This literature review provides an overview of use of environmental samples (ES) such as faeces, water, air, mud and swabs of surfaces in avian influenza (AI) surveillance programs, focussing on effectiveness, advantages and gaps in knowledge. ES have been used effectively for AI surveillance since the 1970s. Results from ES have enhanced understanding of the biology of AI viruses in wild birds and in markets, of links between human and avian influenza, provided early warning of viral incursions, allowed assessment of effectiveness of control and preventive measures, and assisted epidemiological studies in outbreaks, both avian and human. Variation exists in the methods and protocols used, and no internationally recognized guidelines exist on the use of ES and data management. Few studies have performed direct comparisons of ES versus live bird samples (LBS). Results reported so far demonstrate reliance on ES will not be sufficient to detect virus in all cases when it is present, especially when the prevalence of infection/contamination is low. Multiple sample types should be collected. In live bird markets, ES from processing/selling areas are more likely to test positive than samples from bird holding areas. When compared to LBS, ES is considered a cost-effective, simple, rapid, flexible, convenient and acceptable way of achieving surveillance objectives. As a non-invasive technique, it can minimize effects on animal welfare and trade in markets and reduce impacts on wild bird communities. Some limitations of environmental sampling methods have been identified, such as the loss of species-specific or information on the source of virus, and taxonomic-level analyses, unless additional methods are applied. Some studies employing ES have not provided detailed methods. In others, where ES and LBS are collected from the same site, positive results have not been assigned to specific sample types. These gaps should be remedied in future studies.

No abstract

Pacific Island countries have large pig and poultry populations. Yet little is known about patterns of contact between animals and how this influences disease spread in these islands. The objectives of this study were to examine farmer practices and the movements of pig and poultry within the Pacific Islands using questionnaires and social network analysis (SNA) tools to understand disease spread in the region. Questionnaire-based surveys were conducted in Fiji, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Solomon Islands and Vanuatu with interviews of 310 pig farmers and 491 poultry farmers. Pacific Island farmers were found to have few animals (median = 7 pigs/farm, IQR 4-12), (median = 50 chicken/farm, IQR 23-52), (median = 10 ducks/farm, IQR 4-25), (median = 12 Muscovy ducks/farm, IQR 7-28) and a diversified number of species. A large proportion of farmers (44.6-61.3%) do not implement any preventive or control measures, yet the majority (80.6-88%) did not experience any animal diseases over the past 12 months. Most farmers never ask for veterinary care, never engage in laboratory testing and do not report when their animals show clinical signs. Many pig farmers (31.8%) trade within their communities only and sell (24.5%) directly to consumers which reduces the risk of diseases spreading. Our results show an association between farmers that report having had disease on their farm in the past 12 months and movements of animals on and off their farms. The capitals of the studied provinces in PNG, Vanuatu and Solomon Islands were identified as the most connected nodes of both pig and poultry trade, while Fiji networks appeared much less connected. Our study found that farmer practices increased the risk of disease spread, but this was currently limited by trading practices. The SNA results serve as a basis for more targeted disease surveillance and better use of available resources for disease prevention and control.

No abstract

No abstract