TY - JOUR
T1 - African swine fever in wild boar
AU - EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW)
AU - More, Simon
AU - Miranda, Miguel Angel
AU - Bicout, Dominique
AU - Bøtner, Anette
AU - Butterworth, Andrew
AU - Calistri, Paolo
AU - Edwards, Sandra
AU - Garin-Bastuji, Bruno
AU - Good, Margaret
AU - Michel, Virginie
AU - Raj, Mohan
AU - Nielsen, Søren Saxmose
AU - Sihvonen, Liisa
AU - Spoolder, Hans
AU - Stegeman, Jan Arend
AU - Velarde, Antonio
AU - Willeberg, Preben
AU - Winckler, Christoph
AU - Depner, Klaus
AU - Guberti, Vittorio
AU - Masiulis, Marius
AU - Olsevskis, Edvins
AU - Satran, Petr
AU - Spiridon, Mihaela
AU - Thulke, Hans-Hermann
AU - Vilrop, Arvo
AU - Wozniakowski, Grzegorz
AU - Bau, Andrea
AU - Broglia, Alessandro
AU - Cortiñas Abrahantes, José
AU - Dhollander, Sofie
AU - Gogin, Andrey
AU - Muñoz Gajardo, Irene
AU - Verdonck, Frank
AU - Amato, Laura
AU - Gortázar Schmidt, Christian
N1 - © 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.
PY - 2018/7
Y1 - 2018/7
N2 - The European Commission requested EFSA to compare the reliability of wild boar density estimates across the EU and to provide guidance to improve data collection methods. Currently, the only EU-wide available data are hunting data. Their collection methods should be harmonised to be comparable and to improve predictive models for wild boar density. These models could be validated by more precise density data, collected at local level e.g. by camera trapping. Based on practical and theoretical considerations, it is currently not possible to establish wild boar density thresholds that do not allow sustaining African swine fever (ASF). There are many drivers determining if ASF can be sustained or not, including heterogeneous population structures and human-mediated spread and there are still unknowns on the importance of different transmission modes in the epidemiology. Based on extensive literature reviews and observations from affected Member States, the efficacy of different wild boar population reduction and separation methods is evaluated. Different wild boar management strategies at different stages of the epidemic are suggested. Preventive measures to reduce and stabilise wild boar density, before ASF introduction, will be beneficial both in reducing the probability of exposure of the population to ASF and the efforts needed for potential emergency actions (i.e. less carcass removal) if an ASF incursion were to occur. Passive surveillance is the most effective and efficient method of surveillance for early detection of ASF in free areas. Following focal ASF introduction, the wild boar populations should be kept undisturbed for a short period (e.g. hunting ban on all species, leave crops unharvested to provide food and shelter within the affected area) and drastic reduction of the wild boar population may be performed only ahead of the ASF advance front, in the free populations. Following the decline in the epidemic, as demonstrated through passive surveillance, active population management should be reconsidered.
AB - The European Commission requested EFSA to compare the reliability of wild boar density estimates across the EU and to provide guidance to improve data collection methods. Currently, the only EU-wide available data are hunting data. Their collection methods should be harmonised to be comparable and to improve predictive models for wild boar density. These models could be validated by more precise density data, collected at local level e.g. by camera trapping. Based on practical and theoretical considerations, it is currently not possible to establish wild boar density thresholds that do not allow sustaining African swine fever (ASF). There are many drivers determining if ASF can be sustained or not, including heterogeneous population structures and human-mediated spread and there are still unknowns on the importance of different transmission modes in the epidemiology. Based on extensive literature reviews and observations from affected Member States, the efficacy of different wild boar population reduction and separation methods is evaluated. Different wild boar management strategies at different stages of the epidemic are suggested. Preventive measures to reduce and stabilise wild boar density, before ASF introduction, will be beneficial both in reducing the probability of exposure of the population to ASF and the efforts needed for potential emergency actions (i.e. less carcass removal) if an ASF incursion were to occur. Passive surveillance is the most effective and efficient method of surveillance for early detection of ASF in free areas. Following focal ASF introduction, the wild boar populations should be kept undisturbed for a short period (e.g. hunting ban on all species, leave crops unharvested to provide food and shelter within the affected area) and drastic reduction of the wild boar population may be performed only ahead of the ASF advance front, in the free populations. Following the decline in the epidemic, as demonstrated through passive surveillance, active population management should be reconsidered.
U2 - 10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5344
DO - 10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5344
M3 - Article
C2 - 32625980
SN - 1831-4732
VL - 16
JO - EFSA Journal
JF - EFSA Journal
IS - 7
M1 - e05344
ER -