Ability of different matrices to transmit African swine fever virus

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Documents

  • Nielsen, Søren Saxmose
  • Julio Alvarez
  • Dominique Joseph Bicout
  • Paolo Calistri
  • Elisabetta Canali
  • Julian Ashley Drewe
  • Bruno Garin-Bastuji
  • Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas
  • Christian Gortázar Schmidt
  • Mette S Herskin
  • Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca
  • Virginie Michel
  • Barbara Padalino
  • Paolo Pasquali
  • Liisa Helena Sihvonen
  • Hans Spoolder
  • Karl Stahl
  • Antonio Velarde
  • Arvo Viltrop
  • Christoph Winckler
  • Boklund, Anette Ella
  • Anette Botner
  • Andrea Gervelmeyer
  • Olaf Mosbach-Schulz
  • Helen Clare Roberts
  • EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW)

This opinion assesses the risk posed by different matrices to introduce African swine fever virus (ASFV) to non-affected regions of the EU. Matrices assessed are feed materials, enrichment/bedding materials and empty live pigs transport vehicles returning from affected areas. Although the risk from feed is considered to be lower than several other pathways (e.g. contact with infected live animals and swill feeding), it cannot be ruled out that matrices assessed in this opinion pose a risk. Evidence on survival of ASFV in different matrices from literature and a public consultation was used in an Expert Knowledge Elicitation (EKE) on the possible contamination of products and traded or imported product volumes used on pig farms. The EKE results were used in a model that provided a risk-rank for each product's contamination likelihood ('q'), its trade or import volume from affected EU or Eurasian areas (N) and the modelled number of potentially infected pig farms (N × q). The products ranking higher regardless of origin or destination were mash and pelleted compound feed, feed additives and cereals. Bedding/enrichment materials, hydrolysed proteins and blood products ranked lowest regardless of origin or destination. Empty vehicles ranked lower than compound feed but higher than non-compound feed or bedding/enrichment material. It is very likely (95-99% certainty) that compound feed and cereals rank higher than feed materials, which rank higher than bedding/enrichment material and forage. As this is an assessment based on several parameters including the contamination and delivery to a pig farm, all of which have the same impact on the final ranking, risk managers should consider how the relative rank of each product may change with an effective storage period or a virus inactivation step.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere06558
JournalE F S A Journal
Volume19
Issue number4
Pages (from-to)1-109
Number of pages109
ISSN1831-4732
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2021

Bibliographical note

© 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.

Number of downloads are based on statistics from Google Scholar and www.ku.dk


No data available

ID: 261153712