Literature DB >> 33665214

Modeling Intervention Scenarios During Potential Foot-and-Mouth Disease Outbreaks Within U.S. Beef Feedlots.

Aurelio H Cabezas1,2, Michael W Sanderson1,2, Victoriya V Volkova1,2.   

Abstract

Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) is a highly contagious disease of livestock and has severely affected livestock industries during the past two decades in previously FMD-free countries. The disease was eliminated in North America in 1953 but remains a threat for re-introduction. Approximately 44% of the on-feed beef cattle in the U.S. are concentrated in feedlots <32,000 heads, but little information is available on dynamics of FMD in large feedlots. Therefore, there is a need to explore possible management and intervention strategies that might be implemented during potential FMD outbreaks on feedlots. We used a within home-pen stochastic susceptible-latent-infectious-recovered (SLIR) FMD dynamics model nested in a meta-population model of home-pens in a feedlot. The combinatory model was previously developed to simulate foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDv) transmission within U.S. beef feedlots. We evaluated three intervention strategies initiated on the day of FMD detection: stopping movements of cattle between home-pens and hospital-pen(s) (NH), barrier depopulation combined with NH (NH-BD), and targeted depopulation of at-risk home-pens combined with NH (NH-TD). Depopulation rates investigated ranged from 500 to 4,000 cattle per day. We evaluated the projected effectiveness of interventions by comparing them with the no-intervention FMD dynamics in the feedlot. We modeled a small-size (4,000 cattle), medium-size (12,000 cattle), and large-size (24,000 cattle) feedlots. Implementation of NH delayed the outbreak progression, but it did not prevent infection of the entire feedlot. Implementation of NH-BD resulted in depopulation of 50% of cattle in small- and medium-size feedlots, and 25% in large-size feedlots, but the intervention prevented infection of the entire feedlot in 40% of simulated outbreaks in medium-size feedlots, and in 8% in large-size feedlots. Implementation of NH-TD resulted in depopulation of up to 50% of cattle in small-size feedlots, 75% in medium-size feedlots, and 25% in large-size feedlots, but rarely prevented infection of the entire feedlot. Number of hospital-pens in the feedlot was shown to weakly impact the success of NH-TD. Overall, the results suggest that stopping cattle movements between the home-pens and hospital-pens, without or with barrier or targeted cattle depopulation, would not be highly effective to interrupt FMDv transmission within a feedlot.
Copyright © 2021 Cabezas, Sanderson and Volkova.

Entities:  

Keywords:  beef cattle; beef feedlot; cattle depopulation; foot-and-mouth disease; intervention strategies; meta-population model

Year:  2021        PMID: 33665214      PMCID: PMC7921729          DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2021.559785

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Front Vet Sci        ISSN: 2297-1769


  37 in total

1.  The foot-and-mouth epidemic in Great Britain: pattern of spread and impact of interventions.

Authors:  N M Ferguson; C A Donnelly; R M Anderson
Journal:  Science       Date:  2001-04-12       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Descriptive epidemiology of the 2001 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in Great Britain: the first five months.

Authors:  J C Gibbens; C E Sharpe; J W Wilesmith; L M Mansley; E Michalopoulou; J B Ryan; M Hudson
Journal:  Vet Rec       Date:  2001-12-15       Impact factor: 2.695

3.  Modeling the spread and control of foot-and-mouth disease in Pennsylvania following its discovery and options for control.

Authors:  Michael J Tildesley; Gary Smith; Matt J Keeling
Journal:  Prev Vet Med       Date:  2011-12-12       Impact factor: 2.670

4.  An epidemiological analysis of the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in Miyazaki, Japan, 2010.

Authors:  H Nishiura; R Omori
Journal:  Transbound Emerg Dis       Date:  2010-08-15       Impact factor: 5.005

5.  Biocontainment, biosecurity, and security practices in beef feedyards.

Authors:  Aric W Brandt; Michael W Sanderson; Brad D DeGroot; Dan U Thomson; Larry C Hollis
Journal:  J Am Vet Med Assoc       Date:  2008-01-15       Impact factor: 1.936

6.  Modeling the impact of vaccination control strategies on a foot and mouth disease outbreak in the Central United States.

Authors:  Sara W McReynolds; Michael W Sanderson; Aaron Reeves; Ashley E Hill
Journal:  Prev Vet Med       Date:  2014-10-14       Impact factor: 2.670

7.  Potential revenue impact of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the United States.

Authors:  Philip L Paarlberg; John G Lee; Ann H Seitzinger
Journal:  J Am Vet Med Assoc       Date:  2002-04-01       Impact factor: 1.936

Review 8.  The foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in The Netherlands in 2001.

Authors:  A Bouma; A R W Elbers; A Dekker; A de Koeijer; C Bartels; P Vellema; P van der Wal; E M A van Rooij; F H Pluimers; M C M de Jong
Journal:  Prev Vet Med       Date:  2003-03-20       Impact factor: 2.670

Review 9.  Current Status and Future Prospects to Achieve Foot-and-Mouth Disease Eradication in South America.

Authors:  A Clavijo; M J Sanchez-Vazquez; L P Buzanovsky; M Martini; J C Pompei; O Cosivi
Journal:  Transbound Emerg Dis       Date:  2015-03-09       Impact factor: 5.005

10.  Modeling the Transmission of Foot and Mouth Disease to Inform Transportation of Infected Carcasses to a Disposal Site During an Outbreak Event.

Authors:  Emily Walz; Jamie Middleton; Fernando Sampedro; Kimberly VanderWaal; Sasidhar Malladi; Timothy Goldsmith
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2020-01-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.