Abstract

As African swine fever (ASF) continues to expand geographically, supplementary control strategies are needed to reduce disease risk and impact in affected areas. Full depopulation is central to current ASF control efforts, and its efficacy depends on surveillance and timely disease reporting, while resulting in large losses regardless of the producers' efforts to promptly detect, report, and contain the disease. This disconnect between prompt detection and reporting, and subsequent farm losses, can deter producers to invest in ASF detection and control. Alternative approaches are needed to incentivize individual producers to invest in early detection and reporting. We postulate that commercial swine farms may be effectively partitioned in separate units, or subpopulations, to which biosecurity, surveillance and control can be applied. The suggested Partitioning framework relies on three main components: 1. external and internal biosecurity to reduce the risk of ASF introduction and maintain separate subpopulations; 2. cost-effective on-farm ASF surveillance to enhance early detection; 3. response plans at the unit level, including culling of affected subpopulations, and demonstration of freedom from disease on the remaining ones. With such Partitioning approach, individual producers may reduce ASF risk on a farm and in the region, while also reducing ASF outbreak losses via targeted depopulation of affected units. It requires relevant legislation to incorporate the notion of within-farm subpopulations and provide a regulatory framework for targeted depopulation and substantiation of disease freedom. Its design should be tailored to fit individual farms. Partitioning can be an effective public-private partnership approach for ASF risk reduction. It should be driven by industry, as its benefits are accrued mainly by individual producers, but regulatory oversight is key to ensure proper implementation and avoid further disease spread. Partitioning's value is greatest for producers in ASF-affected regions, but ASF-free areas could also benefit from it for preparedness and early detection. It could also be adapted to other transboundary animal diseases and can be implemented as a stand-alone program or in conjunction with other efforts such as zoning and compartmentalization. Partitioning would contribute to the improved resilience and sustainability of the global pork industry and will benefit consumers and society through improved food security and animal welfare.

Highlights

  • African swine fever (ASF) is one of the most devastating diseases of pigs, associated with high mortality rates and dramatic economic losses [1, 2]

  • We propose Partitioning as a cost-effective framework to help producers reduce their risk of ASF introduction as well as their losses in case of ASF outbreak

  • Partitioning would be relevant in areas where ASF is present in domestic pig populations, and where there are barriers to the implementation of existing control measures relying on full depopulation

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

African swine fever (ASF) is one of the most devastating diseases of pigs, associated with high mortality rates and dramatic economic losses [1, 2]. We propose a voluntary framework to improve detection and control of ASF (and by extension, other TADs) - such approach is possible if it can be shown that the investment is cost-effective for producers and that there is no increase in disease spread risk This Partitioning framework for costeffective risk management of ASF by individual producers relies on maintaining separate animal units via good external and internal biosecurity, conducting on-farm surveillance and early reporting, and in case of outbreak, coordinating with CAs for the safe targeted depopulation of affected units and demonstration of freedom in other units. Such standards need to consider the balance between the confidence in the disease-free status of epidemiological units and its cost: setting the monitoring standards too low could result in ASF spreading undetected to other units or farms, with a negative impact on all stakeholders, but setting them too high will increase the costs of Partitioning and reduce the net economic incentive for producers to invest in Partitioning

Balancing the costs and benefits to the CA
DISCUSSION
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call