7th ASEAN Regional Conference on Animal Production IOP Publishing

IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1286 (2023) 012004 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1286/1/012004

The Effect of Biosecurity Implementation on Mortality in

Layer Chicken Farming

R E Mirwandhono*, A Miranti, T V sari and F D Aulia

Animal Husbandry Study Program, Faculty of Agriculture, Universitas Sumatera
Utara, Padang Bulan, Medan 20155, Indonesia.

E-mail: * [email protected]
Abstract. Biosecurity is an effort to prevent and control livestock from disease. This study aims
to determine the implementation of biosecurity on mortality in the laying hen farming in the
Selesai District. Research design was explanatory quantitative. The sample in this study were 55
laying hens farmers. Data collection was carried out through interviews and questionnaires. Data
analysis in this study was descriptive statistics using frequency distribution tables, multiple linear
regression analysis, and statistical induction inference using Spearman's rank correlation.
Isolation, sanitation, and traffic control on the farm represent the biosecurity measures that were
observed. The results of this study indicate that the implementation of biosecurity was in the
poor category with an average weight value of 154.3. The variables (sanitation, isolation, and traffic
control) simultaneously have an influence on the mortality variable. The implementation of biosecurity
and mortality is interpreted as having a positive and unidirectional relationship.

1. Introduction
The prospect of laying hens in Indonesia is considered very good in the future. However, one of the
inhibiting factors for the development of the poultry business is disease transmission that is harmful to
livestock. Using the biosecurity ranking system developed by the Australian Centre for International
Agricultural Research (ACIAR), over half of Indonesia's layer farms were ranked as having a high level
of biosecurity. Only 25% of broiler farms met all biosecurity requirements [1]. As a result, efforts must
be made to safeguard animals by establishing a high level of biosecurity. In the context of animal health
and productivity, biosecurity is the sum of the steps taken to prevent, mitigate, and eliminate threats
from various sources [2]. Not only can animal diseases endanger agricultural output, but they also have
far-reaching effects on the economy as a whole [3].
Farmers understand the value of biosecurity measures in reducing economic losses caused by
infectious diseases [4]. Many countries' economies owe a great deal to the livestock business. Small,
insecure flocks are typical of the chickens kept in backyards. In several third-world nations, backyard
flocks account for as much as 80 percent of the chicken population. Losses in both agricultural and
industrial production are a direct outcome of the effects of disease. Reduced egg output, poor quality
poultry meat, greater production expenses connected with clinical treatments, and increased flock
mortality are all economic disadvantages caused by illnesses [5]. Poultry share their living space with
humans, wild birds, and other animals, putting them at risk from disease, injury, and predation. Predator
and disease mortality are high as a result of poor or nonexistent disease control techniques and
inadequate management procedures [6]. Biosecurity, or preventative methods, are more efficient and

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
7th ASEAN Regional Conference on Animal Production IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1286 (2023) 012004 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1286/1/012004

cost-effective in controlling livestock health. In managing highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI),
Newcastle disease, and coccidiosis. [7] Revealed that applying biosecurity measures is 8.45 times, 4.88
times, and 1.49 times better than doing nothing. [8] Discovered comparable outcomes for poultry
producers who used certain biosecurity methods to control HPAI. [9] contends that biosecurity is
essential for keeping a farm, region, or country disease-free.
These precautions not only prevent entrance and infection establishment, but also improve the
animal's immunological response [10]. Biosecurity measures also promote animal welfare, vaccination
efficacy, lower antibiotic and anthelmintic resistance, better management of transboundary animal
diseases (TADs), and larger profit margins [11]. The implementation of biosecurity in Selesai Sub-
district has been carried out, however costs is one of the factors causing the lack of implementation of
biosecurity. The situation in the field proves that biosecurity measures carried out practically have not
been able to reduce the mortality of laying hens, which will have an impact on farmers' income.
2. Materials and Methods
This research is a descriptive qualitative and quantitative research with direct observation of the
implementation of biosecurity on laying hen farms in Sub-district Selesai, Langkat Regency and
accompanied by observation, interviews with farmers.

2.1. Populations and Sampling Techniques

The population of this study were layer breeders in Sub-district Selesai. The sampling method in this
study was a survey technique. Layer breeders in Selesai Sub-district were specifically chosen as
responders due to their capacity to conduct maintenance activities, have been willing, and are in
locations. The total number of responders for this survey is 55 breeders.

2.2. Data collection technique

Data collection through the questionnaires with direct observation at the laying hen. Scoring system
using likert scale with 5 indicators. Very good = 5, good = 4, normal= 3, not good = 2, very bad = 1.
Scoring evaluation classifications can be calculated by adding intervals and described descriptively.
The biosecurity score interval categories as follows:
Table 1. biosecurity score interval category
No Interval Scoring Categories
1 231.01 - 275 Verry Good
2 187.01 - 231 Good
3 143.01 - 187 Normal
4 99.01 - 143 Poor
5 55- 99 Verry Poor

2.3. Data analysis technique

Farmer evaluations of biosecurity measures on their laying farms form the basis for a descriptive
statistical analysis. Biosecurity measures and death rates were correlated using Spearman's rank order
analysis. Multiple linear regression analysis was utilized to determine the impact of biosecurity on
mortality in the layer farm.
Y = a + b1.X1+ b2.X2+ b3.X3 (1)
Description:
Y = Mortality laying hens (heads)
a = Constant
b1,2,3 = Regression Coefficients
X1 = Sanitation
X2 = Isolation
X3 = layer cage traffic control

2
7th ASEAN Regional Conference on Animal Production IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1286 (2023) 012004 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1286/1/012004

3. Results and Discussion

Implementation of Biosecurity in Layer Farms is assessed from 3 aspects, namely, (1) sanitation, (2)
isolation and (3) traffic control.

Table 2. mortality rates of laying hens

No Laying hen business scale (heads) Death (heads) Mortality (%)
1. 5,000-25,000 22,540 9.3
2. 25,001-50,000 97,343 10
3. 50,001-75,000 36,189 9
4. 75,001-100,000 27,300 10
5. 100,001-125,000 26,400 12
6. 125,001-150,000 0 0
7. 150,001-175,000 0 0
8. 175,001-200,000 0 0
9. 200,001-225,000 0 0
10. 225,001-250,000 12,000 5
Average 22,1772 9.2%

If we look at Table 2, we can see that between the population scale levels of 5,000 and 25,000 heads,
there are 22,540 chicken deaths (9.3%), between the population scale levels of 25,001 and 50,000 heads,
there are 97,343 chicken deaths (10%), between the population scale levels of 50,001 and 75,000 heads,
there are around 36,189 chicken deaths (9%), between the population scale levels of 75,001 and 100,000
heads, there is total mortality of about 27,300 chicken deaths (10%), and between the population Deaths
amounted to 26,400 (12%), with infant mortality ranging from 12,000 to 20,000 (0.5%) among a
population of 225,001 to 250,000. There is a 2.2% increase in mortality compared to prior studies in the
case of laying hens, bringing the average death rate up to 9.2%. [12] There is a significant problem with
the mortality rate of laying hens; it is greater than 7%. Using the biosecurity approach, the mortality rate
for hens is guaranteed to be no more than 7% [13]. This mortality rate is classified as high, revealed that
the standard for raising laying hens, the maximum recommended mortality is only 3% of the total
population. [14] stated that the contribution of the sub-optimal biosecurity practices and welfare
standards to mortalities on the farm could have been the major underlying factor, especially considering
that the birds were not housed in environmentally controlled facilities.
Table 3. Biosecurity implementation score
No. Description Score Categories
1. Sanitation 173 Normal
2. Isolation 162 Normal
3. Traffic control 128 Normal
Average 154 Normal

The findings of a cost-benefit analysis of biosecurity measures taken at a typical laying farm with respect
to hygiene, seclusion, and movement regulation. Field observations led to the following conclusions
about the value of biosecurity in a laying hen farm: the sanitation aspect obtained a value of 173, falling
into the category of less good; the isolation aspect with a value of 162, also falling into the category of
less good; and the traffic aspect with a value of 128. However, the cumulative value of biosecurity
implementation from 55 responders is 154, which is classified as bad on a continuum. This shows that
farmers are aware that the implementation of biosecurity is important to prevent and protect livestock
from disease, but on the other hand farmers still consider the costs and it is difficult to raise awareness

3
7th ASEAN Regional Conference on Animal Production IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1286 (2023) 012004 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1286/1/012004

of workers to maintain cleanliness by washing hands. This is in accordance with what was stated by [15]
that farmers have not maximized the implementation of biosecurity due to lack of knowledge and the
cost of disinfection.

Table 4. The effect of biosecurity implementation on laying hen mortality

B Std. Error Beta T Sig
(Constant) -102.137 990.774 -0.103 0.918
Sanitation 230.283 445.904 0.092 0.516 0.608
Isolation 1014.907 419.966 0.453 2.417 0.019
Layer cage traffic controls 101.485 360.272 0.049 0.282 0.779

Table 5. The correlation between biosecurity implementation and mortality

Biosecurity Implementation Mortality
Correlation Coefficien Sig. (2-tailed) 1,000 .337**
N .012 .012
55 55

3.1. Sanitation
The data shows that the level of sanitation has no bearing on mortality rates. Sanitation in laying hen
farms entails the cleaning of cages and the surrounding area, the sterilization of feed and watering
troughs, and the disposal of animal excrement. Feed, drinks, equipment, and buildings all have the
potential to become contaminated with spoilage and pathogenic bacteria that could infect laying hens
and pose a threat to human health if not properly sanitized. Disinfecting cages, materials, people, and
equipment before they enter the farm area and keeping the farm's workers clean are all part of good
sanitation practices. Farmers are aware of the importance of improving cage sanitation, but current
efforts are not specifically directed at eliminating any one disease pathogen. Washing the cage and
spraying disinfectants are two examples of vital sanitization chores that help keep chickens healthy,
productive, and happy in their living quarters. This is in accordance with [16] that the hygiene patterns
of cages and livestock must be considered so as not to cause disease in livestock which will reduce their
performance. This is certainly not effective and even tends to be in vain, because in the application of
sanitation such as, disinfectants are very necessary to eradicate diseases both from outside the cage or
in the cage area. The cost of purchasing disinfectants is one of the obstacles in the implementation of
this cage sanitation. This is in accordance with what was stated by [17] that the factor for not
implementing sanitation is due expensive cost of desinfectant.

3.2. Isolation
From the analysis obtained that partially there is an influence between isolation on mortality. Isolation
can be interpreted as an act of separation to protect livestock from disease. In example, farmers separate
DOC from producing chickens by quarantine. However, there is no supervision and rechecking of
chickens that adolescents into the production cage. Quarantine cage conditions are also very important
to pay attention to such as spraying disinfectants before entering chickens into the production cage and
workers should only enter one cage and be adjusted for age. The implementation of isolation biosecurity
categorized as poor, this is because the handling of healthy and sick animals is very rarely done and
there is no quarantine action as a separation cage. This situation is the cause of the high mortality rate
of livestock. Therefore, there is an effect of the implementation of isolation on mortality, this is in
accordance with the opinion of [18] the importance of isolation measures for sick livestock so as not to
spread disease to other livestock, so that livestock deaths do not occur. Implementation of isolation in
layer farm which includes handling healthy and sick chickens, handling dead chickens, and quarantine
measures. Isolation means placing or keeping animals in a controlled environment. The handling of sick
and dead birds and the implementation of quarantine for new chickens are also included in the isolation

4
7th ASEAN Regional Conference on Animal Production IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1286 (2023) 012004 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1286/1/012004

aspect. Farmers realize that isolation handling is important to prevent the transmission of diseases that
can be transmitted from various media such as newly arrived DOC. This is in accordance with [19] that
disease agents can enter the layer farm environment through various means such as DOC arriving and
the entry of healthy chickens that have just recovered from disease but act as carriers.

3.3. Traffic Control

From the results of the analysis can be concluded that there is no influence between traffic control on
mortality. Farmers do not spray vehicles with disinfectant before entering the pens to prevent the spread
of disease. Only a small proportion do so, and only a small proportion record the license plate of vehicles
entering the barn area. The implementation of traffic control in layer farms, includes worker control,
stray animal control, transportation control. Traffic control is applied to people, equipment, goods, feed
and poultry. Control measures include the provision of dipping and spraying pool facilities at the
entrance for vehicles, spraying disinfectants on cages and equipment, drivers, sellers and other officers
by changing clothes with special clothing. Based on the results of observations in the field do not provide
special cage uniforms, spraying workers with disinfectants, and lack of control of wild and domestic
animals that still roam the cage area. This is as stated by [20] that traffic control in farms must be well
established to stop or minimize contamination of animals, feed, and equipment used, transport
equipment and personnel must not leave the dead animal handling area without cleaning and disinfecting
first.

3.4. Relationship between Biosecurity and Mortality

Results show a correlation between biosecurity measures and reduced death rates. This corroborates the
findings of [15], which found that biosecurity measures were associated with reduced death rates. The
impact of disease on farmers can range from a decline in laying hen productivity to the advent of both
localized and widespread mortality. According to [14], 0.8-1.5% mortality rates are considered
acceptable for laying hens by international breeders (Hy-line, Dekalb, and Lohmann). Some studies
claim that if the mortality rate is higher than 5%, then the business will lose money. There is a wide
spectrum of diseases that can affect poultry, especially laying hens, from those that are quite moderate
to those that are fatal. This study's findings lend credence to a notion positing that biosecurity measures
have a causal link to mortality but are otherwise classified as normal. This study's findings lend credence
to the hypothesis that layer chicken farms can safely be considered to have adequate levels of biosecurity
in place. This also shows that the implementation of biosecurity is not only influenced by biosecurity
implementation factors but several other factors. This is in accordance with the opinion [21] that the
factors that have the highest influence on mortality are cage management factors, this is because cage
management factors which include cage density, bulkhead arrangements, curtain arrangements, lack of
cage cleanliness, conditions around the cage and weather changes also have a major influence on
mortality, health management which includes giving vaccines and vitamins and farmers who are not
good at handling their business also have a major influence on mortality rates.

4. Conclusion
The implementation of biosecurity in laying hen farms in Kecamatan Selesai category of less good,
from the implementation of biosecurity (sanitation, isolation, and traffic control) only the isolation
aspect can affect mortality, while the average mortality on the farm was 9.2%. There is a significant
relationship between the implementation of biosecurity with mortality in layer breed chicken farms in
the District Selesai Langkat Regency.

5
7th ASEAN Regional Conference on Animal Production IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1286 (2023) 012004 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1286/1/012004

References
[1] Lestari VS, Sirajuddin SN, Kasim K. Adoption of biosecurity measures by layer smallholders.
Journal of the Indonesian Tropical Animal Agriculture. 2011 Dec 1;36(4):297-302.
[2] Falk I, Wallace R, Ndoen ML, editors. Managing biosecurity across borders. Springer Science &
Business Media; 2011 Jul 3.
[3] Layton DS, Choudhary A, Bean AG. Breaking the chain of zoonoses through biosecurity in
livestock. Vaccine. 2017 Oct 20;35(44):5967-73.
[4] Renault V, Humblet MF, Pham PN, Saegerman C. Biosecurity at cattle farms: Strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Pathogens. 2021 Oct 13;10(10):1315.
[5] Otieno WA, Nyikal RA, Mbogoh SG, Rao EJ. Adoption of farm biosecurity practices among
smallholder poultry farmers in Kenya–an application of latent class analysis with a
multinomial logistic regression. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2023 Jun 23:105967.
[6] Conan A, Goutard FL, Sorn S, Vong S. Biosecurity measures for backyard poultry in developing
countries: a systematic review. BMC veterinary research. 2012 Dec;8:1-0.
[7] Fasina FO, Ali AM, Yilma JM, Thieme O, Ankers P. The cost–benefit of biosecurity measures on
infectious diseases in the Egyptian household poultry. Preventive veterinary medicine. 2012
Feb 1;103(2-3):178-91.
[8] Yoo DS, Lee KN, Chun BC, Lee HS, Park H, Kim JK. Preventive effect of on-farm biosecurity
practices against highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N6 infection on commercial
layer farms in the Republic of Korea during the 2016-17 epidemic: A case-control study.
Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2022 Feb 1;199:105556.
[9] Robertson ID. Disease control, prevention and on-farm biosecurity: the role of veterinary
epidemiology. Engineering. 2020 Feb 1;6(1):20-5.
[10] Ingvartsen KL, Moyes K. Nutrition, immune function and health of dairy cattle. Animal. 2013
Mar;7(s1):112-22.
[11] Brennan ML, Christley RM. Cattle producers’ perceptions of biosecurity. BMC veterinary
research. 2013 Dec;9(1):1-8.
[12] Risvansuna F, Hikmat YP, Satya G. Evaluation and Response of Farmers on The Application of
Biosecurity System for Layer Chicken Farming in Lendah District Kulonprogo. InE3S Web of
Conferences 2021 (Vol. 232, p. 01014). EDP Sciences.
[13] Haqiqi M, Hertamawati RT, Rahmasari R. Tingkat penerapan biosekuriti pada usaha peternakan
ayam ras petelur di Kabupaten Jember [Level of biosecurity implementation in layer farms in
Jember Regency]. CONFERENCE_PROCEEDING_SERIES. 2021 Dec 23;2.
[14] Samkange A, Mushonga B, Kandiwa E, Kambode JN, Mbiri P, Gorejena B, Madzingira O.
Assessment of normal mortalities, biosecurity and welfare of Lohmann Brown layers at a farm
in central Namibia.
[15] Mappanganro R, Syam J, Ali C. Tingkat penerapan biosekuriti pada peternakan ayam petelur di
kecamatan panca rijang kabupaten sidrap [The level of application of biosecurity on laying
hen farms in panca rijang sub-district, sidrap district]. Jurnal ilmu dan industri peternakan.
2018;4(1):60-73.
[16] Selviana S, Arfan I, Purwati E. Hubungan Sanitasi Kandang, Jarak Kandang, Kepadatan Lalat,
Jarak Sumber Air Bersih, dan Personal Hygiene dengan Kejadian Diare (Studi Pada Peternak
Ayam di Kecamatan Benua Kayong Kabupaten Ketapang) [The Relationship between Cage
Sanitation, Cage Distance, Fly Density, Clean Water Source Distance, and Personal Hygiene
with the Incidence of Diarrhea (Study on Chicken Farmers in Benua Kayong District,
Ketapang Regency)]. Jumantik. 2016 Dec 8;3(2).

6
7th ASEAN Regional Conference on Animal Production IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1286 (2023) 012004 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1286/1/012004

[17] Taylor DL, Kahawita TM, Cairncross S, Ensink JH. The impact of water, sanitation and hygiene
interventions to control cholera: a systematic review. PLoS one. 2015 Aug 18;10(8):e0135676.
[18] Msimang V, Rostal MK, Cordel C, Machalaba C, Tempia S, Bagge W, Burt FJ, Karesh WB,
Paweska JT, Thompson PN. Factors affecting the use of biosecurity measures for the protection
of ruminant livestock and farm workers against infectious diseases in central South Africa.
Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 2022 Sep;69(5):e1899-912.
[19] Van Seventer JM, Hochberg NS. Principles of infectious diseases: transmission, diagnosis,
prevention, and control. International encyclopedia of public health. 2017:22.
[20] Hersom M, Irsik M, Thrift T. Biosecurity and Biological Risk Management for Livestock
Enterprises: AN194/AN194, 3/2008. EDIS. 2008 Apr 28;2008(3).
[21] WellBeing International WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository WBI Studies
Repository 2010 Understanding Mortality Rates of Laying Hens in Cage-Free Egg
Understanding Mortality Rates of Laying Hens in Cage-Free Egg Production Systems
Production Systems [Internet]. [cited 2023 Oct 11]. Available from:
https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=a
cwp_faafp

7
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.