Role of Urbanization, Land-Use Diversity, and Livestock Intensification in Zoonotic Emerging Infectious Diseases

Emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) continue to significantly threaten human and animal health. While there has been some progress in identifying underlying proximal driving forces and causal mechanisms of disease emergence, the role of distal factors is most poorly understood. This article focuses on analyzing the statistical association between highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1 and urbanization, land-use diversity and poultry intensification. A special form of the urban transition—peri-urbanization—was hypothesized as being associated with ‘hot-spots’ of disease emergence. Novel metrics were used to characterize these distal risk factors. Our models, which combined these newly proposed risk factors with previously known natural and human risk factors, had a far higher predictive performance compared to published models for the first two epidemiological waves in Viet Nam. We found that when relevant risk factors are taken into account, urbanization is generally not a significant independent risk factor. However, urbanization spatially combines other risk factors leading to peri-urban places being the most likely ‘hot-spots’. The work highlights that peri-urban areas have highest levels of chicken density, duck and geese flock size diversity, fraction of land under rice, fraction of land under aquaculture compared to rural and urban areas. Land-use diversity, which has previously never been studied in the context of HPAI H5N1, was found to be a significant risk factor. Places where intensive and extensive forms of poultry production are collocated were found to be at greater risk.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of factors associated with anthelmintic resistance in sheep.

BACKGROUND Anthelmintic drugs have been widely used in sheep as a cost-effective means for gastro-intestinal nematode (GIN) control. However, growing anthelmintic resistance (AHR) has created a compelling need to identify evidence-based management recommendations that reduce the risk of further development and impact of AHR. OBJECTIVE To identify, critically assess, and synthesize available data from primary research on factors associated with AHR in sheep. METHODS Publications reporting original observational or experimental research on selected factors associated with AHR in sheep GINs and published after 1974, were identified through two processes. Three electronic databases (PubMed, Agricola, CAB) and Web of Science (a collection of databases) were searched for potentially relevant publications. Additional publications were identified through consultation with experts, manual search of references of included publications and conference proceedings, and information solicited from small ruminant practitioner list-serves. Two independent investigators screened abstracts for relevance. Relevant publications were assessed for risk of systematic bias. Where sufficient data were available, random-effects Meta-Analyses (MAs) were performed to estimate the pooled Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) of AHR for factors reported in ≥2 publications. RESULTS Of the 1712 abstracts screened for eligibility, 131 were deemed relevant for full publication review. Thirty publications describing 25 individual studies (15 observational studies, 7 challenge trials, and 3 controlled trials) were included in the qualitative synthesis and assessed for systematic bias. Unclear (i.e. not reported, or unable to assess) or high risk of selection bias and confounding bias was found in 93% (14/15) and 60% (9/15) of the observational studies, respectively, while unclear risk of selection bias was identified in all of the trials. Ten independent studies were included in the quantitative synthesis, and MAs were performed for five factors. Only high frequency of treatment was a significant risk factor (OR=4.39; 95% CI=1.59, 12.14), while the remaining 4 variables were marginally significant: mixed-species grazing (OR=1.63; 95% CI=0.66, 4.07); flock size (OR=1.02; 95% CI=0.97, 1.07); use of long-acting drug formulations (OR=2.85; 95% CI=0.79, 10.24); and drench-and-shift pasture management (OR=4.08; 95% CI=0.75, 22.16). CONCLUSIONS While there is abundant literature on the topic of AHR in sheep GINs, few studies have explicitly investigated the association between putative risk or protective factors and AHR. Consequently, several of the current recommendations on parasite management are not evidence-based. Moreover, many of the studies included in this review had a high or unclear risk of systematic bias, highlighting the need to improve study design and/or reporting of future research carried out in this field.

Use of outdoor ranges by laying hens in different sized flocks.

In studies assessing outdoor range use of laying hens, the number of hens seen on outdoor ranges is inversely correlated to flock size. The aim of this study was to assess individual ranging behavior on a covered (veranda) and an uncovered outdoor run (free-range) in laying hen flocks varying in size. Five to ten percent of hens (aged 9–15 months) within 4 small (2–2500 hens), 4 medium (5–6000), and 4 large (≥9000) commercial flocks were fitted with radio frequency identification (RFID) tags. Antennas were placed at both sides of all popholes between the house and the veranda and the veranda and the free-range. Ranging behavior was directly monitored for approximately three weeks in combination with hourly photographs of the free-range for the distribution of hens and 6h long video recordings on two parts of the free-range during two days. Between 79 and 99% of the tagged hens were registered on the veranda at least once and between 47 and 90% were registered on the free-range at least once. There was no association between the percentage of hens registered outside the house (veranda or free-range) and flock size. However, individual hens in small and medium sized flocks visited the areas outside the house more frequently and spent more time there than hens from large flocks. Foraging behavior on the free-range was shown more frequently and for a longer duration by hens from small and medium sized flocks than by hens from large flocks. This difference in ranging behavior could account for the negative relationship between flock size and the number of hens seen outside at one point of time. In conclusion, our work describes individual birds’ use of areas outside the house within large scale commercial egg production.