Assessment of the likelihood of the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease through importation of live animals into the Malaysia-Thailand-Myanmar peninsula

Kachen Wongsathapornchai Animal Population Health Institute, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.

Search for other papers by Kachen Wongsathapornchai in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, PhD
,
M. D. Salman Animal Population Health Institute, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.

Search for other papers by M. D. Salman in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BVMS, MPVM, PhD
,
John R. Edwards School of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, Australia 6150.

Search for other papers by John R. Edwards in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, PhD
,
Paul S. Morley Animal Population Health Institute, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.

Search for other papers by Paul S. Morley in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, PhD
,
Thomas J. Keefe Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.

Search for other papers by Thomas J. Keefe in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD
,
Hana Van Campen Animal Population Health Institute, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.

Search for other papers by Hana Van Campen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, PhD
, and
Steve Weber Center for Animal Disease Information and Analysis, APHIS, USDA, Fort Collins, CO 80523.

Search for other papers by Steve Weber in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM

Abstract

Objective—To assess the likelihood of an introduction of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) into the Malaysia-Thailand-Myanmar (MTM) peninsula through terrestrial movement of livestock.

Animals—89,294 cattle and buffalo legally moved into the MTM peninsula.

Procedures—A quantitative risk assessment was conducted by use of a stochastic simulation. Patterns of livestock movement were ascertained through review of relevant governmental records and regulations and by interviewing farmers, traders, and local officers when the records did not exist. Parameters identified in the process were the probabilities of livestock having FMD and of FMD infection going undetected during import processes. The probability of an animal accepted for import having FMD was also assessed. Sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the effects that each parameter had on the model.

Results—The simulation yielded an average consignment prevalence of 10.95%. Typically, each animal in a quarantine facility had a 2.7% chance of having an inapparent form of FMD infection; hence, it was likely an animal would not be identified as infected. Findings revealed that the mean probability of an animal accepted for import having FMD was 2.9%, and the risk was as high as 11%.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results of the model allowed for the evaluation of movement regulations currently imposed in the MTM peninsula. Evidence from the study suggested that current practices in animal movement were far from efficient in preventing introduction of FMD-infected animals into the MTM region, and additional measures will be necessary.

Abstract

Objective—To assess the likelihood of an introduction of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) into the Malaysia-Thailand-Myanmar (MTM) peninsula through terrestrial movement of livestock.

Animals—89,294 cattle and buffalo legally moved into the MTM peninsula.

Procedures—A quantitative risk assessment was conducted by use of a stochastic simulation. Patterns of livestock movement were ascertained through review of relevant governmental records and regulations and by interviewing farmers, traders, and local officers when the records did not exist. Parameters identified in the process were the probabilities of livestock having FMD and of FMD infection going undetected during import processes. The probability of an animal accepted for import having FMD was also assessed. Sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the effects that each parameter had on the model.

Results—The simulation yielded an average consignment prevalence of 10.95%. Typically, each animal in a quarantine facility had a 2.7% chance of having an inapparent form of FMD infection; hence, it was likely an animal would not be identified as infected. Findings revealed that the mean probability of an animal accepted for import having FMD was 2.9%, and the risk was as high as 11%.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results of the model allowed for the evaluation of movement regulations currently imposed in the MTM peninsula. Evidence from the study suggested that current practices in animal movement were far from efficient in preventing introduction of FMD-infected animals into the MTM region, and additional measures will be necessary.

Contributor Notes

Supported in part by the Colorado State University Program of Economically Important Infectious Animal Diseases through a special grant from the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service.

The authors thank Dr. Ronel Abila for assistance during data collection in Southeast Asia and Drs. Aung Khin, Prasit Chaitaweesub, and Kamarudin bin Mohammed Isa for technical assistance.

Address correspondence to Dr. Salman.
  • 1.

    Turton J. Minimum standard definitions and rules for control and eradication of foot-and-mouth disease in the MTM Peninsula Campaign for Foot-and-Mouth Disease Freedom. Bangkok, Thailand: OIE Regional Coordination Unit, 2004.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    OIE (World Organization of Animal Health). Terrestrial Animal Health Code. 13th ed. Paris: OIE, 2004.

  • 3.

    OIE (World Organization of Animal Health). Handbook on import risk analysis for animals and animal products. Paris: OIE, 2004.

  • 4.

    OIE Regional Coordination Unit Web site. OIE SEAFMD annual and monthly outbreak reports. Available at: www.seafmd-rcu.oie.int/tabindex.htm. Accessed Mar 12, 2004.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    OIE Regional Coordination Unit. Report of the OIE SEAFMD workshop on the strategy to establish the MTM peninsula campaign for FMD freedom. Bangkok, Thailand: OIE Regional Coordination Unit, 2002.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    OIE Regional Coordination Unit. To vaccinate or not—what is your opinion? OIE: SEAFMD News 2002;3:6.

  • 7.

    Chamnanpood P, Cleland PC, Baldock FC, et al. The minor role of pigs in outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in northern Thailand. Aust Vet J 1995;72:142144.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Cleland PC, Baldock FC, Chamnanpood P, et al. Village level risk factors for foot-and-mouth disease in northern Thailand. Prev Vet Med 1996;26:253261.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Alexandersen S, Zang Z, Dolandson AI. Aspects of the persistence of foot-and-mouth disease virus in animals—the carrier problem. Microbes Infect 2002;4:10991110.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Sutmoller P, Casas Olascoaga R. Unapparent foot and mouth disease infection (sub-clinical infections and carriers): implications for control. Rev Sci Tech 2002;21:519529.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Miller L, McElvaine MD, McDowell RM, et al. Developing a quantitative risk assessment process. Rev Sci Tech 1993;12:11531164.

  • 12.

    Sutmoller P, Casas Olascoaga R. The risks posed by the importation of animals vaccinated against foot-and-mouth disease and products derived from vaccinated animals: a review. Rev Sci Tech 2003;22:823835.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Donaldson AI, Kitching RP. Transmission of foot-and-mouth disease by vaccinated cattle following natural challenge. Res Vet Sci 1989;46:914.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Linchongsubongkoch W, Aunpomma D, Thongtha P. The use of various non structural protein lits to differentiate between vaccinated and infected animals with foot and mouth disease virus. J Thai Vet Med Assoc 2004;55:2130.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Japan International Cooperation Association. Animal quarantine and animal movement management in Indo-China Peninsula. Bangkok, Thailand: Japan International Cooperation Association, 2003.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Grubman MJ, Baxt B. Foot-and-mouth disease. Clin Microbiol Rev 2004;17:465493.

  • 17.

    Kitching RP. Identification of foot and mouth disease virus carrier and subclinically infected animals and differentiation from vaccinated animals. Rev Sci Tech 2002;21:531538.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Davies G. Foot and mouth disease. Res Vet Sci 2002;73:195199.

  • 19.

    Cleland PC, Chamnanpood P, Baldock FC, et al. Questionnaire survey of foot and mouth disease (FMD) and of FMD control by vaccination in villages in northern Thailand. Rev Sci Tech 1995;14:567575.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Vose DJ. Risk analysis in relation to the importation and exportation of animal products. Rev Sci Tech 1997;16:1729.

  • 21.

    Vose DJ. Defining distribution from expert opinion. In: Vose DJ, ed. Risk analysis: a quantitative guide. 2nd ed. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, 2003;275277.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement