FARMER groups have slammed a new biosecurity levy that will force South Australian producers to pay up to $185 a year towards keeping pests and diseases out.

They fear it sets a dangerous precedent that could see governments shift more biosecurity costs, which benefit the entire community, to individual farmers.

Biosecurity SA claims the new levies - of $165 to $185 per year - are needed to meet the SA government's new cost-recovery targets.

Victorian Farmers Federation livestock executive chairman Chris Nixon slammed any moves to make farmers pay for biosecurity measures, in Victoria or interstate.

He said the public benefit of having solid biosecurity in any state outweighed the private benefit for farmers.

"If there is an incursion we're all buggered, not just the livestock producers," Mr Nixon said.

Mr Nixon said he was worried the South Australian government's move could set a precedent.

"Governments do look at what other governments do and it is a worrying trend," he said.

"If there's an exotic disease outbreak it is everyone's problem. Individual farms are at risk, but so is the entire economy of South Australia, if there is a disease incursion.

"So biosecurity should be an issue for everyone, not just industry."

A Victorian government spokesman said it had "no plans to introduce a biosecurity levy payable by livestock producers or any other rural landholders".

Department of Primary Industries director of animal biosecurity and welfare Dr Tony Britt said biosecurity in Victoria was a shared responsibility among all stakeholders, including government, producers, agents, saleyard operators and processors.

He said one of the Victorian Government's key contributions to biosecurity was through the DPI property registration service, which was free to all livestock owners.

"All stakeholders contribute to the common good of maintaining systems in Victoria that can respond effectively to an emergency animal-disease or food-safety incident," Dr Britt said.

"We believe biosecurity should remain a shared responsibility and for that reason DPI sees no reason to introduce a biosecurity levy on producers."