Bovine Viral Diarrhoea Virus (BVDV) is an economically important pestivirus recognised for causing infertility, immunosuppression and, as a consequence, high levels of secondary disease in cattle herds worldwide [1–7]. The losses associated with BVDV infection are well documented and the disease is commonly quoted to cost the UK farming industry £40 million per year primarily as a consequence of sub-optimal fertility and immunosuppression [8]. At the individual animal level, the most recent published estimates of losses due to BVDV infection are €32 and €63 per cow per year in beef and dairy systems respectively within the Irish cattle sector [9]. Similar figures of £37 per cow per year exist for beef suckler herds in the UK [10], but less detail is reported at the individual cow level within the UK dairy sector. Significantly, a number of European countries have recognised the losses caused by BVDV and undertaken national eradication; whilst Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark have eradicated it [11, 12], other countries e.g. Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, Ireland and Scotland are in the process of eradication [11, 13–15]. The Scottish and Irish programmes include control measures with regulations to prevent the sale of persistently infected (PI) carrier animals [13, 14]. This will impact on further eradication efforts throughout England and Wales since clearly it would be beneficial for these programmes to be compatible with those underway in Scotland and Ireland in order to facilitate trade.

The persistently infected (PI) animal is infected as a foetus in the first trimester of pregnancy and born immunotolerant to the infecting strain of BVDV; thereafter becoming a lifelong shedder of the virus [16, 17] excreting large quantities of BVDV in all body secretions [18, 19]. Control of PI animals is critical to the successful control of BVDV transmission both within and between herds. Lindberg et al. 1999 [20] drew conclusions from epidemiological studies of BVDV and stated that “in practice, a herd is not infected until one or more PIs have been established” and, in addition to this, “BVDV cannot persist in a herd where contacts between PI animals and susceptible animals in early pregnancy do not occur”. This highlights the pivotal role of PI animals in the epidemiology of BVDV and the need to both identify and cull them as part of any successful BVDV eradication programme. The more rapid the culling of PIs from infected herds, the greater the health and productivity advantage.

Two approaches to BVDV eradication have been utilised by those European countries that have programmes in place. In some, often where seroprevalence was deemed to be high, the decision was made at the outset to test directly for PI animals at the national level without establishing status at the herd level first i.e. Switzerland and Ireland [14, 21]. In both programmes, specialised ear tags were used to collect ear notch tissue samples for testing for BVDV antigen or RNA. Within the Swiss programme, the aim was to test the whole cattle population [21] whereas, in Ireland it has been compulsory to test newborn animals as part of the official tagging process from January 1^st 2013 onwards [14]. In contrast, the Scandinavian and Scottish programmes have elected firstly to establish individual herd status and then proceed with eradication in infected herds [13, 20]. At the outset of these eradication programmes, effective herd level screening was essential in order to distinguish between BVDV-infected (contains PI animals) and BVDV-free herds (no PI animals present). This allows resources to be focussed on either identification and culling of PI animals or on surveillance and protection. It is always essential that effective biosecurity is implemented to prevent the re-introduction of infection [20, 22, 23]. Depending upon local circumstances and, in particular cattle density, enhanced biosecurity may be combined with vaccination to protect against herd re-infection [24]; this is especially important where biosecurity does not meet the stringent standards outlined in the Cattle Health Certification Standards (CHeCS) technical document [25].

Within England and Wales, many farmers will not know their current BVDV status and it is hoped that this manuscript will provide practitioners with further advice on the use of appropriate herd level diagnostics to determine whether PI animals are likely to be present. Current recommendations for UK herd BVDV accreditation are documented in the CHeCS technical document [25]. Two options are permissible for herd BVD accreditation. The first involves screening successive calf crops for BVDV antigen and accreditation is achieved following negative test results over a 2 year period. The second method involves antibody (Ab) screening of bulk milk samples and youngstock (YS) cohorts (commonly referred to as ‘Check Tests’ or ‘Spot Tests’) in order to accurately assess herd BVDV status. BM Ab has played a major role in the control of cattle diseases since the mid-1980s [26] and was widely used within the Scandinavian BVDV control programmes to establish dairy herd status. The CHeCS technical document recommends the use of quarterly BM Ab screening tests at the point of establishing and monitoring herd status although it recognises a positive result may occur in a herd that has been historically infected; at this point the screening of first lactation animals may provide a more up to date status of the dairy herd [25]. The recommendations within CHeCS for YS screening in the UK are largely based on the work conducted in Denmark and the USA by Houe 1992, Houe 1994 and Houe et al. 1995 [27–29]. The first study determined that herds ranging in size from 96 to 324 animals (with a mean of 135) could be grouped into BVDV infected and BVDV-free herds by testing only three or five YS 6–18 months of age [27]. In a further study, forty-two herds were investigated ranging in size from 40 to 157 animals and in a detailed survey of seven of these herds, low levels of YS seroprevalence were found to correlate with the absence of PI animals (0–1/10 YS Ab positive at the spot test) and high levels of YS seroprevalence correlated with the presence of PIs (8–10/10 YS Ab positive at the spot test) [28]. An additional test available for milk samples is bulk milk PCR (BM PCR) which enables the screening of bulk tank milk for the presence of PI animals. This allows the user to establish the status of the milking animals that contribute to the sample, but not necessarily the entire herd. Initially BM PCR was reported to be sensitive enough to detect one PI animal in 160 milking animals [30], but more recently this has increased to an upper limit of 300 recommended by many diagnostic laboratories [31] with further laboratories reporting a higher diagnostic sensitivity allowing this upper limit to increase further to 1000 animals (Karen Bond, National Milk Laboratories, Personal Communication).

This paper examines and discusses the use and practical implications of BM Ab, YS Check Tests and BM PCR for determining the presence or absence of PI animals using data collected from 26 working UK farms involved in a pilot BVDV eradication programme [32] where average herd sizes were 343 (interquartile range: 224 to 431) and 98 (interquartile range: 58 to 121) animals for the dairy and beef units respectively.

Farm recruitment began in April 2006 and was largely complete by April 2007. The farms involved and further details of their recruitment are described by Booth & Brownlie 2012 [32]. Farm ID numbers used throughout this manuscript are consistent with those used by Booth & Brownlie 2012 [32] and Booth et al. 2013 [33] enabling cross referencing between publications. All samples were collected by veterinary surgeons as part of the routine infectious disease surveillance on the farms involved and the herd owners gave signed consent for the data collected to be reported anonymously.

Upon recruitment to the pilot BVDV eradication programme, each farm was screened to determine herd status (BVDV-infected/BVDV-free) using a combination of BM Ab, BM PCR and YS Check Tests. Throughout this study, Check Tests consisted of 10 animals of approximately 9 months of age (range 6–18 months, with a preference of 9–12 months) from each separate management group on the farm. If fewer than ten animals were available in the age range required for the Check Test then all available animals were sampled. All samples were submitted to and tested by the Animal Health and Plant Agency (AHPA) via AHPA Starcross. BM samples were submitted in universal containers with Bronopol preservative (AHPA, Weybridge) and blood samples were submitted in heparinised vacutainers. AHPA test codes for the BVDV BM Ab ELISA and PCR were TC0123 and TC0709 respectively. All BM Ab results were reported as Optical Density (OD) ratios and interpreted such that OD ratios <0.1 = negative, 0.1–0.35 = low positive, 0.35–0.7 = mid positive and >0.7 = high positive. BM PCR results were reported as either positive or negative. All blood samples tested for Ab (AHPA test code TC0390) were reported as OD ratios and interpreted such that <0.2 = negative and > 0.2 = positive. Further details of the laboratory tests used in this paper including test sensitivity, specificity and further details regarding cut off values have been described previously by Booth and Brownlie 2012 [32]. Since the data presented in this paper was collected the TC0390 and TC0123 ELISA tests have been superseded and it should be noted that the stated cut-off values are not applicable to the ELISA tests currently offered by the AHPA.

Following each initial screen, the results were assessed in order determine herd exposure and whether BVDV was likely to be active on the farm and thus whether PI animals were likely to be present. For the purposes of this project, active infection based upon the initial screens was defined cautiously as any herd with >1/10 Ab positive YS and/or a positive BM PCR. Where evidence of exposure to BVDV indicated that the infection was likely to be active, a whole herd test (WHT) was performed where the entire herd was blood sampled in order to identify any PI animals present. Due to the longevity of the immune response following field infection with BVDV [7, 34] high BM Ab levels alone were not deemed sufficient to advise WHTs in the absence of a positive BM PCR or Ab positive YS and farms with this combination of initial results were subjected to further regular surveillance (described below). In beef herds, initial herd screens consisted solely of Check Tests. The laboratory tests and testing regimes used for WHTs have been described previously by Booth and Brownlie 2012 [32]. If identified, PIs were either culled or retained on the farm of origin; this was the farmer’s choice. Where PI animals were identified, the recommendation was to cull them - sale of PI animals (unless direct to slaughter) was not permitted as a condition of membership of this study.

In herds where initial screening did not indicate an active BVDV infection, the farmer was given the choice of either blood sampling the whole herd to confirm the accuracy of the screen, or implementing regular herd surveillance. If a WHT was selected, once it was confirmed that there were no PI animals within the herd, the farm implemented regular herd surveillance from that point onwards. Within this study, regular herd surveillance consisted of BM Ab testing (at least quarterly), BM PCR testing (at least yearly) and Check Tests performed at least once a year. In herds undergoing regular surveillance, if active infection (as defined above) was suspected at any point, surveillance frequency was initially increased meaning that a further Check and BM Ab test was performed within 4–8 weeks of the preceding one. In the event that active infection was still suspected, a WHT was performed to search for PIs. Again, in beef herds, surveillance consisted solely of Check Tests.

All farms with data reported in this manuscript were monitored for at least 3 years (the majority joined the study in 2006/2007 and remained members until it ended in 2014), thus the data collected accurately reflects the number of PI animals present on each of the study farms over the period presented. On farms that did not undergo WHTs because ongoing herd surveillance indicated that there was no source of BVDV exposure, the assumption was made that no PI animals were present at any time.

For herds that underwent WHTs and had full BM Ab and Check Test results from their initial screen, Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were generated in SPSS (SPSS Inc., Chicago) to compare the ability of BM Ab and Check Tests to determine the presence of PI animals in a herd. The optimal cut-off value, sensitivity and specificity of each test was then determined. Using logistic regression, predicted probability curves were produced in ‘R’ (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2008) using “xyplot <lattice>” for BM Ab and YS Check Tests to illustrate how the probability of identifying a herd containing a PI(s) alters according to the results of the initial screens.

For some herds there were considerable delays between the initial herd screen and the WHT. This consisted of time needed to persuade the farmer to undertake a WHT and agreement on a suitable date (at times, harvesting or silaging meant a considerable delay was incurred). In order to investigate the effect of this delay on the accuracy and relevance of the initial herd screens, BM Ab and BM PCR results from the day of the WHT were collected. In order to simulate a YS Check Test as if performed on the day of the WHT, ten Ab results from YS aged as close to 9–12 months as possible were randomly selected from those sampled during the WHT. The YS chosen were selected using a random number generator in Microsoft Excel (2007) which was used to select ten animals from a list of those present on the day of the WHT arranged in age order starting with the animal closest to 9 months of age on the day of the WHT. Where insufficient animals were present within the 9–12 month range, the range was expanded to 7–13 months. The ROC and probability curve calculations described above were then repeated using data from the day of the WHT in effect removing any delay between conducting a herd screen and acting on the results.

With the exception of Farms 2, 5 and 15, all farms reported in this manuscript reared homebred youngstock on the farm where they were born.Farms 2, 5 and 15 removed animals at, or shortly after, weaning to separate units where they were reared to return to the home farm for first calving. Farms 5 and 15 only reared their own animals at these separate sites. Farm 2 reared bull calves and non-replacement heifers on the main farm unit as beef animals, however they also utilised a heifer rearer for their replacement dairy heifers. These animals were moved to the heifer rearer after weaning where they were kept with animals from another farm with no attempt to separate them. Once at service age, a bull was introduced and the heifers returned to the main farm to calve.

The results of the initial herd screens for all 26 farms are presented in Fig. 1 alongside the number of PIs found in each herd at the WHT. The total number of PIs identified on each farm and the initial number found at the WHT are shown in Table 1. With the exception of Farm 2, in all herds where PIs were identified, at least one of those PIs was present from the outset of the study. For Farm 2, the initial herd screens identified 40 % seroconversion at the YS Check Test (conducted at the heifer rearing unit) and a mid-positive BM Ab titre. The seropositive youngstock initiated a WHT on this farm at both the main farm where the milking animals were kept and the heifer rearing unit. Permission was not given to test the animals at the heifer rearing unit that were mixed with those from Farm 2. No PIs were identified at the Farm 2 WHT in year 1, however, due to the seroconversion noted in the youngstock, newborn animals were tested as they were born onto the farm and the first PI was identified in year 2 of the study as a ‘trojan’ PI born to an non-PI heifer returning from a heifer rearing unit where mixing with animals from multiple sources had occurred [32]. Indeed the subsequent two PIs detected on Farm 2 were also born to non-PI heifers returning from the heifer rearer. For these reasons, within the ROC and probability curve analysis described below, Farm 2 was treated as positive when analysing Check Test results, but negative in the BM analyses. Following the birth of the third PI the adult herd had been infected long enough to produce a fourth PI from a 3^rd lactation animal. In total, twelve PIs were confirmed on this farm (with two antigen tests four weeks apart) with a further 9 that either died or were culled before they could be confirmed with a second antigen test [32].

Seven of the 26 study herds (the three beef units; Farms 6, 17 & 21 and four of the dairy units; Farms 11, 13, 24 &30) returned regular surveillance results which indicated that they were unlikely to have been exposed to a source of BVDV infection. These herds were excluded from the statistical analysis because they did not undertake WHTs. The remaining 19 herds undertook WHTs however two of these, Farms 27 and 28, were excluded from the statistical analysis since only 7 & 8 YS respectively were available in the appropriate age range for their initial screens. Therefore, of the 26 study herds, a total of 17 were suitable for ROC and probability curve analysis since they had both 10 YS and a BM Ab sampled at initial recruitment and also conducted a WHT. Furthermore, it is only these 17 farms that contribute to the sensitivity and specificity results stated below.

Bulk milk antibody analysis

BM Ab titres on the 23 dairy farms observed in Fig. 1 range from mid to high positive. Interestingly, high positive BM Ab results occur on six farms where no PIs were identified (Farms 7, 8, 25, 28, 29 & 30) and mid positive results occur on two farms where PIs were identified (Farms 1 and 2). On Farm 2 however, it should be noted that the dairy herd would not have had contact with PI animals by this point. Of the dairy farms observed in Fig. 1, none began the study with low positive or negative BM Ab titres, yet 11/23 (48 %) had no PI animals identified. The BM Ab ROC curve in Fig. 2 and its coordinates (Table 2) indicate that the optimal cut-off point for distinguishing whether or not a herd contained a PI animal using the BM Ab titre is achieved at an OD ratio of 0.7950 units with a sensitivity and specificity of 80.00 % (44.39–97.48 %) and 85.71 % (42.13–99.64 %) respectively (95 % confidence intervals quoted). Of the 17 farms analysed in Fig. 2, using a BM OD ratio cut off of 0.7950 there were two false negative farms (i.e. would be declared free of PIs when they were present) (Farms 1 & 20) and one false positive (i.e. would be thought to contain PI animals when there were none present) (Farm 7). For Farm 2, the BM Ab OD ratio of 0.46 units and interpretation that there were not PI animals present can be considered correct for the adult dairy herd given that it had not been exposed to PI animals at this point. Fig. 3a displays the predicted probability curve for BM Ab OD ratio calculated for the 17 farms that were used for the ROC curve analysis. The curve shows a gradual but limited increase in probability of detecting a PI as BM Ab OD ratio increases.

Test result variables	Positive if greater than or equal to a or b#	Sensitivity	1 - Specificity
aNumber of Youngstock antibody positive out of ten tested with delays between the YS screen and whole herd test	−1.00	1.000	1.000
	1.00	.909	.500
	3.00	.818	.333
	4.50	.636	.333
	5.50	.636	.167
	6.50	.545	0.000
	7.50	.455	0.000
	8.50	.273	0.000
	9.50	.091	0.000
	11.00	0.000	0.000
bBulk milk antibody OD ratio with delays between the BM Ab screen and whole herd test	−.5630	1.000	1.000
	.4440	1.000	.857
	.4575	1.000	.714
	.5225	1.000	.571
	.6520	.900	.571
	.7315	.900	.429
	.7590	.800	.429
	.7840	.800	.286
	.7950	.800	.143
	.8025	.700	.143
	.8075	.600	.143
	.8285	.500	.143
	.8535	.400	.143
	.8650	.300	.143
	.8850	.200	.143
	.9600	.100	.143
	1.1885	0.000	.143
	2.3570	0.000	0.000

^# The smallest cutoff value is the minimum observed test value minus 1, and the largest cutoff value is the maximum observed test value plus 1. All the other cutoff values are the averages of two consecutive ordered observed test values

Bulk milk PCR analysis

Not all dairy farms had BM PCR results at this stage of the study - this was simply due to the fact that the test was not offered by the AHPA at the start of farm recruitment. With the exception of Farm 29, all farms returning a positive BM PCR result in Fig. 1 had PI animals identified; Farms 38 & 40, where Farm 38 had a milking PI animal yet Farm 40 did not. There were also six farms which were BM PCR negative and of these, three (Farms 18, 37 & 20) contained PIs none of which were of milking age. The ages of the PI animals identified on these farms (and throughout this study) are discussed in Booth and Brownlie 2012 [32].

At this point, Farm 29 is worth highlighting since it returned a positive BM PCR result, a high positive BM Ab result and 5/10 animals Ab positive at the Check Test yet no PIs were identified on the premises either at the WHT or in the testing following this. The delay between the initial herd screens and WHTs to identify PI animals is shown in Table 1 and ranges from 1–19 months a mean interval between initial screens and WHTs of 8 months. The delay for Farm 29 was 12 months between the initial screens presented in Fig. 1 and the WHT to identify PI animals. The impact of these delays between initial screens and what was actually found at the WHT could be considerable and therefore the initial screens presented in Fig. 1 may not accurately reflect herd status at the time the WHT was conducted. For this reason, further data was collected from the farms presented in Fig. 1 so that for those farms that underwent a WHT, the equivalent of an initial screen was generated for that day meaning that the delay between the initial screen and the WHT was effectively 0 days. The age groups of the randomly selected YS are detailed in Table 1 and for most farms, it was possible to select animals from within the 9–12 month range. The YS selected for Farms 18 and 37 were just outside of the 9–12 month range whilst for Farms 8, 15, 25, 26 and 38 it was necessary to extend the range to 7–13 months. These data are presented in Fig. 4. Farms 6, 11, 13, 17, 21, 24, & 30 did not undergo WHT since the results of their regular surveillance (BM Ab, BM PCR and Check Tests) did not justify testing all stock. These farms are included in Fig. 4 and the data presented for each are the year 2 Check Test results which coincided with a quarterly BM Ab and yearly PCR test (where available).

Bulk milk antibody analysis without delay

In the 23 dairy farms represented in Fig. 4 high positive BM Ab results occur on nine infected farms and two that are BVDV-free (Farms 29 & 30), mid positive BM Ab results occur on six BVDV-free farms, Farm 2 and two infected farms (Farms 15 & 19). Finally, three BVDV-free dairy farms in Fig. 4 now return low positive BM Ab results. On Farm 2, the dairy herd was still un-exposed at this point hence should be considered a negative herd when assessing BM Ab. Analysis of BM Ab results from the 17 dairy herds that undertook WHTs produced the ROC curve in Fig. 5, the coordinates of which (Table 3) demonstrate that the optimal BM Ab OD ratio cut-off for distinguishing whether a herd contained a PI animal or not occurs at 0.7 OD ratio units. This also coincides with the AHPA cut off for a high positive result using this test. With this dataset, a sensitivity and specificity of 80.00 % (44.39–97.48 %) and 85.71 % (42.13–99.64 %) respectively (95 % confidence intervals quoted) was achieved. The predicted probability curve in Fig. 3c shows better distinction using BM Ab OD ratio at this cut off compared to Fig. 3a.

Test result variables	Positive if greater than or equal to a or b#	Sensitivity	1 - Specificity
aNumber of youngstock antibody positive out of ten tested without delay	−1.00	1.000	1.000
	.50	.909	.500
	1.50	.909	.167
	2.50	.909	0.000
	3.50	.818	0.000
	5.00	.727	0.000
	6.50	.636	0.000
	7.50	.545	0.000
	9.00	.273	0.000
	11.00	0.000	0.000
bBulk milk antibody OD ratio without delay	−.8500	1.000	1.000
	.2400	1.000	.857
	.3750	1.000	.714
	.4300	1.000	.571
	.4550	1.000	.429
	.4950	1.000	.286
	.5300	.900	.286
	.6050	.800	.286
	.7000	.800	.143
	.7650	.700	.143
	.8250	.600	.143
	.8550	.500	.143
	.8750	.400	.143
	.8950	.300	.143
	.9100	.200	.143
	.9250	.200	0.000
	.9800	.100	0.000
	2.0300	0.000	0.000

^# The smallest cutoff value is the minimum observed test value minus 1, and the largest cutoff value is the maximum observed test value plus 1. All the other cutoff values are the averages of two consecutive ordered observed test values

This manuscript presents BM Ab, BM PCR and YS Ab (Check Test) data from twenty six working farms that were recruited to a pilot BVDV eradication programme. Although there is general agreement in the current literature that BM Ab levels and youngstock Check Tests are appropriate ways to assess BVDV status at the herd level [20, 25–27, 35, 36], there remains some confusion about their reliability and the impact of historic infection and vaccination. We discuss these issues in the context of our study herds below.

The recruited herds were predominantly located in Somerset, UK and the large proportion of dairy herds in the study population reflects the region from which herds were sampled. The average study herd size appears large when compared to the average herd size of 120 animals quoted by Defra for the Taunton area at the time of recruitment [37]. However, the Defra figure may be falsely low as this will include small holdings and in the authors’ experience, the herd sizes represented here are typical of the range of farms in this region.

Within the analyses conducted, the wide 95 % confidence intervals quoted throughout highlight that there is a degree of uncertainty surrounding the results and thus the figures should be used with caution. This is largely due to the small sample size of 17 herds which underwent statistical analysis. Despite these potential limitations, the improvements demonstrated in sensitivity and specificity and also in the ROC and probability curves by removing the delay between screening a herd and acting on those results are substantial and worth discussion. Of the 26 herds that were recruited, only 17 were suitable for statistical analysis since BM and YS samples were collected in addition to individual animal samples to determine the BVDV status of all animals on this subset of farms. Two farms that had conducted a WHT were deemed unsuitable for inclusion in the statistical analysis as ten animals were not available for the initial YS screens and are included in Figs. 1 and 4. The seven remaining farms did not undergo WHTs and were therefore excluded from the statistical analysis, but are presented for completeness in Figs. 1 and 4. Whilst we believe that the regular surveillance would have detected infection on these farms over, and beyond, the course of the study period analysed here, it remained an assumption that they were BVDV free and so it would have been inappropriate to influence the ROC, probability, sensitivity and specificity analyses on this basis. This point is especially pertinent when we consider that Farm 15 returned a mid positive BM Ab titre at the WHT and also negative YS results in both the initial Check Test and the simulated Check Test from the WHT yet a PI was present throughout the period. This was primarily due to herd dynamics and is discussed in relation to this herd’s results below.

The data presented indicate that the approach to establishing herd status endorsed by CHeCS [25] is robust. Check Tests, BM Ab and BM PCR, if used and interpreted appropriately are useful tools for establishing a herds BVD status. Minimising the delay between screening a herd and acting quickly on the results obtained will increase their diagnostic accuracy and relevance. Whilst a good starting point, a high positive BM Ab result alone is not enough to classify a herd as infected but it should trigger further investigation. In the same way a mid positive BM Ab result does not definitively mark a herd as BVDV-free. BM Ab can prove a useful surveillance tool in established BVDV free herds with low or negative BM Ab titres however; such results were rarely encountered in this study. For this reason, if the study population is representative of herds in cattle dense areas where there is no systematic control of BVDV and biosecurity is difficult to implement, then low or negative BM Ab samples could be considered rare. In this paper, Check Tests performed with the greatest accuracy when diagnosing herd BVD status; only one farm was misclassified when using YS screens (Fig. 4). BM PCR may be used at the same point of the initial screen of YS and BM antibody although, on cost grounds, it would be reasonable to postpone this test until Check Test and BM Ab results indicate the likely presence of a PI.

Finally, it is paramount that longitudinal surveillance using a combination of the techniques discussed in this paper is performed on farms wishing to monitor their BVDV status since this allows for changes in status to be detected early thus enabling prompt action in the event of a BVDV incursion.