Key insights into biosecurity risks, communication preferences and behaviour change drivers among livestock transporters in Australia

Abstract

The transportation of livestock poses an increased risk of disease transmission, with transportation vehicles acting as vectors for disease. Biosecurity management within the livestock industry is therefore critical to reduce the risk of disease transmission. This study investigated the current biosecurity practices of stakeholders within the livestock transport industry in Australia using a cross‐sectional study. It examined how communications technology is utilised in this sector, exploring the drivers and barriers influencing the adoption of communications technology for managing biosecurity risks. The COM‐B model of behaviour change informed the development of the cross‐sectional study. Data obtained through a questionnaire (n = 17) and semistructured interviews (n = 10) identified a moderate understanding of biosecurity and engagement with best practice biosecurity. The key biosecurity risks identified were in relation to truck washing, effluent management, distances travelled, load mixing and access to relevant biosecurity information. Some practices that contributed to the biosecurity risk were influenced by external factors, such as access to truck washing facilities. Results suggest that while there is general satisfaction with how communication is managed, a mobile application (app) to communicate biosecurity messages could support biosecurity information exchange given the widespread use of text messaging, along with the high level of use of apps for both personal and business purposes. However, for urgent messages a phone call was preferred. The most trusted sources of animal health information included government agencies and the national industry organisations. The COM‐B model identified that there was a reasonable perception of physical and psychological capability around biosecurity, and most respondents identified that there was room for improvement with biosecurity uptake which could be used as a motivation for change.

In the event of biosecurity incidents, the timely exchange of information available for rapid tracing and response may minimise the impact on the livestock industry and increase confidence in agriculture sectors. Modelling of disease outbreaks, such as Foot and Mouth Disease, has shown that the timeliness and precision of livestock traceability may help lower the number of infected locations, shorten outbreak durations and minimise the number of farms affected. ¹ , ²

The National Livestock Identification System (NLIS) is the official system for the identification and tracing of livestock in Australia. ³ An analysis of 2019 NLIS data reported an average of 237,000 (range 1000–533,000) animals (cattle, sheep and pigs) being moved per day across Australia. ⁴ In isolated areas of Australia, such as the Northern Territory, cattle travel an estimated average of 1000 km and as far as 2500 km to be processed. ⁵ Whilst all livestock production involves movement of animals, the level of associated risk can vary depending on the management of the process. The NLIS system supports biosecurity, food safety and access of Australian products to international markets. The key features of the system are an animal identifier, a Property Identification Code (PIC) and a central database to record animal locations and movements. ³ Cattle, sheep and goats are managed through the NLIS directly. Pig movements are tracked in real time through PigPass, a national system managed through the industry body, Australian Pork Limited (APL), with information uploaded to the NLIS database.

Australian livestock transporters are represented by the Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters Association (ALRTA). This body is governed by a National Council made up of representatives from six state member associations and the National Member Chapter. It is estimated that ALRTA represents over 900 transport companies (https://alrta.org.au/).

The transportation of livestock is associated with an increased risk of disease transmission. This is due, in part, to increased shedding of pathogens associated with stress related immunosuppression. ⁶ , ⁷ In a review of transportation‐related risk factors in the potential transmission of African swine fever (ASF) in Australia, livestock transportation was identified as a factor that could contribute to the spread of the disease if introduced into the country. ⁸ Benavides et al. ⁹ developed a quantitative risk assessment model to estimate the annual probability of introducing bovine viral diarrhoea virus (BVDV) and bovine herpesvirus 1 (BoHV‐1) at the farm level through animal movements. Factors reported to be strongly associated with disease in cattle were the purchase of animals from within the region (i.e., local movements) and the sharing of vehicles to transport animals.

Livestock transportation vehicles can act as vectors for disease. The movement of livestock involves contact, both direct and indirect, between transporters, properties, saleyards, feedlots and processors. ¹⁰ , ¹¹ To manage the risk of transferring disease during transportation, it is important that vehicle cleaning and disinfection (C&D) protocols are established and followed. ⁶ , ¹¹ A study investigating biosecurity practices among cattle transport drivers in Spain identified issues with the application of these protocols in a real‐world context. ¹² While it has been suggested that there is a need to improve the messaging provided to livestock transporters about the risk of disease transmission associated with their actions, it is equally important to ensure that the C&D facilities available to them are adequate. ¹² , ¹³ Factors reported as barriers to appropriate cleaning include a lack of perceived risk, a lack of cleaning tools, cost, time constraints and prioritisation of what is considered core business, namely, the loading and unloading of livestock. ¹⁴ , ¹⁵

Effective movement tracing and communication systems between stakeholders before, during and after the movement of animals is crucial. Not only from a transactional perspective, but also as an opportunity for health and biosecurity‐related information to be shared and recorded. In Australia, livestock transporters share load information across the supply chain through the National Vendor Declaration. This document, available in both paper‐based and electronic format, is a legal document that communicates the treatment status and food safety of animals. ¹⁶ It does not, however, communicate biosecurity information.

Transporters are responsible for conducting preloading inspections to ensure livestock are “fit‐to‐load” for the intended journey (https://www.mla.com.au/extension-training-and-tools/resource-hubs/fit-to-load/). Failure to comply can lead to prosecution under state or territory legislation. While supporting animal welfare, this system does not contain any direct biosecurity‐related information. Information on animal health can be provided by producers through an Animal Health Statement; however, this is not mandatory in most jurisdictions. A gap therefore remains in the effective communication of health and biosecurity information accessible to transporters at the time of animal movement.

Biosecurity information is best received from sources considered credible, reliable and able to effectively manage biosecurity‐related incidents. ¹⁷ , ¹⁸ Factors such as the quality, source and delivery of the message have the greatest influence on behaviour. ¹⁹ , ²⁰ To maximise effectiveness, communication must have content that is relevant and be presented in a clear format that is accessible to the intended target audience. ²¹ , ²² , ²³ Further to this, rather than expecting those across the supply chain to change their behaviour, any introduced communication tools would be more likely to be adopted if they fit existing workflows. ²⁴ It is therefore important that the benefits of new technology are communicated clearly and that capability in the use of technology is considered, as these have been shown to enhance uptake. ²⁵

To better understand biosecurity‐related behaviours, it is important to consider the psychological processes that are involved in decision‐making. ²⁶ Knowledge, attitudes and practices (behaviours) are inextricably linked, ²⁷ and it is simply not enough to expect that dissemination of information will lead to the desired behavioural change. ²⁸ The COM‐B system describes capability, opportunity and motivation as forming the hub of a behaviour change wheel ²⁹ and has been used as the theoretical framework in a number of studies that focus on biosecurity. ³⁰

There has been limited Australian research specifically focussed on biosecurity in the context of livestock transportation. Strategic reviews of livestock truck washdown facilities were undertaken in the Australian states of Tasmania in 2016 ³¹ and Victoria in 2023. ³² Areas of unmet demand for accessible livestock truck washdown infrastructure were identified in both reports. While these studies provided important insights into cleaning and washdown access, the present research investigates the perceptions and practices of livestock transporters across diverse scenarios and within a wider national framework.

The aim of this research was to capture current biosecurity practices and beliefs amongst livestock transporters. The ways in which biosecurity and animal health related messages are currently shared within and across the supply chain were explored, along with the role that technology plays or has potential to play within this space. Finally, barriers and motivations related to the uptake of communications technology in managing biosecurity risks were investigated.

Materials and methods

This study was conducted in accordance with a design approved by the Charles Sturt University Human Research Ethics Committee (Protocol number H22086).

Study design

The study used a sequential mixed‐method approach whereby a questionnaire survey was sent to livestock transporters, followed up with semistructured interviews with key informants. The study was conducted nationally, with no restriction on the location of participants and, in line with the funding agreement, the target population comprised individuals involved in the transportation of cattle and/or pigs. These species were selected due to the significant volume of movements and distances travelled, the risk of disease transmission and the intersection with many other relevant stakeholders such as producers, saleyards, feedlots and abattoirs. Despite the target of this study being cattle and pigs, other species, most notably sheep, were transported by those participating in the study, and this is presented in the results section.

The COM‐B model of behaviour change that considers the capabilities (C), opportunities (O) and motivations (M) that influence behaviour (B) provided the framework for the development of the data collection tools. ³³ Capability (C) refers to physical (strength and mobility for example) and psychological capability (including knowledge and understanding to undertake the behaviour in question). ³⁴ Opportunities include ease of access (as an example of physical opportunity) and social norms (social opportunity). Motivation is defined as the cognitive processes that guide behaviour and includes reflective processes such as analytical decision‐making, and automatic processing such as emotions and habitual behaviour. ²⁹

According to the model, to effectively change a behaviour, an intervention must address one or more of these components and the behavioural drivers for individuals will differ according to the context. ²⁹

The questionnaire survey

Prior to developing the questionnaire, two stakeholders involved with livestock transport were consulted to provide insights into the processes that operate within the transport sector, including those related to biosecurity. This ensured that the questions were appropriate for the target population and captured key industry concerns.

The draft questionnaire was then sent to a representative of the livestock transport sector for feedback with the final questionnaire being loaded onto SurveyMonkey™ (Momentive Inc, San Mateo, California, USA, www.momentive.ai). A qualifying question was included at the start of the questionnaire asking participants to confirm that they were involved in transporting cattle and/or pigs. Those who selected No were exited from the questionnaire (n = 2).

The questionnaire had a total of 32 questions, with most questions being closed (25), and the remainder allowing for an open response (7). Several closed questions had the option of providing additional information as “other” response option.

The main topics covered in the questionnaire were demographics, animal health, welfare and biosecurity, and communication. The questionnaire is available from the corresponding author.

Key livestock transport stakeholders, identified through professional contacts of the research team and publicly available information, were contacted by email and asked to assist with the distribution of the questionnaire using their existing communication channels (social media, website, contact lists, newsletters). These included state and national transport industry associations and transport businesses. In addition to this approach, the research team undertook an internet search to obtain publicly available contact details for transport operations and sent direct emails inviting them to complete the questionnaire and share it amongst colleagues. The questionnaire was opened on September 1st, 2022. After 4 weeks, the level of participation was lower than anticipated, so a repeat participation request was sent to all who had previously assisted with distribution or received the invitation. The questionnaire was closed on November 14th, 2022.

Data were downloaded from the survey platform into Excel (PC/Windows 167 XP, 2007) and cleaned, resulting in a total of 17 questionnaires being included in the analysis. Descriptive analyses were undertaken to obtain an outline of respondent characteristics and practices, using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 169 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

The interviews

Questionnaire respondents had the opportunity to provide their contact details to express interest in participating in a follow‐up semistructured interview. Given the low number of questionnaire responses, recruitment for this activity was augmented by using professional contacts of the research team to identify additional participants.

Those expressing an interest in participating in the interviews were sent a Consent Form and informed that they could provide verbal consent at the time of the interview. Interviews were conducted by one member of the research team (LH) between September and November 2022 via video conference (Zoom) or telephone. Ten interviews were conducted, with one interview having two livestock transporters present (i.e., total of 11 participants).

The audio records of the interviews were downloaded and transcribed into a Microsoft Word document using a professional transcription service. Interview data were uploaded to qualitative data analysis software NVivo (QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 12, 2018) and analysed. Descriptive information was identified and summarised with qualitative information analysed using a content analysis approach. ³⁵ Initial codes were generated inductively, capturing meaningful features relevant to the research questions.

Results

Questionnaire and interview data were integrated and are presented within sections aligned with the key aims of the research. Quotations that directly illustrate the findings are included throughout the results section, with additional quotations presented in Table 7 at the end of the section.

Table 7.

Livestock transporters' views on biosecurity risk and emergency communication: additional selected quotations

Biosecurity practices: Balancing risk awareness and operational constraints

I don't think we should be going into the yards as much as we do, because that's where all the other pigs come from. If there is a disease, an unknown, and four or five different truck drivers are walking into the yards, well, there is the chance there for that biosecurity issue to occur, I think. [T10] Just farm to farm, they don't put as much pressure on it [truck cleaning]. And if you're doing cows after cows, or whatever, they don't. You can go back from one to the other, without washing out. Or if you're actually going back to the same place. But pigs, it's an absolute no‐no. [T10] I think everyone would wash out a lot more, yeah for sure. But there's – there's also the – The 2 or 3 hours or of the overtime … of the driver standing there with the hose in his hand, so… [T3] Just non‐existent and then you get to a place there where the wash sprays broken down or there's, or there's only one hose. Or there's – There could be 3 or 4 bays but there's only one bay working… [T2]

Preferred communication channels for emergency and biosecurity information

But I've got tracking on all our trucks so I can see where they are. So, if there is an emergency, I'll ring the farm or the farms and just let the drivers know. [T9] I think if DPI [Department of Primary Industries] or MLA [Meat and Livestock Australia], if I opened my phone and there was a notification from either of those and it was in red and it said disease, as the first word, I'd be opening it. They don't need to let me know things about truck wash breakdowns. Don't over‐notify it. Only send me notifications for really important stuff. Have an area where I can look it up, but don't bombard me. [T5] Usually if there's trouble on the road, that's about the only time the trucks do get on the two‐way, and they'll usually let you know. We have live traffic app on both our phones and I have it on the iPad. We get notifications through there. There's Facebook pages and that's all they do is traffic incidents like truck crashes. There's truckies pages where we notify each other and that sort of stuff. [T5]

Biosecurity information needs and communication preferences

So, I think there needs to be a continual, or a continuous education campaign on exotic animal diseases in other pests. [T2] In a perfect world, that would be DPI [Department of Primary Industries] coming to us with some sort of manual or book that is co‐written by DPI and MLA. With things like if you find out you've had a cow on your truck with this disease, this is what's going to kill it, what's going to clean your truck so you don't spread it. There was a list of stuff like that, a list of just a basic manual with – a list of contagious diseases between livestock, anything that can be transferred between properties, on my truck, and how to clean my truck for them. [T5] Everyone has got a mobile phone, so if it's real serious you would think the government is going to come to the party here and just shut it down completely. [T1]

Considerations for effective biosecurity communication
….It could be but are you going to overload them with too much information and let them worry about stuff. They've got enough stuff to worry about now, effluent facilities and all that stuff. Same thing again driver welfare. [T1]

Demographic and business characteristics of participants

There were slightly more male (58.8%) than female respondents (41.2%), with most (88.2%) aged between 35 and 54 years (Table 1). Almost all had over 5 years of experience in the livestock transport industry (94.1%). Businesses were located across Australia, with the size of the operation ranging from smaller operations of between 1 and 2 vehicles (23.5%) to large operations with more than 10 vehicles (29.4%). The three journey types completed most frequently were property to abattoir, property to saleyard and property to property. Other potential journeys included property to feedlot, saleyard to feedlot, saleyard to abattoir, saleyard to property, feedlot to abattoir and feedlot to live export. Most drivers travelled distances of between 2501 and 5000 km per week (64.7%), with the maximum distances of a single trip being over 1000 km for 70.6% of respondents. Noting the inclusion criteria, cattle accounted for the largest percentage of loads, with all respondents reporting carrying cattle at some stage, 76.4% carrying sheep, and 52.9% carrying pigs. Other species transported included goats, alpaca and deer, albeit in much lower numbers.

Table 1.

Demographic and business characteristics of surveyed transporters

Demographic and business characteristics	N (%)
Age
25–34	1 (5.9)
35–44	8 (47.1)
45–54	6 (35.3)
55–64	1 (5.9)
65+	1 (5.9)
Gender
Female	7 (41.2)
Male	10 (58.8)
Years in the industry
12 months to 5 years	1 (5.9)
>5 years	16 (94.1)
Number of vehicles in livestock operation
1–2 vehicles	4 (23.5)
3–5 vehicles	5 (29.4)
6–10 vehicles	3 (17.6)
>10 vehicles	5 (29.4)
State/territory livestock operation based in
ACT	1 (5.9)
Western Australia	1 (5.9)
South Australia	2 (11.7)
Victoria	4 (23.5)
New South Wales	4 (23.5)
Queensland	5 (29.4)
Average distance travelled in a week by driver
101–500 km	2 (11.8)
501–1000 km	1 (5.9)
1001–2500 km	1 (5.9)
2501–5000 km	11 (64.7)
>5000 km	2 (11.8)
Furthest distance (return) travelled in a single trip
101–500 km	1 (5.9)
501–1000 km	4 (23.5)
>1000 km	12 (70.6)

The majority (n = 8) of those interviewed owned the transport company, with three out of these eight also involved in driving activities (Table 2). The remaining two participants were involved in management. Most transported both cattle and pigs, with the dominant species entered first in the list. Two participants transported cattle only and one pigs only. Those who identified as being in management or as a nondriving owner represented larger operations. Participants represented half of Australia's states and territories, with the majority from South Australia (n = 4), followed by Victoria (n = 3), Queensland (n = 2) and NSW (n = 1). All except two were involved in interstate transport.

Table 2.

Overview of livestock transporters participating in semistructured interviews in a cross‐sectional study in Australia in 2022/2023

ID	Position	Species	Size (trucks)	Location	Interstate movement
T1 a	Driver, owner	Cattle, pigs	1–2	Victoria	Yes
T2	Management	Cattle, pigs	>10	Queensland	Yes
T3	Management	Cattle, pigs	6–10	South Australia	Yes
T4	Owner	Cattle	3–5	Victoria	Yes
T5	Driver, owner	Cattle	1–2	NSW	Yes
T6	Owner	Pigs, cattle	>10	Victoria	Yes
T7	Driver, owner	Cattle, pigs	3–5	South Australia	Yes
T8	Owner	Pigs, cattle	>10	Queensland	Yes
T9	Owner	Pigs	>10	South Australia	No
T10	Owner	Pigs, cattle	3–5	South Australia	No

^a Two transporters interviewed together.

Current biosecurity practices and beliefs amongst livestock transporters

Questionnaire participants were asked to indicate the level of importance of a series of practices/activities in relation to biosecurity (Table 3). While most participants indicated that they considered all of the practices/activities to be important or very important, there were some practices that are essential for traceability and biosecurity that were considered neutral or unimportant by some respondents. For example, complying with NLIS requirements, changing footwear or clothing when dirty and keeping records of livestock deaths, downers (animals that fall during transportation and are unable to rise) or signs of illness in transit were considered unimportant by 5.9% of respondents or of neutral importance by between 11.8% and 17.6% of respondents.

Table 3.

Biosecurity practice understanding of livestock transporters participating in a cross‐sectional study in Australia in 2022/2023

How important do you think each of the practices below are in relation to biosecurity?	Very unimportant	Unimportant	Neutral	Important	Very important
Having a truck hygiene schedule (e.g., washing out livestock crates)	0	0	0	6 (35.3)	11 (64.7)
Complying with NLIS requirements	0	1 (5.9)	2 (11.8)	4 (23.5)	10 (58.8)
Keeping records of livestock deaths, downers or signs of illness in transit	0	1 (5.9)	3 (17.6)	6 (35.3)	7 (41.2)
Having a plan for animals that become sick in transit	0	0	2 (11.8)	8 (47.1)	7 (41.2)
Ensuring livestock that you are transporting are fit to load or fit to process	0	0	0	1 (5.9)	16 (94.1)
Changing clothes when I get “dirty” (covered in faeces, urine, blood)	0	0	3 (17.6)	9 (52.9)	5 (29.4)
Changing footwear when I get “dirty” (covered in faeces, urine, blood)	0	1 (5.9)	3 (17.6)	9 (52.9)	4 (23.5)
Carrying livestock destruction equipment or knowing where to seek assistance if required	0	1 (5.9)	2 (11.8)	9 (52.9)	5 (29.4)
Having a truck maintenance schedule	1 (5.9)	0	1 (5.9)	3 (17.6)	12 (70.6)

Most transporters agreed that biosecurity was important for their job and understood what it meant for their everyday role (88.2%). While there was a high level of agreement that biosecurity was properly implemented at the respondent's transport operation (70.6%), equally there was agreement that there were opportunities for improvement. Furthermore, the majority of participants (76.4%) agreed that they could use more help to implement required biosecurity practices at their transport operation (Table 4).

Table 4.

Biosecurity perceptions of livestock transporters participating in a cross‐sectional study in Australia in 2022/2023

Agreement with the following statements	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly agree
I believe biosecurity is important for my everyday job	0	0	2 (11.8)	5 (29.4)	10 (58.8)
I understand what biosecurity means for my everyday job	0	1 (5.9)	1 (5.9)	7 (41.2)	8 (47.1)
Biosecurity is properly implemented at my transport operation	0	1 (5.9)	4 (23.5)	7 (41.2)	5 (29.4)
There is not enough time to implement all required biosecurity measures at my transport operation	2 (11.8)	6 (35.3)	6 (35.3)	2 (11.8)	1 (5.9)
Implementing all required biosecurity measures is expensive	0	1 (5.9)	4 (23.5)	7 (41.2)	5 (29.4)
I could use more help to implement the required biosecurity practices at my transport operation	1 (5.9)	0	3 (17.6)	10 (58.8)	3 (17.6)
I am confident that I can identify biosecurity issues associated with my transport operation	0	1 (5.9)	0	12 (70.6)	4 (23.5)
I am confident that I know how to respond to a biosecurity issue that occurs during transport	0	2 (11.8)	3 (17.6)	8 (47.1)	4 (23.5)
I am confident that I can identify unusual signs of disease in the animals that I work with	0	0	3 (17.6)	11 (64.7)	3 (17.6)
Biosecurity matters are communicated quickly and clearly at my transport operation	0	1 (5.9)	2 (11.8)	10 (58.8)	4 (23.5)
The livestock transport industry poses a low biosecurity risk	6 (35.3)	5 (29.4)	4 (23.5)	1 (5.9)	1 (5.9)
The livestock transport operation that I work at poses a low biosecurity risk	1 (5.9)	3 (17.6)	5 (29.4)	6 (35.3)	2 (11.8)
The government should be responsible to protect the livestock industries against biosecurity threats	0	0	3 (17.6)	6 (35.3)	8 (47.1)
Within the livestock transport industry there is an expectation that transport operations will implement appropriate biosecurity	0	1 (5.9)	5 (29.4)	7 (41.2)	4 (23.5)
I think there would be opportunities to improve biosecurity at my transport operation	0	1 (5.9)	5 (29.4)	7 (41.2)	4 (23.5)

High levels of confidence in identifying biosecurity issues (94.1%), responding to biosecurity issues (70.5%) and identifying unusual signs of disease in animals (82.4%) were reported. There was also a high level of agreement with the statement biosecurity matters are communicated quickly and clearly at my transport operation (82.4%). Despite almost half of participants believing that their livestock operation posed a low biosecurity risk, a high proportion of participants (64.7%) disagreed that the livestock industry poses a low biosecurity risk.

Perceptions of the biosecurity risk posed by common transport related activities

Transporters' familiarity with the source of animals influenced the level of risk associated with the pickup of animals. For example, all participants considered there was at least a medium level of risk attached to an unfamiliar source, compared to 23.6% for pick up from a known or regular source. The activity that reportedly posed the greatest risk was in relation to wash down, with almost half of the participants considered this to be a very high biosecurity risk. While animals showing signs of illness at the point of origin was considered very high risk by 47.1% of participants, three participants (17.7%) scored this as a low or very low risk. A similar level of risk was reported for a situation where the transporter heard about a disease outbreak near the property where they had picked animals up from. In this situation, while close to three quarters of participants considered this be high or very high risk, 17.6% perceived the risk to be very low (Table 5).

Table 5.

Perceptions of biosecurity risk of livestock transporters participating in a cross‐sectional study in Australia in 2022/2023

For each of these activities select the biosecurity risk that you think they pose	n (%)
	Very low	Low	Medium	High	Very high
Picking up animals from a known or regular source	3 (17.6)	10 (58.8)	2 (11.8)	2 (11.8)	0
Picking up animals from a new source or a source that is not usually associated with your transport operation	0	0	12 (70.6)	4 (23.5)	1 (5.9)
Some of the animals you are scheduled to pick up are showing signs of illness at origin	2 (11.8)	1 (5.9)	1 (5.9)	5 (29.4)	8 (47.1)
A staff member (or work colleague) goes on a holiday overseas	3 (17.6)	4 (23.5)	2 (11.8)	4 (23.5)	4 (23.5)
You are scheduled to pick up animals from more than one farm in a single trip	0	7 (41.2)	5 (29.4)	4 (23.5)	1 (5.9)
You can't wash at the washdown facility you are supposed to use after delivery of animals at a feedlot or abattoir.	0	0	3 (17.6)	6 (35.3)	8 (47.1)
There is no one at the abattoir when you arrive to deliver and unload animals	2 (11.8)	2 (11.8)	5 (29.4)	6 (35.3)	2 (11.8)
Some of the animals show signs of distress on the trip	1 (5.9)	2 (11.8)	7 (41.2)	5 (29.4)	2 (11.8)
You hear about a disease outbreak in a farm near the one you have picked animals up from	3 (17.6)	0	1 (5.9)	6 (35.3)	7 (41.2)

Personal protective equipment (PPE) supplies were not readily available for close to one third (29.4%) of questionnaire respondents. The interviews provided further detail on the use of PPE, particularly the practice of changing into clean footwear and overalls. While this was implemented at piggeries, this practice was reported to be undertaken infrequently during cattle transport with minimal external pressure to do so. Despite having stricter protocols for the transportation of pigs, gaps were identified. One transporter described a potential biosecurity risk at abattoirs in relation to interactions between drivers and abattoir employees.

Difficulties with the management of effluent were described by a number of those interviewed. Issues generally originated at the farm level, with inadequate time off feed and water or inaccurate curfewing. Curfewing is the withholding of feed (and sometimes water) for a set period before transport to reduce effluent production, decrease contamination and improve welfare. It was suggested that this was driven by an attempt by some producers to maximise weight by not curfewing appropriately or by those who believe that their animals present better when full. One transporter described pressure from producers to load full animals and the repercussions should they challenge this.

I'll just lose the job. If I won't pick them up, there'll be a cowboy out there somewhere that will. [T5]

The discharge of effluent was an issue for transporters with a clear message that the number of suitable locations to dump effluent was inadequate. It was suggested that any fines related to effluent leaks or inappropriate dumping incurred by the transporter should go to the vendor not the transporter as this could be the catalyst for changing vendor behaviour.

When asked if they used a washdown facility after each consignment, just over half of questionnaire respondents reported that they did not (n = 9). The reasons selected in order of frequency were no facilities at saleyards/abattoir/feedlot (n = 6), costs too much (n = 5), do not have time (n = 4) and no local washdown facilities (n = 4).

The interviews explored vehicle washing in more depth. Key barriers to truck cleaning were similar to those described in the questionnaire, namely, access and cost (financial and time). However, apart from pig transport where there is no option but to clean trucks between loads, there was a general view that there was no pressure on transport companies from others within the supply chain or industry to increase the level of truck cleaning.

Costs were described in terms of both the charge per minute to use the washdown facilities and the hourly rate required to pay a driver (or others) to wash out a vehicle. Driver fatigue management was also mentioned, with the time required to clean a vehicle being part of the driver's logged hours. These costs were borne by the transporter, with limited opportunity to incorporate this into the job charge.

Inadequate infrastructure was a major issue. This was in relation to the number and location of truck wash sites and the design (cross‐contamination) and maintenance of facilities. There were limited opportunities for drivers to wash down after unloading cattle (abattoir, saleyard) with the comment that existing sites were closing, further reducing access. Cattle transporters described having to drive hundreds of kilometres to wash their vehicles.

Information sharing and communication preferences for transporters across the livestock supply chain

Close to half of the questionnaire respondents (42.9%) indicated that additional information about the animals that they transport would be useful. The main area where information was thought to be lacking was related to curfewing.

The interviews also explored preferences for how alerts and information were received. While this was dependent upon the content of the message, network coverage, literacy levels and the experience and acceptance of technology on the part of the receiver, the main preferences were text and phone call.

The advantages of telephone contact over text messaging were highlighted in several situations. Phone calls enabled those on the call to pick up on contextual cues—such as background noise or tone of voice—that helped them determine whether a driver needed additional support. For instance, changes in vocal tone could signal driver stress, while sounds from the livestock offered insight into the animals' condition. For a smaller operator, the value of having a record of a message being sent was described.

One pig transporter described drivers not having their phones on their person during loading, unloading and washing to ensure that they don't drop or damage their phones. This accounted for a considerable amount of time when drivers were out of direct communication. The use of vehicle tracking to identify if a truck was in an area impacted by an emergency was also described. Transport companies would then inform their drivers and farms via telephone as required.

There was a suggestion that alerts could come through via text with a simple message providing basic information, that would be linked to more detailed information that transporters could refer to at a time that suited them. It was also suggested that using a different tone for an alert could increase its impact. There was benefit described in creating an app that was accessible to all within the supply chain.

There was a high level of usage of apps for both personal (94.1%) and work‐related (88.2%) purposes amongst questionnaire respondents. Examples of the types of work‐related apps included road and weather condition updates, operational information, scheduling, fuel cost checking, maps and directions. Just over half (52.9%) of respondents indicated that an app would be useful to communicate health, welfare and/or biosecurity issues related to their transport operation.

The interviews explored the type, timing and format of information received and sent by transporters. Operational information during the trip was usually communicated via phone call or text. Instances where the drivers unloaded at saleyards with no staff present were described. Drivers were aware of emergency contact numbers for the saleyards should they have an issue; however, a number of those interviewed commented that there was not always a response.

Nah you're right, that's the other thing is you can do all these procedures what you are trying to do here now with phone numbers and ring people and all that sort of thing and I can tell you know I've been in it a lot of years and I have worked a lot of night hours and you go to ring any of those numbers and I will guarantee you not one of them will answer, not one of them. [T1]

Communication with producers was described as generally good. If there was a delay, producers often contacted drivers to check on their whereabouts. Depending upon the operation, contact was directly with the driver or via the transport company and was usually via telephone. Limited continuing communication with livestock agents was described.

Communication from the processor was generally limited to a major issue resulting in the need to turn trucks away. With regard to issues enroute, including road closures and accidents, there is a driver network that communicates issues that occur on the road. This can include UHF communications if within range and social media sites such as Facebook for traffic incidents. Apps are also used to identify issues.

Communication of biosecurity‐related information

When questionnaire respondents were asked how they would like to be notified of a series of biosecurity‐related situations, for most of the examples provided, text message was the preferred method, closely followed by phone calls (Table 6). The strongest preference for text messages was related to the notification of an emergency animal disease being confirmed in their state, with 64.7% of respondents indicating a preference for this format. Overall, there was a low level of preference for apps (5.9% maximum across all scenarios).

Table 6.

Communication preferences as indicated by livestock transporters participating in a cross‐sectional study in Australia in 2022/2023

Select the preferred method of notification for the following situations.	Email	Phone call	Text message	App	I do not need to be notified
There is an emergency animal disease affecting livestock confirmed in your state	2 (11.8)	4 (23.5)	11 (64.7)	0	0
Your scheduled drop‐off of animals is delayed	0	7 (41.2)	8 (47.1)	1 (5.9)	1 (5.9)
Your scheduled pick up of animals is delayed	0	7 (41.2)	8 (47.1)	1 (5.9)	1 (5.9)
An emergency animal disease is suspected where you pick your animals up from	1 (5.9)	9 (52.9)	7 (41.2)	0	0
A livestock standstill has been called affecting your region	2 (11.8)	7 (41.2)	8 (47.1)	0	0
There is a delay in accessing the washdown facility you are supposed to use after delivery of animals at a feedlot or abattoir	0	4 (23.5)	9 (52.9)	1 (5.9)	3 (17.6)

Interviewees described limited exposure to information on biosecurity events requiring an immediate response or general biosecurity information. One commented that while this would likely change if a transporter was found to be linked to a disease outbreak, there was currently a level of complacency.

I think what it's going to come down I think for the industry – for the transport industry to stand up will probably be incidence where a truck has introduced a disease to a property that caused loss of income, or – or whatever. And then there'll be a court case, and that's when everyone will start getting worried about it. [T3]

A number of those interviewed reported difficulty in accessing information on biosecurity and disease. Information that related to the producer and livestock production was described; however, there seemed to be very little available or readily accessible information that was directed toward transporters. One interviewee spoke of difficulties in obtaining information on the actions that transporters could take to reduce risks in relation to exotic diseases, describing a situation where they could not obtain clear information on appropriate disinfectants from government authorities contacted. An element of not knowing what they needed to know was described.

They [drivers]trust us like we trust them. I trust them to tell me if there's something I need to know, and they trust me to tell them if there's something they need to know. If neither of us know, neither of us can say anything. [T5]

The notion of relevance was mentioned, with comment that not all drivers need to know about all disease events or biosecurity incidents and by providing information that was not directly relevant, there is a risk that further messaging will be ignored.

Whilst there was an expectation that transporters would be notified in the event of a serious biosecurity incident, there was some uncertainty about who would provide this information. It was generally considered that this would be received by management from an “authority” who would then disseminate this to drivers using their usual communication methods. The urgency of the message dictated the approach, with phone calls being the method used for the most urgent message.

There was an overall feeling amongst those interviewed that there was little action that drivers could take once fully loaded. Concern was expressed about the lack of information available related to the actions that a driver must take should a standstill be declared. Given the frequency of movements between jurisdictions, this was an area identified as being problematic.

Communication from managers to drivers on important issues that impact transporters, such as biosecurity and animal health related issues, was provided via posters, text message and noticeboards. Any communication must be short, sharp, relevant and industry focussed. Timely communication from drivers to management was also considered to be important.

Us yeah, us first, we've got that, well we don't need them ringing everyone creating bloody false alarms, they got enough to do. [T2]

It was considered important that drivers receive regular information on diseases that affect the livestock they transport.

There was a suggestion that it was not the role of the transport industry to provide this information; rather, animal health related information should come from government or organisations such as Meat and Livestock Association (MLA).

Questionnaire respondents were asked to rank trusted sources of information about animal health, welfare and biosecurity. The sources that were most frequently ranked within the top five were ALRTA and state Departments of Primary Industry. This was followed by state‐based transport associations, AHA and livestock industry organisations (e.g., MLA, APL).

Barriers to the uptake of communications technology in managing biosecurity risks

Potential barriers and risks in relation to utilising different types of technology in biosecurity communication within the transport industry were described. There was a clear message that too much information can be as harmful as too little.

In terms of what alternate modes of communication should look like, ease of use and integration with existing technology were imperative. There was a preference for a singular platform or a platform that links to other data, with transporters being included in discussions regarding introduction of technology.

Network coverage was discussed in relation to how urgent messages could be managed. There is an awareness of where areas of poor coverage are. Text was suggested as the method of choice in this situation; however, messaging delays are unavoidable.

Table 7 presents a selection of quotations that illustrate key themes identified during the interviews. Collectively, the quotations highlight the practical challenges faced by livestock transporters and the considerations they believe are important for effective biosecurity communication and disease preparedness.

Discussion

This study provides new insights into the biosecurity risks, communication preferences and potential behaviour change drivers among livestock transporters. These findings can inform decision‐making aimed at strengthening biosecurity engagement and reducing biosecurity risks across the livestock supply chain.

The scale of livestock transport in Australia was clearly reflected in the study, with individual journeys reportedly covering substantial distances. The high volume and broad geographic distribution of livestock movements create a complex environment for effective animal health management and underscore the critical importance of engaging livestock transporters in biosecurity management.

Participants demonstrated a moderate level of biosecurity knowledge and generally expressed commitment to recommended practices. They also indicated willingness to further improve their biosecurity measures and openness to receiving additional support. The key biosecurity risks identified were in relation to truck washing, effluent management, distances travelled, load mixing and access to relevant biosecurity information.

However, these findings should be interpreted in light of participants' reported understanding of the risks associated with certain scenarios and a perception that, despite the broader industry's notable biosecurity risks, respondents' own operations were comparatively low risk.

This contrast between perceived self‐risk and industry level risk has previously been reported within Australia's livestock sectors. ³⁶ , ³⁷ This pattern of recognising high levels of industrywide biosecurity risk while perceiving one's own operation as relatively low risk aligns with the concept of optimism bias. This describes the tendency for individuals to believe they are less likely than others to experience negative events, leading them to view themselves to be less vulnerable despite acknowledging widespread threats within the sector. ³⁸

Engagement with biosecurity was shown to be influenced by both internal and external factors, some of which extend beyond individual control. Truck washdown practices and effluent management were shaped by infrastructure availability and broader system constraints, despite being the responsibility of transporters. These findings align with those of Duarte et al. (2024), who similarly identified limited access to suitable washdown facilities as a major barrier to effective cleaning. When combined with inconsistent use of PPE—especially in cattle transport—these issues highlight clear pathways for disease introduction and spread. This is of particular concern given the documented involvement of livestock transport vehicles in several international disease outbreaks. ³⁹ , ⁴⁰ , ⁴¹ , ⁴²

Although participants generally recognised the importance of biosecurity, improved access to current, targeted information would help ensure that practices remain aligned with best practice standards. Clear and context‐specific communication may increase uptake of key measures such as changing clothing between pickup and drop‐off locations and consistent PPE use.

The high membership numbers of the ALRTA, together with the association's high ranking as a trusted source of information on animal health, welfare and biosecurity, suggest that it could further serve as an effective channel for disseminating biosecurity information and promoting increased industry engagement.

Participants expressed a strong preference for simple communication approaches. Phone calls were preferred for urgent matters, while preferences for other communication formats, for example through social media channels, varied depending on message content and the individual's familiarity and comfort with different technologies. Findings suggest that any new communication tools should integrate with existing systems, and that transporters would value involvement in their design and development.

Interpreting the findings through the COM‐B behaviour change framework provides further insight:

Capability (physical and psychological), around biosecurity uptake was perceived to be reasonable, with respondents identifying that they do understand what biosecurity means for their everyday job and that they are confident that they can identify a biosecurity issue within the operation.

Opportunity (physical and social) may provide an avenue for behaviour change intervention, with respondents identifying that implementation is costly and that they could use more help. However, they also reported that biosecurity is already properly implemented in their operation and that there is already quick communication happening, so this perception may act as a barrier to intervention uptake.

Finally, Motivation, or the reflective and automatic process of decision‐making, provides some useful insight into the potential for behaviour change strategies. The perception that the government should be responsible for managing the biosecurity risks also needs consideration. Many respondents also identified that there is room for improvement within their operation. This response could be used to consider what improvements could be beneficial, using a codesign approach.

Although the study achieved its core objectives, its limitations must be acknowledged. Due to the survey distribution method, the number of transporters who received the invitation to participate could not be determined, and a response rate could not be calculated. Given that the ALRTA represents more than 900 livestock transport operations, participation in this study was evidently low. Recruitment proved challenging despite support from key industry stakeholders and extensive efforts. Time pressures, variable work schedules, connectivity issues and the inherently mobile nature of the workforce likely contributed to this. It must also be acknowledged that the study may be subject to self‐selection and nonresponse bias, ⁴³ whereby those with a greater interest in the biosecurity were more likely to participate. Nonetheless, the combination of survey data and qualitative interviews yielded a diverse sample, supporting the internal validity of the findings.

Overall, findings from this study suggest that biosecurity understanding and implementation within the livestock transport industry can be improved, with significant willingness among stakeholders to engage with further support to strengthen industry biosecurity preparedness.

External factors—including infrastructure and system limitations—influence the biosecurity practices of livestock transporters, creating potential risks for disease transmission and spread that warrant careful attention. The study also indicates that technology—particularly apps—combined with clear, relevant messaging may enhance current approaches to communicating biosecurity risks and disseminating biosecurity information. This is supported by the widespread use of text messaging and the strong uptake of apps for both personal and business activities.

Further research involving a larger sample is needed to improve understanding of industry‐wide biosecurity practices, communication preferences and potential vulnerabilities and to assess the effectiveness of technology‐based interventions for supporting improved biosecurity outcomes among livestock transporters.

Conflicts of interest and sources of funding

The authors declare no conflicts of interest and sources of funding for this research was provided by ExoFlare Pty. Ltd. under a research grant awarded by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF).

Data availability statement

Research data are not shared.