Success of intensive poultry and livestock production relies on adequate flock and herd immunity. Reduced immune responsiveness leading to increased disease losses can seriously harm the poultry and livestock industries. Immunosuppression (IS), the term most often used to describe this phenomenon, has become part of the common language of animal agriculture and is used by producers, service personnel, practicing veterinarians, and disease researchers to describe a variety of problems. It appears in articles of agricultural trade journals and is used in scientific publications. At times, however, IS has not been used precisely. Vaccine failures and disease outbreaks are often blamed on IS. We have noticed that suspected immunosuppressive agents are declared immunosuppressive without adequate scientific evidence. This has created confusion. Because of the misuse of this term, this editorial was prepared. The objectives of this commentary are to propose a definition of IS and to discuss criteria for evaluating IS that might result from exposure to infectious and noninfectious agents commonly encountered in animal agriculture. Defining immunosuppression. This editorial was written from the viewpoint of production agriculture. The proposed definition of