Key result
Direct transmission is the most efficient route for classical swine fever virus, while indirect routes like swill feeding and wild boar are important but mechanical and airborne transmission remain debated.
This review summarizes the evidence for direct and indirect transmission routes of classical swine fever to inform epidemic control measures.
Emphasizes prioritizing direct contact controls in CSF outbreaks; leaves open the roles of mechanical and airborne transmission.
Classical swine fever (CSF) is one of the most important viral pig diseases. Basic measures to control epidemics of CSF comprise eradication of infected herds and preventive emptying of herds at risk. Identification of these herds at risk is based on knowledge of the different transmission routes of the virus. Direct transmission of CSF is undoubtedly the most efficient way of CSF virus transmission. Data on indirect transmission are variable and often equivocal. Various indirect transmission routes like swill feeding, wild boar and artificial insemination are well described, and the importance is beyond discussion. Mechanical transmission via vehicles and persons are categorized as very important based upon epidemiological research, whereas in experiments they can only be reproduced under worst case conditions. The role of arthropods, birds, rodents, and other animals in the spread of CSF virus remains doubtful. Active transmission by these has never been demonstrated and also very sparse indications for mechanical transmission are available. Also the role of airborne transmission remains debated. However epidemiological as well as experimental data indicate that airborne spread over short distances is probable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ribbens et al. (2004) conducted a review in Classical swine fever. Direct transmission is the most efficient route for classical swine fever virus, while indirect routes like swill feeding and wild boar are important but mechanical and airborne transmission remain debated.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: