ArticlePorcine health management2022
Characterization and management of interaction risks between livestock and wild ungulates on outdoor pig farms in Spain.
Article in Porcine health management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Wildlife-Livestock Interface as a Bidirectional Pathway for the Spread of ESBL-ProducingAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
- Wildlife risk mitigation protocols reduce risk species visits and pathogen marker detection in open-air farms.Veterinary research · 2025Article
- Can public-domain datasets be leveraged to identify factors associated with the occurrence of African swine fever in europe?Acta veterinaria Scandinavica · 2025Article
- Zoonotic rat hepatitis E virus infection in pigs: farm prevalence and public health relevance.Porcine health management · 2025Article
- Assessment of domestic pig-bushpig (Potamochoerus larvatus) interactions through local knowledge in rural areas of Madagascar.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A combined methodological approach to characterize pig farming and its influence on the occurrence of interactions between wild boars and domestic pigs in Corsican micro-regions.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- First Serologic Survey ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Use of Wild Boar (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Review
- The Role of Wildlife and Pests in the Transmission of Pathogenic Agents to Domestic Pigs: A Systematic Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Review
- Innovative Research Offers New Hope for Managing African Swine Fever Better in Resource-Limited Smallholder Farming Settings: A Timely Update.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Not Just Pictures: Utility of Camera Trapping in the Context of African Swine Fever and Wild Boar Management.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2023Article
- Hepatitis E virus in the endangered Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus).Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo control the transmission of relevant shared diseases, such as animal tuberculosis (TB) and African swine fever (ASF), it is essential to reduce the risk of interaction between livestock and wild ungulates. In Eastern and Central Europe, the current spread of ASF virus affecting wild boar and domestic pigs (especially those raised outdoors and/or in backyards) has devastated the pig sector in affected regions and is seriously threatening other exporting countries. Here, we evaluated the risk of wildlife-livestock interactions on 45 outdoor pig farms in Spain, the second largest pork producer in the EU and then proposed biosecurity-related actions. An integrated, systematic wildlife risk mitigation protocol based on interviews, questionnaires and field audits was developed and applied on each farm.
resultsMost of the interaction risk points were associated with water sources (84.2%; 701/832), mainly springs and ponds, which accounted for almost all the specific points with high or very high risk scores. The risk of interaction at feeding points (6.9%; 57/832) and those associated with facilities for livestock and/or game management (8.9%; 74/832) were rated as low and very low risk, respectively. Wild boar were present and hunted on 69% of the farms. Supplementary feeding for wild ungulate species (mainly wild boar) was provided on almost half (48.9%; 22/45) the surveyed farms. Risk mitigation actions were categorised to target water access, waterers, food, other livestock species, grazing, wildlife, and offal disposal. Of the total number of actions (n = 2016), 82.7% were identified as priority actions while 17.3% represented alternative options which were identified less cost-effective. On average, 37.1 (median: 32; range 14-113) action proposals per study farm were made and 2.0 (median: 1; range 0-4) per risk point. The mean estimated cost of implementing the proposed priority actions was 14,780 €/farm (25.7 €/hectare and 799.4 €/risk point).
conclusionsThis study expands the knowledge of interaction risks between domestic pigs and wild ungulates in outdoor pig farming systems and highlights the importance of considering local risks and management practices when designing and prioritising adapted wildlife risk mitigation and biosecurity actions. This practical and feasible protocol developed for Mediterranean ecosystems is easily transferable to professionals and can be adapted to extensive (outdoor) production or epidemiological systems in other European regions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.