmers and only five of them got good status, thus hygiene was the 2nd least implemented bio-security components. 

Management of Cattle Health 

Seven (35%) vaccination of cattle before being introduced into the herd and 13 (65) are not again most cultivars implement routine immunization of cattle 16 (81%) which are contrary to veal farm (Damiaans et al., 2019). Management of the health was the least implemented of all bio-security components recorded as all farm was found “Poor “status. 

Isolation Bio-security

Separate calves & young stock from older animals 19 (95%), no mixing of different species 19(95%), fence off dead animal pits and garbage tips 19(95%) and fencing off stock access to water courses 19 (95%). 

Maintain no contact of pre-weaned calves with older cattle, maintain no contact of dry cows with lactating cows, absence of pasture contact with others cattle 17 (85%), presence of adequately maintained boundary fence around the farm 17(85%) and no pasture area 18 (90%). Eleven of twenty (55%) farmers thought they isolate sick animals and nine (45%) farmers couldnt applied isolation, in contrast to reported none of farmers isolate sick animals so direct and indirect was contact possible to the herd. It is reported that most producers did not isolate cattles moved from another farm (Can and Altuğ, 2014). Only a few producers were aware of the newly purchased animals disease history. 60% of producers introduced new cattles directly into the herd without prior isolation which is approximately the similar reported by Noremark et al. (2010). On farms there is not a written plan for implementation of biosecurity measures whishs  same reported by (Milanovic, 2019). Purchase replacement cattles from herd with known health status was 12 (60)% which was better than 20% reported by (Da-miaans et al., 2019). Isolation components of bio-security was recorded better implementation as there were only three  farmers  found poor status and the others 17 participant was good  by status.

Although the study provides important informations on the demography and socio-economic characteristics of farm owners, farm features, awareness on disease control & bio-security aspects in dairy farms, larger & more comprehensive studies are needed for future, especially, those of Harar as there were only one farm from ten to have good biosecurity status. At the farm, we noticed that there was no biosecurity plan, so farmers should be advised or trained to have bio-security plan. Implementing routine blood or other diagnostic disease screening at purchase, maintaining a closed herd/flock. Farmers should have written plan for implementation of bio-security measures for safety of their business, animals welfare and public health. We found the least working biosecurity was the health  management part so that farmer advised to develop, implement and maintaining good farm management practices as which is better allow biosecurity plan to operate effectively and provide animals with an environment that would be conducive to good health and maximum production. There was nothing about trai-ning as well as study done on dairy farm biosecurity in Ethiopia so the concerned policy makers should prio-ritize biosecurity issues on animals farm especially dairy farm and reach farmers either through training or different regulatory measures. Documenting the implementation of on-farm bio-security measures was beneficial in providing baseline data to monitor ‘bio-security uptake by farmers, and in establishing further sociological and demographic studies that identify training requirements with in farming communities, based on this study, especially those farmers in Harar should be documented. 

We would like to manifest our deepest gratitude to our gentle advisor, co-authors, and respondents for their support to the successful study.

The author (s) declares that there is no potential conflict of interest.