4.5 Article

Patterns of ASFV Transmission in Domestic Pigs in Serbia

期刊

PATHOGENS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pathogens12010149

关键词

African swine fever; domestic pigs; wild boar; disease drivers; Serbia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The first case of African swine fever in domestic pigs in Serbia was reported in 2019, followed by confirmed cases in wild boars. However, outbreaks in domestic pigs could not be directly linked to wild boars, despite the fact that wild boars were infected and served as reservoirs. This study aimed to investigate outbreaks and transmission routes in domestic pigs in a region of central Serbia where no outbreaks in wild boar were reported, and it was found that 14 outbreaks of ASF on backyard farms with low biosecurity were not connected to wild boars.
The first case of African swine fever in domestic pigs in Serbia was in 2019. The following year, the disease was confirmed in wild boar. Thenceforth, ASF has been continuously reported in both wild and domestic pigs. The outbreaks in domestic pigs could not be linked directly to wild boars, even though wild boars were endemically infected, and reservoirs for ASF. This study aimed to investigate outbreaks and routes of transmission in domestic pigs in a region of central Serbia where no outbreaks in wild boar were reported. Fourteen outbreaks of ASF on backyard farms with low biosecurity were traced back, and no connection to wild boar was found. The epidemic investigation covered 2094 holdings, with 24,368 pigs, out of which 1882 were tested for ASF. In surrounding hunting grounds, field searches were conducted. Dead wild boars were found, and 138 hunted wild boars were negative for ASFV. It was concluded that outbreaks in 2021 were provoked by the illegal trade of live animals and pig products. Even though infective pressure from wild boars is assumed, no positive cases have been found, while the ASFV spreads within the domestic swine population evidenced in four recent outbreaks in 2022.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据