Over the past several decades, infectious disease modeling has become an essential tool for creating counterfactual scenarios that allow the effectiveness of different disease control policies to be evaluated prior to implementation in the real world. For livestock diseases, these models have become increasingly sophisticated as researchers have gained access to rich national livestock traceability databases, which enables inclusion of explicit spatial and temporal patterns in animal movements through network-based approaches. However, there are still many limitations in how we currently model animal disease dynamics. Critical among these is that many models make the assumption that human behaviors remain constant over time. As many studies have shown, livestock owners change their behaviors around trading, on-farm biosecurity, and disease management in response to complex factors such as increased awareness of disease risks, pressure to conform with social expectations, and the direct imposition of new national animal health regulations; all of which may significantly influence how a disease spreads within and between farms. Failing to account for these dynamics may produce a substantial layer of bias in infectious disease models, yet surprisingly little is currently known about the effects on model inferences. Here, we review the growing evidence on why these assumptions matter. We summarize the current knowledge about farmers' behavioral change in on-farm biosecurity and livestock trading practices and highlight the knowledge gaps that prohibit these behavioral changes from being incorporated into disease modeling frameworks. We suggest this knowledge gap can be filled only by more empirical longitudinal studies on farmers' behavioral change as well as theoretical modeling studies that can help to identify human behavioral changes that are important in disease transmission dynamics. Moreover, we contend it is time to shift our research approach: from modeling a single disease to modeling interactions between multiple diseases and from modeling a single farmer behavior to modeling interdependencies between multiple behaviors. In order to solve these challenges, there is a strong need for interdisciplinary collaboration across a wide range of fields including animal health, epidemiology, sociology, and animal welfare.

Multidrug-resistant enterococci are considered crucial drivers for the dissemination of antimicrobial resistance determinants within and beyond a genus. These organisms may pass numerous resistance determinants to other harmful pathogens, whose multiple resistances would cause adverse consequences. Therefore, an understanding of the coexistence epidemiology of resistance genes is critical, but such information remains limited. In this study, our first objective was to determine the prevalence of principal resistance phenotypes and genes among Enterococcus faecalis isolated from retail chicken domestic products collected throughout Japan. Subsequent analysis of these data by using an additive Bayesian network (ABN) model revealed the co-appearance patterns of resistance genes and identified the associations between resistance genes and phenotypes. The common phenotypes observed among E. faecalis isolated from the domestic products were the resistances to oxytetracycline (58.4%), dihydrostreptomycin (50.4%), and erythromycin (37.2%), and the gene tet(L) was detected in 46.0% of the isolates. The ABN model identified statistically significant associations between tet(L) and erm(B), tet(L) and ant(6)-Ia, ant(6)-Ia and aph(3’)-IIIa, and aph(3’)-IIIa and erm(B), which indicated that a multiple-resistance profile of tetracycline, erythromycin, streptomycin, and kanamycin is systematic rather than random. Conversely, the presence of tet(O) was only negatively associated with that of erm(B) and tet(M), which suggested that in the presence of tet(O), the aforementioned multiple resistance is unlikely to be observed. Such heterogeneity in linkages among genes that confer the same phenotypic resistance highlights the importance of incorporating genetic information when investigating the risk factors for the spread of resistance. The epidemiological factors that underlie the persistence of systematic multiple-resistance patterns warrant further investigations with appropriate adjustments for ecological and bacteriological factors.

Studies of farmers’ failure to implement biosecurity practices frequently frame their behaviour as a lack of intention. More recent studies have argued that farmers’ behaviours should be conceptualised as emergent from farming experiences rather than a direct consequence of specific intentions. Drawing on the concepts of ‘cowshed’ culture and the ‘Trigger Change Model’, we explore how farmers’ livestock purchasing behaviour is shaped by farms’ natural and physical environments and identify what triggers behavioural change amongst farmers. Using bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in New Zealand as a case example, qualitative research was conducted with 15 New Zealand dairy producers with varying bTB experiences. We show how farmer’s livestock purchasing behavior evolve with culture under a given farm environment. However, established cultures may be disrupted by various triggers such as disease outbreaks, introductions of animals with undesired characteristics, and farm relocation. While dealing with economic and socio-emotional impacts posed by triggers, farmers reorganise their culture and trading behaviours, which may involve holistic biosecurity strategies. Nevertheless, we also show that these triggers instigate only small behavioural changes for some farmers, suggesting the role of the trigger is likely to be context-dependent. Using voluntary disease control schemes such as providing disease status of source farms has attracted great interest as a driver of behavioural change. One hopes such schemes are easily integrated into existing farm practices, however, we speculate such an integration is challenging for many farmers due to path-dependency. We therefore argue that these schemes may fail to bring their intended behavioural changes without a greater understanding of how different types of triggers work in different situations. We need a paradigm shift in how we frame farmer’s livestock trading practices. Otherwise, we may not able to answer our questions about farm biosecurity if we continue to approaching these questions solely from a biosecurity point of view.