Scott Angela Bullanday, Toribio Jenny-Ann L M L, Singh Mini, Groves Peter, Barnes Belinda, Glass Kathryn, Moloney Barbara, Black Amanda, Hernandez-Jover Marta
Sydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Quantitative Sciences, Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Front Vet Sci. 2018 Apr 9;5:63. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2018.00063. eCollection 2018.
This study quantified and compared the probability of avian influenza (AI) spread within and between Australian commercial chicken farms via specified spread pathways using scenario tree mathematical modeling. Input values for the models were sourced from scientific literature, expert opinion, and a farm survey conducted during 2015 and 2016 on Australian commercial chicken farms located in New South Wales (NSW) and Queensland. Outputs from the models indicate that the probability of no establishment of infection in a shed is the most likely end-point after exposure and infection of low-pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) in one chicken for all farm types (non-free range meat chicken, free range meat chicken, cage layer, barn layer, and free range layer farms). If LPAI infection is established in a shed, LPAI is more likely to spread to other sheds and beyond the index farm due to a relatively low probability of detection and reporting during LPAI infection compared to high-pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) infection. Among farm types, the median probability for HPAI spread between sheds and between farms is higher for layer farms (0.0019, 0.0016, and 0.0031 for cage, barn, and free range layer, respectively) than meat chicken farms (0.00025 and 0.00043 for barn and free range meat chicken, respectively) due to a higher probability of mutation in layer birds, which relates to their longer production cycle. The pathway of LPAI spread between sheds with the highest average median probability was spread via equipment (0.015; 5-95%, 0.0058-0.036) and for HPAI spread between farms, the pathway with the highest average median probability was spread via egg trays (3.70 × 10; 5-95%, 1.47 × 10-0.00034). As the spread model did not explicitly consider volume and frequency of the spread pathways, these results provide a comparison of spread probabilities per pathway. These findings highlight the importance of performing biosecurity practices to limit spread of the AI virus. The models can be updated as new information on the mechanisms of the AI virus and on the volume and frequency of movements shed-to-shed and of movements between commercial chicken farms becomes available.
本研究使用情景树数学模型,通过特定传播途径对澳大利亚商业化养鸡场内及不同养鸡场之间禽流感(AI)传播的概率进行了量化和比较。模型的输入值来自科学文献、专家意见以及2015年至2016年期间对位于新南威尔士州(NSW)和昆士兰州的澳大利亚商业化养鸡场进行的农场调查。模型输出表明,对于所有农场类型(非放养肉鸡场、放养鸡场、笼养蛋鸡场、棚养蛋鸡场和放养蛋鸡场),在一只鸡感染低致病性禽流感(LPAI)后暴露和感染,鸡舍内未建立感染的概率是最可能的终点。如果鸡舍内建立了LPAI感染,由于与高致病性禽流感(HPAI)感染相比,LPAI感染期间检测和报告的概率相对较低,LPAI更有可能传播到其他鸡舍并超出索引农场。在农场类型中,由于蛋鸡的突变概率较高,这与其较长的生产周期有关,蛋鸡场(笼养、棚养和放养蛋鸡场的HPAI在鸡舍间和农场间传播的中位数概率分别为0.0019、0.0016和0.0031)的HPAI在鸡舍间和农场间传播的中位数概率高于肉鸡场(棚养和放养鸡场的HPAI在鸡舍间和农场间传播的中位数概率分别为0.00025和0.00043)。LPAI在鸡舍间传播的平均中位数概率最高的途径是通过设备传播(0.015;5 - 95%,0.0058 - 0.036),而对于HPAI在农场间传播,平均中位数概率最高的途径是通过蛋盘传播(3.70×10;5 - 95%,1.47×10 - 0.00034)。由于传播模型未明确考虑传播途径的数量和频率,这些结果提供了每条途径传播概率的比较。这些发现突出了实施生物安全措施以限制AI病毒传播的重要性。随着关于AI病毒机制以及鸡舍间和商业化养鸡场之间移动的数量和频率的新信息可用,可以对模型进行更新。