Suchergebnisse

Abstract Background More and more countries hold databases on cattle movements. The primary purpose of the registration of cattle movements is to provide data for quick tracing of contagious animals in case of disease outbreaks and food safety scares. Nevertheless, these data can also be used for analytical studies to get insight into the nature of the contact structure between and within cattle holding types. This paper focuses on the effect post-2001 FMD movement regulations have had on the number of cattle movements between different and within the same cattle holding types. Important characteristics and dynamics of cattle movement patterns of Dutch cattle holding types were identified using data on cattle movements after the 2001 FMD outbreak. Results The results showed that in 2001, just after the FMD outbreak when strict movement restriction regulations were in force, a reduced number of cattle movements was seen compared to before the FMD outbreak. However, the number of cattle movements off-farm for live trade and the number of imported cattle increased in the period 2002–2004 to higher levels than expected, i.e. to levels almost as high as before the FMD outbreak, despite operative movement restriction regulations. As the number of cattle movements to and from traders strongly decreased just after the FMD outbreak in 2001, traders regained their central role again in the network in the years 2002–2004. Conclusions Quantifying the Dutch cattle contact structure between and within holding types up to 3.5 years after the FMD outbreak gave evidence that the post-FMD movement restriction regulations were not able to reduce the number of cattle movements in the longer term. With that the risk of a large epidemic increased. Quantifying contact structures based on animal movement data between different and within the same cattle holding types is important for targeting disease control and for assessing compliance with legislation.

Background: In the Netherlands, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is monitored in commensal indicator Escherichia coli from healthy broilers at slaughter as part of a European monitoring programme. In a separate programme for poultry health, AMR is monitored in veterinary pathogens from diseased broilers. So far, it is unknown how the outcomes of these two AMR monitoring approaches in the same animal population are associated. Aims: This study aims to investigate the association between the outcomes of monitoring non-wildtype susceptibility (using epidemiological cut-off values, ECOFF, as prescribed by EU legislation) in commensal E. coli isolated from healthy broilers (i.e. active surveillance) with the outcomes of monitoring clinical resistance (using clinical breakpoints, to determine susceptibility for antibiotic treatment in veterinary practice) in E. coli isolated from diseased broilers (i.e. passive surveillance). Methods: Data acquired by broth microdilution was analysed for commensal indicator E. coli and clinical E. coli from the Netherlands, 2014–2019. A generalized linear multivariable model (Poisson regression) was used to determine time trends and identify differences in mean resistant proportions. Results: Observed resistant proportions of the monitored commensal E. coli and clinical E. coli were similar with overlapping confidence intervals for most time points for ampicillin, gentamicin, cefotaxime, tetracycline, colistin and trimethoprim/sulfonamide. The statistical analysis showed that only for cefotaxime and tetracycline, mean resistant proportions were different. In commensal E. coli, a decrease of resistant proportions over time was observed, except for gentamicin. In clinical E. coli, no time trend was detected in resistant proportions, except for cefotaxime and colistin. Conclusions: Generally, the resistant proportions monitored in commensal and clinical E. coli were similar. However, some relevant differences were found, which can be explained by the type of monitoring approach, i.e. ...

Agriculture is an important production sector in Albania that makes a significant contribution to the gross domestic product (GDP) and employment. The livestock sector contributes more than half of the agricultural GDP. The Albanian cattle population represents 50% of the total livestock units and accounts for 85% of the national milk production, the rest being supplied by small ruminants. Cattle productivity, health and welfare are hindered by infectious diseases, some of which are also transmissible to humans (zoonosis). The aim of this manuscript is to provide an overview of the control of selected regulated and non-EU regulated cattle diseases in Albania and to highlight specific challenges for the Albanian cattle industry. The most important infectious cattle diseases in Albania for which national control and eradication strategies are in place are bovine brucellosis, bovine tuberculosis, and anthrax, which are all zoonotic. Additionally, lumpy skin disease recently emerged in the Balkan region and is currently subject to controls. Most of the available funds and European Union support are allocated to the control of EU regulated zoonotic diseases. For control of non-EU regulated cattle diseases, no funds are available resulting in the lack of national control programmes (CPs). Based on research, clinical investigations and laboratory results, several non-EU regulated cattle infectious diseases appear endemic in Albanian dairy farms. While no national CPs exist for any of them, regional initiatives are available on a voluntary basis to control infectious bovine rhinotracheitis and bovine viral diarrhea. In the voluntary CPs, there is no monitored requirement to prove disease freedom of purchased animals and to re-evaluate the herd's free status after the introduction of animals into a herd. Data on animal movements that are routinely collected could potentially be used to control the risk of purchase, but quality needs to be further improved to increase its usefulness in disease CPs. This overview aims to ...

Animal health surveillance is an important tool for disease mitigation and helps to promote animal health and welfare, protect human health, support efficient animal production, and enable trade. This study aimed to assess adoption of recommended standards and best practice for surveillance (including risk-based approaches) in Europe. It included scoping interviews with surveillance experts in Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland to gather information on knowledge acquisition, decisions and implementation of surveillance, and perceptions. This was followed by an online survey among animal health and food safety surveillance users in EU, EEA, and Schengen countries. A total of 166 responses were collected from 27 countries; 111 were eligible for analysis. A strong preference for legislation and established standards was observed, with peer-reviewed publications, conferences, symposia, and workshops to be major sources of information. The majority of respondents indicated a need for international evaluation for surveillance and implied that considerations of cost-effectiveness were essential when making a decision to adopt new surveillance standards. However, most of the respondents did not use a formal evaluation to inform the adoption of new standards or only conducted a descriptive assessment before their implementation or adaptation. Only a few respondents reported a quantitative economic evaluation despite economic efficiency being considered as a highly relevant criterion for surveillance implementation. Constraints mentioned in the adoption of new surveillance standards included insufficient time, financial and human resources, and lack of competency. Researchers aiming to achieve impact by their surveillance work are advised to consider ways of influencing binding standards and to disseminate their work pro-actively using varied channels of engagement tailored to relevant target audiences and their needs. Generally, a more formal linkage between surveillance information and disease mitigation ...

Animal health surveillance is an important tool for disease mitigation and helps to promote animal health and welfare, protect human health, support efficient animal production, and enable trade. This study aimed to assess adoption of recommended standards and best practice for surveillance (including risk-based approaches) in Europe. It included scoping interviews with surveillance experts in Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland to gather information on knowledge acquisition, decisions and implementation of surveillance, and perceptions. This was followed by an online survey among animal health and food safety surveillance users in EU, EEA, and Schengen countries. A total of 166 responses were collected from 27 countries; 111 were eligible for analysis. A strong preference for legislation and established standards was observed, with peer-reviewed publications, conferences, symposia, and workshops to be major sources of information. The majority of respondents indicated a need for international evaluation for surveillance and implied that considerations of cost-effectiveness were essential when making a decision to adopt new surveillance standards. However, most of the respondents did not use a formal evaluation to inform the adoption of new standards or only conducted a descriptive assessment before their implementation or adaptation. Only a few respondents reported a quantitative economic evaluation despite economic efficiency being considered as a highly relevant criterion for surveillance implementation. Constraints mentioned in the adoption of new surveillance standards included insufficient time, financial and human resources, and lack of competency. Researchers aiming to achieve impact by their surveillance work are advised to consider ways of influencing binding standards and to disseminate their work pro-actively using varied channels of engagement tailored to relevant target audiences and their needs. Generally, a more formal linkage between surveillance information and disease mitigation decisions—for example, by using systematic evaluation—could help increase the economic value of surveillance efforts. Finally, a collaborative, international platform for exchange and learning on surveillance as well as co-design and dissemination of surveillance standards is recommended.

Animal health surveillance is an important tool for disease mitigation and helps to promote animal health and welfare, protect human health, support efficient animal production, and enable trade. This study aimed to assess adoption of recommended standards and best practice for surveillance (including risk-based approaches) in Europe. It included scoping interviews with surveillance experts in Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland to gather information on knowledge acquisition, decisions and implementation of surveillance, and perceptions. This was followed by an online survey among animal health and food safety surveillance users in EU, EEA, and Schengen countries. A total of 166 responses were collected from 27 countries; 111 were eligible for analysis. A strong preference for legislation and established standards was observed, with peer-reviewed publications, conferences, symposia, and workshops to be major sources of information. The majority of respondents indicated a need for international evaluation for surveillance and implied that considerations of cost-effectiveness were essential when making a decision to adopt new surveillance standards. However, most of the respondents did not use a formal evaluation to inform the adoption of new standards or only conducted a descriptive assessment before their implementation or adaptation. Only a few respondents reported a quantitative economic evaluation despite economic efficiency being considered as a highly relevant criterion for surveillance implementation. Constraints mentioned in the adoption of new surveillance standards included insufficient time, financial and human resources, and lack of competency. Researchers aiming to achieve impact by their surveillance work are advised to consider ways of influencing binding standards and to disseminate their work pro-actively using varied channels of engagement tailored to relevant target audiences and their needs. Generally, a more formal linkage between surveillance information and disease mitigation ...

Agriculture is an important production sector in Albania that makes a significant contribution to the gross domestic product (GDP) and employment. The livestock sector contributes more than half of the agricultural GDP. The Albanian cattle population represents 50% of the total livestock units and accounts for 85% of the national milk production, the rest being supplied by small ruminants. Cattle productivity, health and welfare are hindered by infectious diseases, some of which are also transmissible to humans (zoonosis). The aim of this manuscript is to provide an overview of the control of selected regulated and non-EU regulated cattle diseases in Albania and to highlight specific challenges for the Albanian cattle industry. The most important infectious cattle diseases in Albania for which national control and eradication strategies are in place are bovine brucellosis, bovine tuberculosis, and anthrax, which are all zoonotic. Additionally, lumpy skin disease recently emerged in the Balkan region and is currently subject to controls. Most of the available funds and European Union support are allocated to the control of EU regulated zoonotic diseases. For control of non-EU regulated cattle diseases, no funds are available resulting in the lack of national control programmes (CPs). Based on research, clinical investigations and laboratory results, several non-EU regulated cattle infectious diseases appear endemic in Albanian dairy farms. While no national CPs exist for any of them, regional initiatives are available on a voluntary basis to control infectious bovine rhinotracheitis and bovine viral diarrhea. In the voluntary CPs, there is no monitored requirement to prove disease freedom of purchased animals and to re-evaluate the herd's free status after the introduction of animals into a herd. Data on animal movements that are routinely collected could potentially be used to control the risk of purchase, but quality needs to be further improved to increase its usefulness in disease CPs. This overview aims to ...

International audience ; Several European countries have implemented country specific programmes to control cattle diseases with little or no regulation in the European Union (EU). These control programmes vary between member states, impairing a confident comparison of freedom from disease when cattle originate from different countries. In order to facilitate safe trade, there is a need to support the development of transparent methods that enable comparison of outputs of surveillance, control or eradication programmes. The aim of the COST Action (CA 17110), Standardizing OUtput-based surveillance to control Non-regulated Diseases in the EU (SOUND control), is the development of a generic and joint understanding of the requirements and characteristics needed for a flexible output-based framework. This framework should be able to substantiate the confidence of disease freedom and cost-effectiveness of heterogeneous surveillance, control or eradication programmes for cattle diseases in the EU. This project supports other initiatives in the development of an output-based framework which will subsequently facilitate safe trade and support the improvement of disease control measures, which is of great importance as the cattle sector contributes to one third of the total gross production value of EU agriculture.

Several European countries have implemented country specific programmes to control cattle diseases with little or no regulation in the European Union (EU). These control programmes vary between member states, impairing a confident comparison of freedom from disease when cattle originate from different countries. In order to facilitate safe trade, there is a need to support the development of transparent methods that enable comparison of outputs of surveillance, control or eradication programmes. The aim of the COST Action (CA 17110), Standardizing OUtput-based surveillance to control Non-regulated Diseases in the EU (SOUND control), is the development of a generic and joint understanding of the requirements and characteristics needed for a flexible output-based framework. This framework should be able to substantiate the confidence of disease freedom and cost-effectiveness of heterogeneous surveillance, control or eradication programmes for cattle diseases in the EU. This project supports other initiatives in the development of an output-based framework which will subsequently facilitate safe trade and support the improvement of disease control measures, which is of great importance as the cattle sector contributes to one third of the total gross production value of EU agriculture.

International audience ; Several European countries have implemented country specific programmes to control cattle diseases with little or no regulation in the European Union (EU). These control programmes vary between member states, impairing a confident comparison of freedom from disease when cattle originate from different countries. In order to facilitate safe trade, there is a need to support the development of transparent methods that enable comparison of outputs of surveillance, control or eradication programmes. The aim of the COST Action (CA 17110), Standardizing OUtput-based surveillance to control Non-regulated Diseases in the EU (SOUND control), is the development of a generic and joint understanding of the requirements and characteristics needed for a flexible output-based framework. This framework should be able to substantiate the confidence of disease freedom and cost-effectiveness of heterogeneous surveillance, control or eradication programmes for cattle diseases in the EU. This project supports other initiatives in the development of an output-based framework which will subsequently facilitate safe trade and support the improvement of disease control measures, which is of great importance as the cattle sector contributes to one third of the total gross production value of EU agriculture.

Several European countries have implemented country specific programmes to control cattle diseases with little or no regulation in the European Union (EU). These control programmes vary between member states, impairing a confident comparison of freedom from disease when cattle originate from different countries. In order to facilitate safe trade, there is a need to support the development of transparent methods that enable comparison of outputs of surveillance, control or eradication programmes. The aim of the COST Action (CA 17110), Standardizing OUtput-based surveillance to control Non-regulated Diseases in the EU (SOUND control), is the development of a generic and joint understanding of the requirements and characteristics needed for a flexible output-based framework. This framework should be able to substantiate the confidence of disease freedom and cost-effectiveness of heterogeneous surveillance, control or eradication programmes for cattle diseases in the EU. This project supports other initiatives in the development of an output-based framework which will subsequently facilitate safe trade and support the improvement of disease control measures, which is of great importance as the cattle sector contributes to one third of the total gross production value of EU agriculture.

Several European countries have implemented country specific programmes to control cattle diseases with little or no regulation in the European Union (EU). These control programmes vary between member states, impairing a confident comparison of freedom from disease when cattle originate from different countries. In order to facilitate safe trade, there is a need to support the development of transparent methods that enable comparison of outputs of surveillance, control or eradication programmes. The aim of the COST Action (CA 17110), Standardizing OUtput-based surveillance to control Non-regulated Diseases in the EU (SOUND control), is the development of a generic and joint understanding of the requirements and characteristics needed for a flexible output-based framework. This framework should be able to substantiate the confidence of disease freedom and cost-effectiveness of heterogeneous surveillance, control or eradication programmes for cattle diseases in the EU. This project supports other initiatives in the development of an output-based framework which will subsequently facilitate safe trade and support the improvement of disease control measures, which is of great importance as the cattle sector contributes to one third of the total gross production value of EU agriculture.

Some European countries have successfully implemented country-specific control programs (CPs) for infectious cattle diseases that are not regulated or are regulated only to a limited extent at the European Union (EU) level. Examples of such diseases include bovine viral diarrhea (BVD), infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR), and Johne's disease (JD). The CPs vary between countries in the design and quality of collected data as well as methods used to detect infection and estimate prevalence or probability of freedom from infection. Differences in disease status between countries and non-standardized approaches to assess freedom from infection pose a risk for countries with CPs for non-regulated diseases as infected animals may influence the progress of the disease control or eradication program. The implementation of output-based standards allows estimation and comparison of the probability of freedom for non-regulated cattle diseases in European countries. The aim of the current study was to assess the existence and quality of data that could be used for estimating freedom from infection in European countries. The online data collection tool was sent to 32 countries participating in the SOUND control COST Action and was completed by 24 countries. Data on cattle demographics and data from CPs of IBR and BVD exist in more than 50% of the response countries. However, data describing risk factors and CP of JD was reported as existing in <25% of the countries. The overall quality of data in the sections on demographics and CPs of IBR and BVD were evaluated as "good", but risk factors and JD data were mostly evaluated as "fair." Data quality was considered less good mainly due to two quality criteria: accessibility and accuracy. The results of this study show that the quantity and quality of data about cattle populations and CPs are relatively similar in many surveyed countries. The outcome of this work provides an overview of the current situation in the European countries regarding data on EU non-regulated ...

Some European countries have successfully implemented country-specific control programs (CPs) for infectious cattle diseases that are not regulated or are regulated only to a limited extent at the European Union (EU) level. Examples of such diseases include bovine viral diarrhea (BVD), infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR), and Johne's disease (JD). The CPs vary between countries in the design and quality of collected data as well as methods used to detect infection and estimate prevalence or probability of freedom from infection. Differences in disease status between countries and non-standardized approaches to assess freedom from infection pose a risk for countries with CPs for non-regulated diseases as infected animals may influence the progress of the disease control or eradication program. The implementation of output-based standards allows estimation and comparison of the probability of freedom for non-regulated cattle diseases in European countries. The aim of the current study was to assess the existence and quality of data that could be used for estimating freedom from infection in European countries. The online data collection tool was sent to 32 countries participating in the SOUND control COST Action and was completed by 24 countries. Data on cattle demographics and data from CPs of IBR and BVD exist in more than 50% of the response countries. However, data describing risk factors and CP of JD was reported as existing in <25% of the countries. The overall quality of data in the sections on demographics and CPs of IBR and BVD were evaluated as "good", but risk factors and JD data were mostly evaluated as "fair." Data quality was considered less good mainly due to two quality criteria: accessibility and accuracy. The results of this study show that the quantity and quality of data about cattle populations and CPs are relatively similar in many surveyed countries. The outcome of this work provides an overview of the current situation in the European countries regarding data on EU non-regulated cattle diseases and will further assist in the development and implementation of output-based standards.

Some European countries have successfully implemented country-specific control programs (CPs) for infectious cattle diseases that are not regulated or are regulated only to a limited extent at the European Union (EU) level. Examples of such diseases include bovine viral diarrhea (BVD), infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR), and Johne's disease (JD). The CPs vary between countries in the design and quality of collected data as well as methods used to detect infection and estimate prevalence or probability of freedom from infection. Differences in disease status between countries and non-standardized approaches to assess freedom from infection pose a risk for countries with CPs for non-regulated diseases as infected animals may influence the progress of the disease control or eradication program. The implementation of output-based standards allows estimation and comparison of the probability of freedom for non-regulated cattle diseases in European countries. The aim of the current study was to assess the existence and quality of data that could be used for estimating freedom from infection in European countries. The online data collection tool was sent to 32 countries participating in the SOUND control COST Action and was completed by 24 countries. Data on cattle demographics and data from CPs of IBR and BVD exist in more than 50% of the response countries. However, data describing risk factors and CP of JD was reported as existing in < 25% of the countries. The overall quality of data in the sections on demographics and CPs of IBR and BVD were evaluated as "good ", but risk factors and JD data were mostly evaluated as "fair. " Data quality was considered less good mainly due to two quality criteria: accessibility and accuracy. The results of this study show that the quantity and quality of data about cattle populations and CPs are relatively similar in many surveyed countries. The outcome of this work provides an overview of the current situation in the European countries regarding data on EU non-regulated ...