Harmonisation of disease management practices across global space and the devolution of responsibility to a broader range of actors are two increasingly important approaches for ordering biosecurity governance. While these forms of ordering have been examined individually, the social science biosecurity literature provides limited insights into how they interact and interfere with one another, and the consequences for biosecurity implementation. This paper draws upon an institutional logics approach to examine the different and competing logics through which government agencies, industry bodies and farming enterprises engage in biosecurity. It focuses specifically on the ways in which these logics pose challenges for harmonisation of biosecurity as well as create alternative spaces of negotiation for making life safe. Through the analysis of policy documents and semi-structured interviews with government and industry stakeholders, as well as with beef producers, we identify three institutional logics being the neoliberal, productivist and agrarian logics. We argue that the existence of multiple logics poses significant challenges for efforts to achieve improved harmonisation of biosecurity in an environment of devolved responsibility to industry, farming bodies and producers. In this context, greater emphasis by stakeholders on the productivist logic holds the most potential for improving biosecurity implementation in that it works with existing agricultural circulations and flows, and with producers' herd health practices.

The risks posed for disease introduction and spread are believed to be higher for smallholder livestock producers than commercial producers. Possible reasons for this is the notion that smallholders do not implement appropriate animal health management practices and are not part of traditional livestock communication networks. These factors contribute to the effectiveness of passive disease surveillance systems. A cross-sectional study, using a postal survey (n = 1,140) and group interviews (28 participants in three groups), was conducted to understand the animal health management and communication practices of smallholders keeping sheep, cattle, pigs, dairy goats and alpacas in Australia. These practices are crucial for an effective passive surveillance system. Findings indicate that there is a need for improvement in animal health management practices, such as contact with veterinarians and attitudes toward reporting. Results also indicate that these practices differ depending on the livestock species kept, with sheep ownership being associated with lower engagement with surveillance activities and smallholders keeping dairy goats and alpacas having in general better practices. Other factors associated with surveillance practices among participant smallholders are gender and years of experience raising livestock. Despite the differences observed, over 80% of all smallholders actively seek information on the health of their livestock, with private veterinarians considered to be a trusted source. Emergency animal diseases are not a priority among smallholders, however they are concerned about the health of their animals. The finding that veterinarians were identified by producers to be the first point of contact in the event of unusual signs of disease, strengthens the argument that private veterinarians play a vital role in improving passive surveillance. Other producers are also a point of contact for animal health advice, with government agencies less likely to be contacted. The effectiveness of on-farm passive surveillance could be enhanced by developing strategies involving both private veterinarians and producers as key stakeholders, which aim to improve awareness of disease and disease reporting responsibilities.