Disease control – Swine in Minnesota

Evaluating on-farm sampling strategies for early detection of African swine fever

This is our Friday rubric: every week a new Science Page from the Bob Morrison’s Swine Health Monitoring Project. The previous editions of the science page are available on our website.

North Carolina State University researchers Jason A. Galvis, Aniruddha Deka and Gustavo Machado share their findings about the use of different sampling methods for early detection of ASFV in today’s Science Page.

Partitioning, a novel approach to mitigate the risk and impact of African Swine Fever (ASF) in endemic settings

This is our Friday rubric: every week a new Science Page from the Bob Morrison’s Swine Health Monitoring Project. The previous editions of the science page are available on our website.

In this week’s Science Page Solenne Costard, Andres M. Perez, Francisco J. Zagmutt, Jane G. Pouzou, and Huybert Groenendaal share how partioning would contribute to the improved resilience and sustainability of the global pork industry.

Yes, science should inform policy, but how?

By Kaitlyn St. Charles, Carol Cardona, Timothy Goldsmith, Cesar Corzo and Marie Culhane, University of Minnesota

Stop movement orders are a big deal for all production phases, particularly for live pigs, but also for semen movements from boar studs to breeding farms.

In the United States, animal agriculture is having to make tough decisions about the quickly spreading and far-reaching diseases caused by H5 2.3.4.4b influenza A virus (USDA 2024). There have been substantial organized efforts to control H5 2.3.4.4b IAV in domestic poultry, because it is the cause of highly pathogenic avian influenza with severe illness and high death loss in infected flocks. So, it should be no surprise that efforts need to be made to control virus spread in other species, including humans.

Wait and see? Biosecurity decision-making under disease risk – Part 2

In the previous science page, Gabriela Bucini, Scott C. Merrill, Eric M. Clark, and Julie M. Smith of the Social Ecological Gaming and Simulation Lab at the University of Vermont shared that the decisions made by the players in different scenarios of disease risk, risk communication strategies, and neighboring farm biosecurity implementation allowed us to identify three prominent behavioral groups. The risk tolerant players invested very little in biosecurity in contrast to risk averse players who invested consistently throughout the simulation to protect their farms. Our third category, risk opportunists, primarily invested in biosecurity during high risk scenarios but limited investments during rounds with lower chance of infection.

Wait and see? Biosecurity decision-making under disease risk – Part 1

This short science page offers insights on decision making where a wait-and-see attitude induces a delay in biosecurity investments and implementation, which creates instability and uncertainty in the industry’s ability and capacity to control disease. Written by Gabriela Bucini, Scott C. Merrill, Eric M. Clark, and Julie M. Smith of the Social Ecological Gaming and Simulation Lab, University of Vermont.