BackgroundThe incidence of tick-borne diseases is increasing in Europe. Sub national information on tick distribution, ecology and vector status is often lacking. However, precise location of infection risk can lead to better targeted prevention measures, surveillance and control.MethodsIn this context, the current paper compiled geolocated tick occurrences in Belgium, a country where tick-borne disease has received little attention, in order to highlight the potential value of spatial approaches and draw some recommendations for future research priorities.ResultsMapping of 89,289 ticks over 654 sites revealed that ticks such as Ixodes ricinus and Ixodes hexagonus are largely present while Dermacentor reticulatus has a patchy distribution. Suspected hot spots of tick diversity might favor pathogen exchanges and suspected hot spots of I. ricinus abundance might increase human-vector contact locally. This underlines the necessity to map pathogens and ticks in detail. While I. ricinus is the main vector, I. hexagonus is a vector and reservoir of Borrelia burgdorferi s.l., which is active the whole year and is also found in urban settings. This and other nidiculous species bite humans less frequently, but seem to harbour pathogens. Their role in maintaining a pathogenic cycle within the wildlife merits investigation as they might facilitate transmission to humans if co-occurring with I. ricinus. Many micro-organisms are found abroad in tick species present in Belgium. Most have not been recorded locally but have not been searched for. Some are transmitted directly at the time of the bite, suggesting promotion of tick avoidance additionally to tick removal.ConclusionThis countrywide approach to tick-borne diseases has helped delineate recommendations for future research priorities necessary to design public health policies aimed at spatially integrating the major components of the ecological cycle of tick-borne diseases. A systematic survey of tick species and associated pathogens is called for in Europe, as well as better characterisation of species interaction in the ecology of tick-borne diseases, those being all tick species, pathogens, hosts and other species which might play a role in tick-borne diseases complex ecosystems.

Respiratory tract infections (bovine respiratory disease) are a major concern in calf rearing. The objective of this study was to identify pathogen-specific risk factors associated with epidemic respiratory disease in calves. A cross-sectional study was conducted, involving 128 outbreaks (29 dairy, 58 dairy-mixed, and 41 beef) in Belgium (2016Belgium ( -2018. A semiquantitative PCR for 7 respiratory pathogens was done on a pooled nonendoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage sample for each herd. Potential risk factors were collected by questionnaire and derived from the national cattle registration databank. Most outbreaks occurred between October and March, and single and multiple viral infections were detected in 58.6% (75/128) and 13.3% (17/128), respectively. Bovine coronavirus (BCV) was the most frequently isolated virus (38.4%), followed by bovine respiratory syncytial virus (bRSV; 29.4%) and parainfluenzavirus type 3 (PI-3; 8.1%). Mycoplasma bovis, Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, and Histophilus somni were detected in 33.3, 41.2, 89.1, and 36.4% of the herds, respectively. Specific risk factors for BCV detection were detection of M. haemolytica [odds ratio (OR) = 2.8 (95% confidence interval = 1.1-7.5)], increasing herd size [OR = 1.3 (1.0-1.8) for each increase with 100 animals] and detection of BCV by antigen ELISA on feces in calves in the last year [OR = 3.6 (1.2-11.1)]. A seasonal effect was shown for bRSV only {more in winter compared with autumn [OR = 10.3 (2.8-37.5)]}. Other factors associated with bRSV were PI-3 detection [OR = 13.4 (2.1-86.0)], prevalence of calves with respiratory disease [OR = 1.02 (1.00-1.04) per 1% increase], and number of days with respiratory signs before sampling [OR = 0.99 (0.98-0.99) per day increase]. Next to its association with BCV, M. haemolytica was more frequently detected in herds with 5 to 10 animals per pen [OR = 8.0 (1.4-46.9)] compared with <5 animals, and in herds with sawdust as bedding [OR = 18.3 (1.8-191.6)]. Also, for H. somni, housing on sawdust was a risk factor [OR = 5.2 (1.2-23.0)]. Purchase of cattle [OR = 2.9 (1.0-8.0)] and housing of recently purchased animals in the same airspace [OR = 5.0 (1.5-16.5)] were risk factors for M. bovis.This study identified pathogen-specific risk factors that might be useful for the development of customized control and prevention and for the design of decision support tools to justify antimicrobial use by predicting the most likely pathogen before sampling results are available.

Animal leptospirosis, exempt in rodents, manifests as peculiar biology where the animal can function, simultaneously or not, as a susceptible host or reservoir. In the first case, clinical symptoms are likely. In the second case, infection is subclinical and manifestations are mild or absent.

No abstract

No abstract

Background To what extent veterinarians active in the dairy or beef sector follow the antimicrobial therapy guidelines made available in different European countries for bovine respiratory disease (BRD) outbreaks, and whether differences in therapeutic or preventive preferences for BRD management exist, is currently unknown. Therefore, the objectives of this cross‐sectional study were to compare vaccination coverage and primary antimicrobial and anti‐inflammatory treatment on dairy, beef and mixed‐breed farms in northern Belgium, and determine their compliance with the recommendations made by the Belgian formulary. Methods Information on antimicrobial and anti‐inflammatory drug use and vaccination coverage from 190 BRD outbreaks in 180 herds, submitted by 101 veterinarians, was analysed. Multivariable linear probability models, adjusted for clustering at the veterinarian level, were used to determine differences between dairy and beef farms. Results Antimicrobials and non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were used in 93.5% and 81.7% of the BRD outbreaks, respectively. First‐line antimicrobials were used as primary treatment in only 42.3%, 50.9% and 38.6% of dairy, beef and mixed‐breed farms, respectively. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed between dairy and beef farms in terms of use of long‐acting macrolides (–17.2 percentage points [pp]; 95% confidence interval [CI]: –31.9, –2.5), steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (15.2 pp; CI: 0.5, 29.8) and vaccination coverage (bovine respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza virus type 3 [33.1 pp; Cl: 15.7–50.6] and Mannheimia haemolytica [23.1 pp; Cl: 3.4–39.8]). Limitations The herds that participated in this study were likely among the more motivated regarding BRD control. As such, the information on vaccination coverage is likely not entirely representative of herds in the study area. Interpretation is further complicated by the fact that vaccinated herds were potentially less likely to face a BRD outbreak and therefore participate in the current study. Conclusion This study reveals differences in the primary use of (N)SAIDs, type of antimicrobials used and vaccination coverage on beef and dairy farms in the study region, and also differences in the appropriateness of antimicrobial selection based on the Belgian formulary.