Key result
Partial culling is associated with ~58% of farms scoring high on livelihoods vs total stamping out.
Why the study?
The total stamping out approach for ASF control poses organizational challenges, high resource demands, and livelihood burdens, and field data comparing it to partial culling have not been scientifically evaluated.
Observational
Partial culling of swine herds affected by African swine fever saves over 50% of total stock and protects farmer livelihoods compared to total stamping out, despite an 8-day prolongation of implementation.
Partial culling may better sustain farm viability than total stamping-out; leaves open optimal strategies pending higher-level evidence.
The introduction of the African swine fever (ASF) into previously unaffected countries often overwhelms veterinary authorities with the resource demanding control efforts that need to be undertaken. The approach of implementing total stamping out of affected herds is taken as "default" control measure in many countries, regardless of the transboundary animal disease addressed, leading to a variety of challenges when implemented. Apart from the organizational challenges and high demand for human and financial resources, the total stamping out approach puts a high burden on the livelihoods of the affected farmers. After the spread of ASF throughout the country in 2019, Vietnam changed the culling approach enabling partial culling of only affected animals in the herd, in order to save resources, and reduce the environmental impact because of the carcass disposal and allow farmers to protect valuable assets. Until now, field data comparing these disease control options in their performance during implementation has not been evaluated scientifically. Analyzing the effect of the change in a control policy, the present study concludes that partial culling can on average save over 50% of total stock with an 8-day prolongation of the implementation of control measures. With 58% of farms undergoing partial culling scoring high on a time-livelihoods matrix, while total stamping out fails to score on livelihoods, much-needed clarity on the livelihood-protecting effects of alternative culling strategies is given. In the future, this will allow veterinary authorities to adjust control measures according to differing priorities, targeting peculiarities of ASF and acknowledging resource constraints faced.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nga et al. (2022) conducted an observational in African swine fever (ASF). Partial culling vs. Total stamping out was evaluated on Proportion of farms scoring high on a time-livelihoods matrix. Partial culling saved over 50% of total stock and resulted in 58% of farms scoring high on a time-livelihoods matrix, whereas total stamping out failed to score on livelihoods.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: