Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34986896›Full record

ArticlePorcine health management2022

Characterization and management of interaction risks between livestock and wild ungulates on outdoor pig farms in Spain.

Saúl Jiménez-Ruiz, Eduardo Laguna, Joaquín Vicente, Ignacio García-Bocanegra, Jordi Martínez-Guijosa, David Cano-Terriza, María A Risalde, Pelayo Acevedo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. First Serologic Survey ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  8. Use of Wild Boar (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Saúl Jiménez-RuizGrupo Sanidad y Biotecnología (SaBio), Instituto de Investigación en Recursos Cinegéticos IREC (UCLM-CSIC-JCCM), Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha (UCLM), 13071, Ciudad Real, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2090-9353
Eduardo LagunaGrupo Sanidad y Biotecnología (SaBio), Instituto de Investigación en Recursos Cinegéticos IREC (UCLM-CSIC-JCCM), Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha (UCLM), 13071, Ciudad Real, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0250-3157
Joaquín VicenteGrupo Sanidad y Biotecnología (SaBio), Instituto de Investigación en Recursos Cinegéticos IREC (UCLM-CSIC-JCCM), Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha (UCLM), 13071, Ciudad Real, Spain. joaquin.vicente@uclm.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8416-3672
Ignacio García-BocanegraGrupo de Investigación en Sanidad Animal y Zoonosis (GISAZ), Departamento de Sanidad Animal, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de Córdoba (UCO), 14014, Córdoba, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3388-2604
Jordi Martínez-GuijosaGrupo Sanidad y Biotecnología (SaBio), Instituto de Investigación en Recursos Cinegéticos IREC (UCLM-CSIC-JCCM), Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha (UCLM), 13071, Ciudad Real, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9553-7673
David Cano-TerrizaGrupo de Investigación en Sanidad Animal y Zoonosis (GISAZ), Departamento de Sanidad Animal, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de Córdoba (UCO), 14014, Córdoba, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5657-2567
María A RisaldeDepartamento de Anatomía y Anatomía Patológica Comparadas y Toxicología, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de Córdoba (UCO), 14014, Córdoba, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6751-1305
Pelayo AcevedoGrupo Sanidad y Biotecnología (SaBio), Instituto de Investigación en Recursos Cinegéticos IREC (UCLM-CSIC-JCCM), Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha (UCLM), 13071, Ciudad Real, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3509-7696
Instituto de Investigación en Recursos Cinegéticos · ESUniversity of Córdoba · ESInstituto Maimónides de Investigación Biomédica de Córdoba · ES

Funding

Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha (ES) y Fondo Social Europeo (UE) SBPLY/16/180501/000269Ministerio de Economía e Infraestructura, Gobierno de Extremadura (ES) AA-17-0031-1Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad AGL2016-76358-RMinisterio de Economía y Competitividad BES-2015-072206Ministerio de Transformación económica, Industria, Conocimiento y Unviersidades, Junta de Andalucía (ES) A1122062E0_AGROMISUniversidad de Castilla-La Mancha (ES) y Fondo Social Europeo (UE) 2018/12504Universidad de Córdoba Plan Propio de Investigación 2020Universidad de Córdoba Submodalidad 1.2 "UCO-ACTIVA"
6 · The paper itself

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

BiosecurityIberian pigOutdoor farmingRed deerRisk of species interactionStandardised approachWild boarWildlife-livestock interface

Identifiers

PMID34986896
PMCPMC8734068
OpenAlexW4205345753

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.