Biosecurity measures are the main defense against infectious disease spread in swine farms. Farmers often acknowledge the need for enhanced biosecurity, but a gap remains between claiming measures and practicing them on the farm. This study looks at barriers to implementing biosecurity, key control points, and successes in Midwest U.S. swine operations. Semi‐structured interviews were held with industry experts knowledgeable about swine farms and responsible for biosecurity compliance. The interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative text mining methods like word frequency, n‐gram analysis, topic modeling (latent Dirichlet allocation LDA), and thematic analysis. Seven major themes that converged with the results of content analysis emerged, which demonstrated major barriers, potential critical control points, and success stories in biosecurity compliance. Biosecurity practices differed significantly between operation types, with stricter practices in sow and boar studs compared to grow‐finish farm operations. Human behavior was identified as both the primary vulnerability and the greatest opportunity for improvement. Compliance was influenced by communication strategies, training, and employee workload levels. Limitations on barn infrastructure design, financial constraints, and risk perception were identified as further challenges to biosecurity implementation. Critical control points, such as transportation (trucks and trailers), equipment sharing, manure handling, and interactions with packing plants and cull markets, appear to be high‐risk nodes for disease transmission. Despite these challenges, success stories such as long‐term PRRS prevention through air filtration, strategic application of basic biosecurity measures, and the use of dedicated biosecurity managers have proven successful in reducing disease risks. Implementing biosecurity in swine farms is a complex system‐level challenge influenced by farm design, human, economic, and external interface factors. Thus, progress requires a comprehensive approach that combines infrastructure upgrades, risk‐based decision making, tailored training, and ongoing communication among stakeholders. This study identifies vulnerabilities and proven successes and offers practical insights to inform a more resilient biosecurity system.
Gelalcha et al. (Thu,) studied this question.