Silence of the

Wild Boar

Sergei KhomenkoSergei Khomenko

Disease Ecology and

Wildlife Specialist

28 April, 201139th General Session of the EuFMD, Rome, Italy

1. Caucasus

2. Kazakh-

stan

1902

1908

1911

1917

1919

1925

1927

1931

1941

FMD in wild boar:

5

1

2

Historical range of Sus scrofa

3

Marek & Hutÿra, 1931; Sludskiy, 1956; Danilkin, 2002

5. Europe 1920s?

2011

1941

4. Israel 1987-

1999

2007

4

3

3. Kyrgyz-

stan1953

Photo: Keith SumptionPhoto: Keith Sumption

How European Wild Boar How European Wild Boar

celebrate Pascua in Italycelebrate Pascua in Italy

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

%

Heads (%)

Holdings (%)

LR / SR / PIGS

Livestock

composition

Livestock Heads Holdings

LR 6299 226

Sheep 30289 694

Goat 5986 982

Pigs 3909 367

Total 46,483 2,269

DATA: Bulgarian NVS, 2011

0

LR SR Pigs

Population & n holdings

January, 2011

Free-range East

Balkan pigs (!)

- FMD

DATA: Bulgarian NVS, 2011

Low livestock density in affected areas

??????

4 nt changes

12LPN3Rezovo

12LPN1Kosti

TCS tree based on 7087 nt

(most L-fragment )

14 nt changes

30/12/2010

BUL/1/2010Wild boar

31

nt

cha

ng

es

8 nt changes

BUL/11/2011

02/2011

02/2011

6 nt changes

Molecular phylogenetics indicates

likely persistence in wildlife (?)

4 nt changes13 nt changes

TUR/926/2010Bursa

Putative common ancestor of Bulgarian wild board and first phase of the outbreaks

26/07/2010 31

nt

cha

ng

es

Putative common ancestor of the second phase of the Bulgarian outbreaks

BUL/11/2011Kirovo

BUL/20/2011Golyamo Bukovo

19/03/2011

28/03/2011

28/03/2011

11 nt changesBUL/30/2011

Fakia

01/04/2011

BUL/26/2011Granichar

CREDITS: FAO-WRL for FMD, Pirbright/Lindholm laboratory Denmark/Bulgarian NRL

Abound wild ungulates

n=11,000 (max density = 4 heads/km2)

DATA: Bulgarian NVS, 2011

5059 (2.1)

3931 (1.5)

1657 (0.7)

No hunting management

5-7,000 wild boar

A few deer

EuFMD Research group/FAO EMPRES Wildlife Unit Joint Meeting

(Berlin, 11-12 April)

• review FMD surveillance in domestic and wildlife species in the two countries;

• identify gaps in knowledge and priorities for surveillance;

• review findings from FMD experimental studies in wild boar;

• identify the likelihood of persistence of FMD in wildlife based on modelling results.

FMD outbreaks and WB sero-surveillance results in BG and TR in Feb-March, 2011

BULGARIABULGARIA

5,000

wild boars

TURKEYTURKEY

5 out of 11 Wild

boar sera

NSP +, Type O

19 Wild

boar sera

ALL: NEG

wild boars

5-7,000

wild boars

Surveillance in wildlife

• not representative, controversial result, does not cover all species;

• to be continued in Thrace in both countries:countries:– (a) Summer: emergency randomized

sampling at the forest/farmland interface –trapping & hunting;

– (b) Winter: ecologically stratified sampling strategy to find out disease status of wildlife population.

Outcomes of TROutcomes of TR--IR IR FMD data analysis FMD data analysis workshop, Ankaraworkshop, Ankara

1. 14 million FMD

susceptible livestock;

2. Estimated 60-80.000

wild boars;

3. Approx. 1800 FMD

outbreaks (2009-10).

Interpolated N outbreaks v forest

- Tentative WB sampling locations

Pilot project in

TR Anatolia

• Winter hunting season

2011-2012, hunting

clubs/grounds based;

• Longitudinal sero-survey,

~400 samples from shot

wild boars;

• Include lymph node • Include lymph node

collection for virus isolation;

• Protocols and professional

sample collectors;

• Preparations and

development of project

proposal underway.

Unknowns of FMD epidemiology in

Wild Boar and other wildlife

• Transmission parameters (duration of infection, long-shedders; (maternal) antibody protection, role of habitat fragmentation - connectivity etc);

• Environmental persistence, including potential role of abortion and contamination of role of abortion and contamination of environment, scavenging etc;

• Clinical course of FMD, effect on behavior and epidemiological implications;

• Most of the above is similarly relevant to deer species.

Experimental

infection

• Clinical signs on the 4 DPI (domestic 2 DPI) –e.g. incubation 4 days;

• Most severe and evident lesions – 7 DPI;

• Less clinically affected, apparently did not loose apparently did not loose mobility, no lameness;

• Viraemia: 1 DPI through at least 9 DPI;

• NSP antibodies detected 7-8 DPI.

CREDITS: A. Breithaupt, K. Depner, B. Haas, M. Beer (FLI – Federal Research

Institute for Animal Health Institute of Diagnostic Virology)

Modeling FMD epidemic in Wild Boar

• May last 1.5-2 yr nearly

irrespective of transmission

rates & infectious period;

• WB transient host only, re-

introductions needed;

• Population size (+spatial • Population size (+spatial

extent of population,

fragmentation) most

important;

CREDITS: Stephanie Kramer-Schadt, Martin Lange, Hans-Hermann Thulke (Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Helmholtz Centre

for Environmental Research UFZ, Leipzig, EcoEpi Group)

Major challenge for FMD modeling: multispecies host environment 3 wildlife + including livestock + owners’ behavior)

% of wild animals compared to domestic

Which forest beast is the most important for FMD?

WB numbers, distribution andpopulation dynamics database for

the whole of Northern Eurasia

Update and refine WB population data fordisease spread modeling, rapid risk assessment

Spread of TADs across international Spread of TADs across international

borders suspected to involve wildlifeborders suspected to involve wildlife

2004-2011 - FMD

China-Mongolia-

Russian Federation

Procapra gutturosa

2007 - ASF

Georgia-Russian

Federation

Sus scrofa

2011 - FMDTurkey-Bulgaria

Sus scrofa +

Thanks to many people

helping to break the silence

of the Wild Boarof the Wild Boar