Assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: sheep and goat pox
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research
Standard
Assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: sheep and goat pox. / EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare, ; Nielsen, Søren Saxmose; Alvarez, Julio; Bicout, Dominique Joseph; Calistri, Paolo; Canali, Elisabetta; Drewe, Julian Ashley; Garin-Bastuji, Bruno; Gonzales Rojas, José Luis; Gortázar, Christian; Herskin, Mette; Michel, Virginie; Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel; Padalino, Barbara; Pasquali, Paolo; Sihvonen, Liisa Helena; Spoolder, Hans; Ståhl, Karl; Velarde, Antonio; Viltrop, Arvo; Winckler, Christoph; De Clercq, Kris; Gubbins, Simon; Aznar, Inma; Broglia, Alessandro.
In: EFSA Journal, Vol. 19, No. 12, e06933, 2021, p. 1-89.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: sheep and goat pox
AU - EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare, null
AU - Nielsen, Søren Saxmose
AU - Alvarez, Julio
AU - Bicout, Dominique Joseph
AU - Calistri, Paolo
AU - Canali, Elisabetta
AU - Drewe, Julian Ashley
AU - Garin-Bastuji, Bruno
AU - Gonzales Rojas, José Luis
AU - Gortázar, Christian
AU - Herskin, Mette
AU - Michel, Virginie
AU - Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel
AU - Padalino, Barbara
AU - Pasquali, Paolo
AU - Sihvonen, Liisa Helena
AU - Spoolder, Hans
AU - Ståhl, Karl
AU - Velarde, Antonio
AU - Viltrop, Arvo
AU - Winckler, Christoph
AU - De Clercq, Kris
AU - Gubbins, Simon
AU - Aznar, Inma
AU - Broglia, Alessandro
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Abstract EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of some of the control measures against diseases included in the Category A list according to Regulation (EU) 2016/429 on transmissible animal diseases (‘Animal Health Law’). This opinion belongs to a series of opinions where these control measures will be assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for sheep and goat pox. In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period and (iii) the minimum radii of the protection and surveillance zones, and the minimum length of time the measures should be applied in these zones. The general methodology used for this series of opinions has been published elsewhere; nonetheless, the transmission kernels used for the assessment of the minimum radii of the protection and surveillance zones are shown. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. Different risk-based sampling procedures based on clinical visits and laboratory testing are assessed in case of outbreak suspicion, granting animal movements and for repopulation purposes. The monitoring period of 21 days was assessed as effective. The estimated probability of transmission beyond the protection zone of 3 km radius from an infectious establishment is 9.695 3.1–25.8 and 2.395 1–5.5 for the surveillance zone of 10 km radius. This may be considered sufficient to contain the disease spread (95.3 Km). To contain 99 the radius should be increased to 19.4 km (95 9.8–26.8). This may increase the number of farms in the surveillance zone, since the area would increase fourfold.
AB - Abstract EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of some of the control measures against diseases included in the Category A list according to Regulation (EU) 2016/429 on transmissible animal diseases (‘Animal Health Law’). This opinion belongs to a series of opinions where these control measures will be assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for sheep and goat pox. In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period and (iii) the minimum radii of the protection and surveillance zones, and the minimum length of time the measures should be applied in these zones. The general methodology used for this series of opinions has been published elsewhere; nonetheless, the transmission kernels used for the assessment of the minimum radii of the protection and surveillance zones are shown. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. Different risk-based sampling procedures based on clinical visits and laboratory testing are assessed in case of outbreak suspicion, granting animal movements and for repopulation purposes. The monitoring period of 21 days was assessed as effective. The estimated probability of transmission beyond the protection zone of 3 km radius from an infectious establishment is 9.695 3.1–25.8 and 2.395 1–5.5 for the surveillance zone of 10 km radius. This may be considered sufficient to contain the disease spread (95.3 Km). To contain 99 the radius should be increased to 19.4 km (95 9.8–26.8). This may increase the number of farms in the surveillance zone, since the area would increase fourfold.
KW - SPP/GTP
KW - sampling procedures
KW - monitoring period
KW - protection zone
KW - surveillance zone
U2 - 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6933
DO - 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6933
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 34963791
VL - 19
SP - 1
EP - 89
JO - E F S A Journal
JF - E F S A Journal
SN - 1831-4732
IS - 12
M1 - e06933
ER -
ID: 288297618