Search

In contrast to previous incursions of highly pathogenic H5 viruses, H5N8 clade 2.3.4.4b caused numerous lethal infections in white-tailed sea eagles (Haliaeetus albicilla) in Germany during the winter 2016/2017. Until April 2017, 17 HPAIV H5N8-positive white-tailed sea eagles had been detected (three alive and 14 dead). Mainly young eagles died (before reaching the adult plumage at 5 years), often with severe neurological symptoms, where histopathology revealed mild to moderate, oligo- to multifocal necrotizing polioencephalitis. Lethal lead (Pb) concentrations, proven as main mortality factor of the sea eagles could be ruled out since values measured in liver or kidney tissue were all within background levels (< 1 ppm). Since the fall of 2016, the epizootic of HPAIV H5 clade 2.3.4.4b reportedly induced, for the first time, fatal disease in European white-tailed see eagles. The virus strain may become a new threat to a highly protected species across its distribution range in Eurasia. Positive cloacal swaps have proven that the eagles can spread the virus with their faeces.

The behaviour of free ranging wild boar (Sus scrofa) towards carcasses of their conspecifics potentially infected with African swine fever (ASF) may significantly influence the course of an ASF epidemic. This study aims to better understand the behaviour of wild boar towards their dead fellows. Thirty-two wild boar carcasses on nine study sites in northeast Germany were monitored under field conditions by photo-trapping from October 2015 until October 2016. During this period, a total of 122 160 pictures were taken, thereof 16 111 pictures from wild boar. In both winter and summer, wild boar seemed to be particularly interested in the soil next to and underneath the carcasses. About one third of the visits of wild boar lead to direct contact with dead conspecifics. The contacts consisted mostly in sniffing and poking on the carcass. Under the given ecological and climatic conditions, there was no evidence for intra-species scavenging. However, piglets were observed several times chewing bare bones once skeletonization of the carcasses was complete. It must be assumed that all these types of contact may represent a risk for transmission. Both the high tenacity of ASF virus and the long time wild boar carcasses can remain in the environment, allow the persistence of the virus for several months or even years. We therefore consider the rapid detection and removal (or destruction on the spot) of contaminated carcasses as an important control measure against ASF in wild boar.

The behaviour of free ranging wild boar (Sus scrofa) towards carcasses of their conspecifics potentially infected with African swine fever (ASF) may significantly influence the course of an ASF epidemic. This study aims to better understand the behaviour of wild boar towards their dead fellows. Thirty-two wild boar carcasses on nine study sites in northeast Germany were monitored under field conditions by photo-trapping from October 2015 until October 2016. During this period, a total of 122 160 pictures were taken, thereof 16 111 pictures from wild boar. In both winter and summer, wild boar seemed to be particularly interested in the soil next to and underneath the carcasses. About one third of the visits of wild boar lead to direct contact with dead conspecifics. The contacts consisted mostly in sniffing and poking on the carcass. Under the given ecological and climatic conditions, there was no evidence for intra-species scavenging. However, piglets were observed several times chewing bare bones once skeletonization of the carcasses was complete. It must be assumed that all these types of contact may represent a risk for transmission. Both the high tenacity of ASF virus and the long time wild boar carcasses can remain in the environment, allow the persistence of the virus for several months or even years. We therefore consider the rapid detection and removal (or destruction on the spot) of contaminated carcasses as an important control measure against ASF in wild boar.

The behaviour of free ranging wild boar (Sus scrofa) towards carcasses of their conspecifics potentially infected with African swine fever (ASF) may significantly influence the course of an ASF epidemic. This study aims to better understand the behaviour of wild boar towards their dead fellows. Thirty-two wild boar carcasses on nine study sites in northeast Germany were monitored under field conditions by photo-trapping from October 2015 until October 2016. During this period, a total of 122 160 pictures were taken, thereof 16 111 pictures from wild boar. In both winter and summer, wild boar seemed to be particularly interested in the soil next to and underneath the carcasses. About one third of the visits of wild boar lead to direct contact with dead conspecifics. The contacts consisted mostly in sniffing and poking on the carcass. Under the given ecological and climatic conditions, there was no evidence for intra-species scavenging. However, piglets were observed several times chewing bare bones once skeletonization of the carcasses was complete. It must be assumed that all these types of contact may represent a risk for transmission. Both the high tenacity of ASF virus and the long time wild boar carcasses can remain in the environment, allow the persistence of the virus for several months or even years. We therefore consider the rapid detection and removal (or destruction on the spot) of contaminated carcasses as an important control measure against ASF in wild boar.

The behaviour of free ranging wild boar (Sus scrofa) towards carcasses of their conspecifics potentially infected with African swine fever (ASF) may significantly influence the course of an ASF epidemic. This study aims to better understand the behaviour of wild boar towards their dead fellows. Thirty-two wild boar carcasses on nine study sites in northeast Germany were monitored under field conditions by photo-trapping from October 2015 until October 2016. During this period, a total of 122 160 pictures were taken, thereof 16 111 pictures from wild boar. In both winter and summer, wild boar seemed to be particularly interested in the soil next to and underneath the carcasses. About one third of the visits of wild boar lead to direct contact with dead conspecifics. The contacts consisted mostly in sniffing and poking on the carcass. Under the given ecological and climatic conditions, there was no evidence for intra-species scavenging. However, piglets were observed several times chewing bare bones once skeletonization of the carcasses was complete. It must be assumed that all these types of contact may represent a risk for transmission. Both the high tenacity of ASF virus and the long time wild boar carcasses can remain in the environment, allow the persistence of the virus for several months or even years. We therefore consider the rapid detection and removal (or destruction on the spot) of contaminated carcasses as an important control measure against ASF in wild boar.

The behaviour of free ranging wild boar (Sus scrofa) towards carcasses of their conspecifics potentially infected with African swine fever (ASF) may significantly influence the course of an ASF epidemic. This study aims to better understand the behaviour of wild boar towards their dead fellows. Thirty-two wild boar carcasses on nine study sites in northeast Germany were monitored under field conditions by photo-trapping from October 2015 until October 2016. During this period, a total of 122 160 pictures were taken, thereof 16 111 pictures from wild boar. In both winter and summer, wild boar seemed to be particularly interested in the soil next to and underneath the carcasses. About one third of the visits of wild boar lead to direct contact with dead conspecifics. The contacts consisted mostly in sniffing and poking on the carcass. Under the given ecological and climatic conditions, there was no evidence for intra-species scavenging. However, piglets were observed several times chewing bare bones once skeletonization of the carcasses was complete. It must be assumed that all these types of contact may represent a risk for transmission. Both the high tenacity of ASF virus and the long time wild boar carcasses can remain in the environment, allow the persistence of the virus for several months or even years. We therefore consider the rapid detection and removal (or destruction on the spot) of contaminated carcasses as an important control measure against ASF in wild boar.

Background: Surveillance measures can only be effective if key players in the system accept them. Acceptability, which describes the willingness of persons to contribute, is often analyzed using participatory methods. Participatory epidemiology enables the active involvement of key players in the assessment of epidemiological issues. In the present study, we used a participatory method recently developed by CIRAD (Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement) to evaluate the functionality and acceptability of Classical Swine Fever (CSF) surveillance in wild boar in Germany, which is highly dependent on the participation of hunters. The acceptability of alternative surveillance strategies was also analyzed. By conducting focus group discussions, potential vulnerabilities in the system were detected and feasible alternative surveillance strategies identified. Results: Trust in the current surveillance system is high, whereas the acceptability of the operation of the system is medium. Analysis of the acceptability of alternative surveillance strategies showed how risk-based surveillance approaches can be combined to develop strategies that have sufficient support and functionality. Furthermore, some surveillance strategies were clearly rejected by the hunters. Thus, the implementation of such strategies may be difficult. Conclusions: Participatory methods can be used to evaluate the functionality and acceptability of existing surveillance plans for CSF among hunters and to optimize plans regarding their chances of successful implementation.

APHAEA project partners., [Background]: The need for wildlife health surveillance as part of disease control in wildlife, domestic animals and humans on the global level is widely recognized. However, the objectives, methods and intensity of existing wildlife health surveillance programs vary greatly among European countries, resulting in a patchwork of data that are difficult to merge and compare. This survey aimed at evaluating the need and potential for data harmonization in wildlife health in Europe. The specific objective was to collect information on methods currently used to estimate host abundance and pathogen prevalence. Questionnaires were designed to gather detailed information for three host-pathogen combinations: (1) wild boar and Aujeszky's disease virus, (2) red fox and Echinococcus multilocularis, and (3) common vole and Francisella tularensis. [Results]: We received a total of 70 responses from 19 European countries. Regarding host abundance, hunting bags are currently the most widely accessible data source for widely distributed mid-sized and larger mammals such as red fox and wild boar, but we observed large differences in hunting strategies among countries as well as among different regions within countries. For small rodents, trapping is the method of choice, but practical applications vary among study sites. Laboratory procedures are already largely harmonized but information on the sampled animals is not systematically collected. [Conclusions]: The answers revealed that a large amount of information is available for the selected host-pathogen pairs and that in theory methods are already largely harmonized. However, the comparability of the data remains strongly compromised by local differences in the way, the methods are applied in practice. While these issues may easily be overcome for prevalence estimation, there is an urgent need to develop tools for the routine collection of host abundance data in a harmonized way. Wildlife health experts are encouraged to apply the harmonized APHAEA protocols in epidemiological studies in wildlife and to increase cooperation., Funding was provided by the EMIDA ERA-NET project APHAEA (grant no. 2811ERA117).