GRF 2nd One Health Summit 2013: Presentation by DEPNER, Dr. Klaus, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institute, Federal Research Institute of Animal Health

1. New non-invasive methods for control and
surveillance of transboundary animal diseases in
the backyard and free ranging pig sector
Klaus Depner, Vesna Milicevic, Klaas Dietze
Global Risk Forum GRF Davos, One Health Summit 2013
17 – 20 November 2013

2. TADs are defined as those diseases that are:
• of significant economic, trade and/or food security
importance for a considerable number of countries;
• which can easily spread to other countries and reach
epidemic proportions;
• where control/management, including
exclusion, requires cooperation between several
countries.

3. Backyard farming
=
Low biosecurity production
settings
The term ‘backyard pig holding’ usually refers to small-scale
holdings that only keep a limited number of pigs, mainly for
self-consumption or for small-scale local trade, and that
operate within a circuit that is separate from the pig industry.
From a zootechnical, commercial and veterinary point of view
these holdings could be regarded rather as ‘non-professional
pig holdings’

4. 975 730 000 pigs; 40% in low biosecurity systems
China: 65%
Latin America 3%
Eastern Europe 3%
High income countries: 25%

5. Socio-economical role of backyard
farming
… apart from tradition
• plays an integral role in recycling of food,
• plays an important role for meat supply
in rural areas and
• is a valuable cash income.

6. Reservoir for TADs
(FMD, ASF, CSF…)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
poor biosecurity
swill feeding
high number of holdings
“illegal” animal movements and markets
outdoor keeping, including traditional free ranging systems
home slaughtering
lack of registration and identification
not fully under the control of vet service
holders have no immediate interest or incentives in the
eradication of animal diseases (holders have no lobby)

7. Back yard pigs

8. Semi-wild pigs

9. Home
slaughtering
at Christmas

11. Legislation is dealing with
2 aspects
CSF in farmed pigs
I
• Stamping out
• Restriction zones
• No vaccination
• Sanitary measures
• Prophylactic culling
• etc.
CSF in wild boar
• Monitoring
• Hunting
• Oral vaccination
• Sanitary measures
• etc.
II
Backyard pigs: Feral pigs or farmed pigs?

12. Backyard pigs = 3rd compartment
CSF in backyard
pigs
I
CSF in farmed
pigs
III
II
CSF in wild boar

13. Improved CSF control in
backyard pigs through oral vaccination

14. Oral vaccination of back yard pigs against CSF in Serbia
WORKING HYPOTHESIS
ORAL VACCINATION CAN BE USED FOR VACCINATION OF BACKYARD
PIGS, PARTICULARLY UNDER ENDEMIC SITUATIONS IN COUNTRIES OR
REGIONS WITH A HUGE PROPORTION OF BACK YARD HOLDINGS.

15. Neutralisation Titres (ND50)
<12
weeks
(N=44)
0
DPV
28
DPV
INTERPRETATION
7
≤5
≤5
NO IMMUNE REACTION
7
3
≤5
10 - 30
SLIGHT SEROCONVERSION,
INADEQUATE PROTECTION*
3
6
10 - 30
5 - 30
NO TITRE INCREASE,
INADEQUATE PROTECTION
1
2
15
Protective antibodies post vac.:
SEROCONVERSION,
≤5
40 - 80older than 12 weeks
73% pigs
PROTECTION
64% pigs younger than 12 weeks
120 SEROCONVERSION,
≤5
>12
weeks
(N=41)
5
18
640
PROTECTION
≤5
>640
SEROCONVERSION,
PROTECTION
4
6
10 -160
MORE
THAN
3X
INCRE
ASE
SIGNIFICANT TITRE
INCREASE, PROTECTION
3
2
40-80
80
NO TITRE INCREASE,
PROTECTION
0
3

16. pathogenSWAB
S ampling
Wild
A nimal with
B aits
Non-invasive saliva sampling method

17. pSWAB

18. ASF
CSF
FMD
pSWAB
+
= pos

19. Conclusions
Alternative disease control measures are needed for the back yard sector.
Well established control and eradication programmes for the industrialized sector
is not working in the back yards.
Oral vaccination and non-invasiv sampling are cheep and feasible disease control
approaches for the future.
Disease control legislation has to take into account the reality of
backyard husbandry.

20. THANK YOU