COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF ON-FARM CONTROL:
:!: Consumer demands for improved animal welfare may question the feasibility of keeping animals indoors permanently (Van der Giessen et al., 2007; Meerburg and Kijlstra, 2009; Hill et al., 2010).
:!:Heat-treating food is uneconomical and often facilities are insufficient to do so. Most concentrate feed carries a minimal infection risk.
:!:May not have capacity to keep all animals indoors for their lifetime. Ethical issue also posed.
:check: In intensive production systems, pigs fed on concentrate food and housed on concrete bedding, whereas organically farmed pigs kept on straw bedding and are more likely to contact infected rodents (Van der Giessen et al., 2007).
:check:Greater attention to detail can be given to cleaning if animals not continuously housed, therefore may be protective in the case of i.e. pig farms where an all-in-all-out system is used (Opsteegh et al., (2016).
:check:Easy to implement on-farm cat control measures as part of the current biosecurity protocol, wider benefits for food safety and the reduction in infection of animals reared more extensively (Opsteegh et al., 2015).
:check: Rodent control alternatives shown to decrease T.gondii significantly (Hill et al., 2010), whilst also decreasing feed costs for the farmer (AHDB, 2015). Motivartion of the farmer is an important factor (Heres et al., 2015), as measures such as trapping are often labour-intensive (AHDB, 2015).
:!: Rodenticides have been noted to cause harmful effects on the environment, therefore non-chemical alternatives such as blocking areas around pipes and proper feed storage should be firstly employed (AHDB, 2015).