Identification of foot and mouth disease risk areas using a multi-criteria analysis approach

Abstract

Foot and mouth disease (FMD) is a highly infectious disease that affects cloven-hoofed livestock and wildlife. FMD has been a problem for decades, which has led to various measures to control, eradicate and prevent FMD by National Veterinary Services worldwide. Currently, the identification of areas that are at risk of FMD virus incursion and spread is a priority for FMD target surveillance after FMD is eradicated from a given country or region. In our study, a knowledge-driven spatial model was built to identify risk areas for FMD occurrence and to evaluate FMD surveillance performance in Rio Grande do Sul state, Brazil. For this purpose, multi-criteria decision analysis was used as a tool to seek multiple and conflicting criteria to determine a preferred course of action. Thirteen South American experts analyzed 18 variables associated with FMD introduction and dissemination pathways in Rio Grande do Sul. As a result, FMD higher risk areas were identified at international borders and in the central region of the state. The final model was expressed as a raster surface. The predictive ability of the model assessed by comparing, for each cell of the raster surface, the computed model risk scores with a binary variable representing the presence or absence of an FMD outbreak in that cell during the period 1985 to 2015. Current FMD surveillance performance was assessed, and recommendations were made to improve surveillance activities in critical areas.

Timeliness of vesicular disease notification system in Brazilian foot‐and‐mouth disease surveillance programme

“…The PNEFA and PHEFA foresee the use of passive surveillance as a method for the early detection of possible FMD outbreaks (MAPA, 2009;PHEFA, 2011). Santos et al (2017) Another aspect that reinforces the need to reduce the reaction times (TL-2) of the BVS is the outbreaks that occurred in Colombia in (OIE, 2019c, 2019a, resulting in the suspension of FMD free status with vaccination country-wide (OIE, 2019b). The situation of Venezuela concerning FMD is also alarming since it shares borders with Brazil and does not have OIE official status for the disease (OIE, 2019b;Vera, 2018;Villegas, Acosta, & Cayaffa, 2012).…”

“…Dutra and Santos (2007) reported the importance of BVS having physical offices for producers concerning the number of incident reports. Furthermore, the amount of research relating to animal disease is directly associated with the number of incident reports issued by farmers (East et al, 2013;Santos et al, 2017).…”

“…The PNEFA and PHEFA foresee the use of passive surveillance as a method for the early detection of possible FMD outbreaks (MAPA, ; PHEFA, ). Santos et al () suggested that the regions with the most incidents of animal diseases similar to FMD may be associated with greater community involvement in issues of animal health, which would enable the BVS to act more quickly. Although a high number of notifications is desirable (MAPA, ), it would not necessarily express the level of commitment between producers and the BVS.…”

Use of Network Analysis and Spread Models to Target Control Actions for Bovine Tuberculosis in a State from Brazil

“…These patterns are probably due to the higher herd sizes of premises in the southwest and southeast part of the state compared with the other regions. This is particularly important because these regions share a large frontier with Uruguay and Argentina, and these south regions were also identified as risk areas for foot and mouth disease [ 56 ].…”

Intention to adopt Electronic Animal Movement Permit (e-GTA) systems in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

“…The control of stocks of livestock on farms and their movements has long been recognized as a crucial factor for the investigation of introduction and spread of diseases in domestic and wild animals, being even a determining factor in the creation of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE 2017). The importance of these issues and the challenges to their implementation are widely recognized by academic institutions, governments, and non-governmental organizations dedicated to animal health (Woodford 1993, FAO 2002, Mansley et al 2003, Fèvre et al 2006, USDA 2014, Santos et al 2017, Todeschini et al 2018.…”