How do pig veterinarians view technology-assisted data utilisation for pig health and welfare management? A qualitative study in Spain, the Netherlands, and Ireland.
Data utilisation
Focus group
Pig health
Pig welfare
Qualitative study
Technology
Veterinarians
Journal
Porcine health management
ISSN: 2055-5660
Titre abrégé: Porcine Health Manag
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101684126
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Oct 2024
10 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
05
06
2024
accepted:
16
09
2024
medline:
11
10
2024
pubmed:
11
10
2024
entrez:
10
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Application of data-driven strategies may support veterinarians' decision-making, benefitting pig disease prevention and control. However, little is known about veterinarians' need for data utilisation to support their decision-making process. The current study used qualitative methods, specifically focus group discussions, to explore veterinarians' views on data utilisation and their need for data tools in relation to pig health and welfare management in Spain, the Netherlands, and Ireland. Generally, veterinarians pointed out the potential benefits of using technology for pig health and welfare management, but data is not yet structurally available to support their decision-making. Veterinarians pointed out the challenge of collecting, recording, and accessing data in a consistent and timely manner. Besides, the reliability, standardisation, and the context of data were identified as important factors affecting the efficiency and effectiveness of data utilisation by veterinarians. A user-friendly, adaptable, and integrated data tool was regarded as potentially helpful for veterinarians' daily work and supporting their decision-making. Specifically, veterinarians, particularly independent veterinary practitioners, noted a need for easy access to pig information. Veterinarians such as those working for integrated companies, corporate veterinarians, and independent veterinary practitioners expressed their need for data tools that provide useful information to monitor pig health and welfare in real-time, to visualise the prevalence of endemic disease based on a shared report between farmers, veterinarians, and other professional parties, to support decision-making, and to receive early warnings for disease prevention and control. It is concluded that the management of pig health and welfare may benefit from data utilisation if the quality of data can be assured, the data tools can meet veterinarians' needs for decision-making, and the collaboration of sharing data and using data between farmers, veterinarians, and other professional parties can be enhanced. Nevertheless, several notable technical and institutional barriers still exist, which need to be overcome.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Application of data-driven strategies may support veterinarians' decision-making, benefitting pig disease prevention and control. However, little is known about veterinarians' need for data utilisation to support their decision-making process. The current study used qualitative methods, specifically focus group discussions, to explore veterinarians' views on data utilisation and their need for data tools in relation to pig health and welfare management in Spain, the Netherlands, and Ireland.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Generally, veterinarians pointed out the potential benefits of using technology for pig health and welfare management, but data is not yet structurally available to support their decision-making. Veterinarians pointed out the challenge of collecting, recording, and accessing data in a consistent and timely manner. Besides, the reliability, standardisation, and the context of data were identified as important factors affecting the efficiency and effectiveness of data utilisation by veterinarians. A user-friendly, adaptable, and integrated data tool was regarded as potentially helpful for veterinarians' daily work and supporting their decision-making. Specifically, veterinarians, particularly independent veterinary practitioners, noted a need for easy access to pig information. Veterinarians such as those working for integrated companies, corporate veterinarians, and independent veterinary practitioners expressed their need for data tools that provide useful information to monitor pig health and welfare in real-time, to visualise the prevalence of endemic disease based on a shared report between farmers, veterinarians, and other professional parties, to support decision-making, and to receive early warnings for disease prevention and control.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
It is concluded that the management of pig health and welfare may benefit from data utilisation if the quality of data can be assured, the data tools can meet veterinarians' needs for decision-making, and the collaboration of sharing data and using data between farmers, veterinarians, and other professional parties can be enhanced. Nevertheless, several notable technical and institutional barriers still exist, which need to be overcome.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39390537
doi: 10.1186/s40813-024-00389-3
pii: 10.1186/s40813-024-00389-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
40Subventions
Organisme : European Union's Horizon 2020
ID : 101000494
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Bellini S. The pig sector in the European Union. In: Understanding and combatting African Swine Fever. Wageningen: Brill, Wageningen Academic; 2021. p. 183–95.
doi: 10.3920/978-90-8686-910-7_7
European Commission. Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. EU agricultural outlook for market and income 2019–2030. Directorate General Agriculture and Rural Development (DGAGRI), Brussels, 2019. https://doi.org/10.2762/904294 .
Kanis E, Groen ABF, De Greef KH. Societal concerns about pork and pork production and their relationships to the production system. J Agric Environ Ethics. 2003;16:137–62. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022985913847 .
doi: 10.1023/A:1022985913847
Maes DGD, Dewulf J, Piñeiro C, Edwards S, Kyriazakis I. A critical reflection on intensive pork production with an emphasis on animal health and welfare. J Anim Sci. 2020;98:S15-26. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skz362 .
doi: 10.1093/jas/skz362
pubmed: 31784754
pmcid: 7433918
Nunan C. Ending routine farm antibiotic use in Europe. Achieving responsible farm antibiotic use through improving animal health and welfare in pig and poultry production. Alliance to Save our Antibiotics. 2022;1–73.
European Commission. A European one health action plan against antimicrobial resistance (AMR). European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, 2017.
Rushton J, Bruce M, Bellet C, Torgerson P, Shaw A, Marsh T, et al. Initiation of global burden of animal diseases programme. Lancet. 2018;392:538–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31472-7 .
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31472-7
pubmed: 30152376
Boeters M, Garcia-Morante B, van Schaik G, Segalés J, Rushton J, Steeneveld W. The economic impact of endemic respiratory disease in pigs and related interventions—a systematic review. Porcine Health Manag. 2023;9:45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-023-00342-w .
doi: 10.1186/s40813-023-00342-w
pubmed: 37848972
pmcid: 10583309
Marois-Créhan C, Segalés J, Holtkamp D, Chae CH, Deblanc C, Opriessnig T, Fablet CV. Interactions of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae with other pathogens and economic impact. In: Mycoplasmas in swine. Wallingford: CABI; 2021. p. 127–45.
doi: 10.1079/9781789249941.0127
Heo JM, Opapeju FO, Pluske JR, Kim JC, Hampson DJ, Nyachoti CM. Gastrointestinal health and function in weaned pigs: a review of feeding strategies to control post-weaning diarrhoea without using in-feed antimicrobial compounds. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr. 2013;97:207–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0396.2012.01284.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0396.2012.01284.x
Opriessnig T, Giménez-Lirola LG, Halbur PG. Polymicrobial respiratory disease in pigs. In: Animal health research reviews/Conference of research workers in animal diseases, 2011, pp. 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252311000120 .
Brockmeier SL, Halbur PG, Thacker EL. Porcine respiratory disease complex. In: Polymicrobial diseases. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2014. p. 231–58.
doi: 10.1128/9781555817947.ch13
van Klompenburg T, Kassahun A. Data-driven decision making in pig farming: a review of the literature. Livest Sci. 2022;261:104961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2022.104961 .
doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2022.104961
Koketsu Y, Iida R. Farm data analysis for lifetime performance components of sows and their predictors in breeding herds. Porcine Health Manag. 2020;6:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-020-00163-1 .
doi: 10.1186/s40813-020-00163-1
Cornou C, Kristensen AR. Use of information from monitoring and decision support systems in pig production: collection, applications and expected benefits. Livest Sci. 2013;157:552–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2013.07.016 .
doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2013.07.016
Porphyre T, Bronsvoort BM, Gunn GJ, Correia-Gomes C. Multilayer network analysis unravels haulage vehicles as a hidden threat to the British swine industry. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2020;67:1231–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.13459 .
doi: 10.1111/tbed.13459
pubmed: 31880086
Correia-Gomes C, Smith RP, Eze JI, Henry MK, Gunn GJ, Williamson S, et al. Pig abattoir inspection data: can it be used for surveillance purposes? PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0161990. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161990 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161990
pubmed: 27564417
pmcid: 5001630
VanderWaal K, Morrison RB, Neuhauser C, Vilalta C, Perez AM. Translating big data into smart data for veterinary epidemiology. Front Vet Sci. 2017;4:100. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2017.00110 .
doi: 10.3389/fvets.2017.00110
Fernández-Carrión E, Martínez-Avilés M, Ivorra B, Martínez-López B, Ramos ÁM, Sánchez-Vizcaíno JM. Motion-based video monitoring for early detection of livestock diseases: the case of African swine fever. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0183793. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183793 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183793
pubmed: 28877181
pmcid: 5587303
Tzanidakis C, Simitzis P, Arvanitis K, Panagakis P. An overview of the current trends in precision pig farming technologies. Livest Sci. 2021;249:104530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2021.104530 .
doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2021.104530
Sadeghi E, Kappers C, Chiumento A, Derks M, Havinga P. Improving piglets health and well-being: a review of piglets health indicators and related sensing technologies. Smart Agric Technol. 2023;5:100246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2023.100246 .
doi: 10.1016/j.atech.2023.100246
Collins LM, Smith LM. Review: Smart agri-systems for the pig industry. Animal. 2022;16:100518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2022.100518 .
doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2022.100518
pubmed: 35469753
Benjamin M, Yik S. Precision livestock farming in swine welfare: a review for swine practitioners. Animals. 2019;9:133. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9040133 .
doi: 10.3390/ani9040133
pubmed: 30935123
pmcid: 6523486
Neethirajan S. The significance and ethics of digital livestock farming. AgriEngineering. 2023;5:488–505. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202302.0473.v1 .
doi: 10.20944/preprints202302.0473.v1
Duncan E, Glaros A, Ross DZ, Nost E. New but for whom? Discourses of innovation in precision agriculture. Agric Human Values. 2021;38:1181–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10244-8 .
doi: 10.1007/s10460-021-10244-8
pubmed: 34276130
pmcid: 8278188
Alarcon P, Wieland B, Mateus ALP, Dewberry C. Pig farmers’ perceptions, attitudes, influences and management of information in the decision-making process for disease control. Prev Vet Med. 2014;116:223–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.08.004 .
doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.08.004
pubmed: 24016600
Alba-Casals A, Allue E, Tarancon V, Baliellas J, Novell E, Napp S, et al. Near real-time monitoring of clinical events detected in swine herds in Northeastern Spain. Front Vet Sci. 2020;7:7823–30. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00068 .
doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00068
Kling-Eveillard F, Allain C, Boivin X, Courboulay V, Créach P, Philibert A, et al. Farmers’ representations of the effects of precision livestock farming on human-animal relationships. Livest Sci. 2020;238:104057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2020.104057 .
doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2020.104057
Doidge C, Frössling J, Dórea FC, Ordell A, Vidal G, Kaler J. Social and ethical implications of data and technology use on farms: a qualitative study of Swedish dairy and pig farmers. Front Vet Sci. 2023;10:1171107. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2023.1171107 .
doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1171107
pubmed: 37675073
pmcid: 10477671
Hartung J, Banhazi T, Vranken E, Guarino M. European farmers’ experiences with precision livestock farming systems. Anim Front. 2017;7:38–44. https://doi.org/10.2527/af.2017.0107 .
doi: 10.2527/af.2017.0107
Giersberg MF, Meijboom FLB. As if you were hiring a new employee: on pig veterinarians’ perceptions of professional roles and relationships in the context of smart sensing technologies in pig husbandry in the Netherlands and Germany. Agric Human Values. 2023;40:1513–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10450-6 .
doi: 10.1007/s10460-023-10450-6
Giersberg MF, Meijboom FLB. Smart technologies lead to smart answers? On the claim of smart sensing technologies to tackle animal related societal concerns in europe over current pig husbandry systems. Front Vet Sci. 2021;7:588214. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.588214 .
doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.588214
pubmed: 33490129
pmcid: 7820187
Ait-Sidhoum A, Guesmi B, Cabas-Monje JH, Gil JM. The impact of alternative feeding strategies on total factor productivity growth of pig farming: empirical evidence from EU countries. Span J Agric Res. 2021;19:4. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2021192-17291 .
doi: 10.5424/sjar/2021192-17291
Eurostat. Pig population—annual data, 2022. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/apro_mt_lspig/default/table?lang=en&category=agr.apro.apro_anip.apro_mt.apro_mt_ls .
Hoste R. International comparison of pig production costs 2018: results of InterPIG. Wageningen University & Research, 2020. https://doi.org/10.18174/511876 .
Boyle LA, Carroll C, Clarke L, Manzanilla EG, Gardiner GE, McCutcheon G, et al. An overview of Irish pig production, research and knowledge transfer since 1960. Ir J Agric Food Res. 2022;61:109–25. https://doi.org/10.15212/ijafr-2020-0153 .
doi: 10.15212/ijafr-2020-0153
Neethirajan S. The role of sensors, big data and machine learning in modern animal farming. Sens Biosensing Res. 2020;29:100367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbsr.2020.100367 .
doi: 10.1016/j.sbsr.2020.100367
Langford R. Qualitative research methods, by Monique Hennink, Inge Hutter and Ajay Bailey. Crit Public Health. 2012;22:111–2.
doi: 10.1080/09581596.2011.565689
Hennink MM. Focus group discussions. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. p. 231.
Ruslin R, Mashuri S, Rasak MSA, Alhabsyi F, Syam H. Semi-structured Interview: a methodological reflection on the development of a qualitative research instrument in educational studies. IOSR J Res Method Educ IOSR JRME. 2022;12:22–9.
Young JC, Rose DC, Mumby HS, Benitez-Capistros F, Derrick CJ, Finch T, et al. A methodological guide to using and reporting on interviews in conservation science research. Methods Ecol Evol. 2018;9:10–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12828 .
doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12828
Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis: a practical guide. Psychol Teach Rev. 2022;28:64–5. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsptr.2022.28.1.64 .
doi: 10.53841/bpsptr.2022.28.1.64
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Pyschol. 2006;3(2):77–101.
doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Kihara T, Gichoya D. Adoption and use of mHealth system for livestock farmers in Karura village in Kenya. In: 2015 IST-Africa Conference. IEEE, 2015, pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISTAFRICA.2015.7190568 .
Schulz P, Prior J, Kahn L, Hinch G. Exploring the role of smartphone apps for livestock farmers: data management, extension and informed decision making. J Agric Educ Ext. 2022;28:93–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2021.1910524 .
doi: 10.1080/1389224X.2021.1910524
del Rocio AM, Pearl DL, Friendship RM, McNab WB. Evaluation of a veterinary-based syndromic surveillance system implemented for swine. Can J Vet Res. 2010;74:241–51.
Horst A, Gertz M, Krieter J. Challenges and opportunities of using meat inspection data to improve pig health traits by breeding: a review. Livest Sci. 2019;221:155–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2019.02.001 .
doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2019.02.001
Harley S, More S, Boyle L, Connell NO, Hanlon A. Good animal welfare makes economic sense: potential of pig abattoir meat inspection as a welfare surveillance tool. Ir Vet J. 2012;65:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-0481-65-11 .
doi: 10.1186/2046-0481-65-11
pubmed: 22738170
pmcid: 3443032
Alban L, Vieira-Pinto M, Meemken D, Maurer P, Ghidini S, Santos S, et al. Differences in code terminology and frequency of findings in meat inspection of finishing pigs in seven European countries. Food Control. 2022;132:108394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108394 .
doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108394
Steinmann T, Blaha T, Meemken D. A simplified evaluation system of surface-related lung lesions of pigs for official meat inspection under industrial slaughter conditions in Germany. BMC Vet Res. 2014;10:98. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-10-98 .
doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-10-98
pubmed: 24766795
pmcid: 4016671
Enøe C, Christensen G, Andersen S, Willeberg P. The need for built-in validation of surveillance data so that changes in diagnostic performance of post-mortem meat inspection can be detected. Prev Vet Med. 2003;57:117–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5877(02)00229-5 .
doi: 10.1016/S0167-5877(02)00229-5
pubmed: 12581595
Sarikaya A, Correll M, Bartram L, Tory M, Fisher D. What do we talk about when we talk about dashboards? IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph. 2019;25:682–92. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2864903 .
doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2018.2864903
Banhazi T, Dunn M, Cook P, Black J, Durack M, Johnnson I. Development of precision livestock farming (PLF) technologies for the Australian pig industry. In: Precision livestock farming ’07. Wageningen: Brill, Wageningen Academic; 2007. p. 219–28.
doi: 10.3920/9789086866045_028
Mahfuz S, Mun H-S, Dilawar MA, Yang C-J. Applications of smart technology as a sustainable strategy in modern swine farming. Sustainability. 2022;14:2607. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052607 .
doi: 10.3390/su14052607
Sanders P, Vanderhaeghen W, Fertner M, Fuchs K, Obritzhauser W, Agunos A, et al. Monitoring of farm-level antimicrobial use to guide stewardship: overview of existing systems and analysis of key components and processes. Front Vet Sci. 2020;7:540. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00540 .
doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00540
pubmed: 33195490
pmcid: 7475698
Hoch SJ, Schkade DA. A psychological approach to decision support systems. Manag Sci. 1996;42:51–64.
doi: 10.1287/mnsc.42.1.51
Ackoff RL. Management misinformation systems. Manage Sci. 1967;14:B-147-B−156.
doi: 10.1287/mnsc.14.4.B147
Koltes JE, Cole JB, Clemmens R, Dilger RN, Kramer LM, Lunney JK, et al. A vision for development and utilization of high-throughput phenotyping and big data analytics in livestock. Front Genet. 2019;10:1197. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2019.01197 .
doi: 10.3389/fgene.2019.01197
pubmed: 31921279
pmcid: 6934059
Doidge C, Palczynski L, Zhou X, Bearth A, van Schaik G, Kaler J. Exploring the data divide through a social practice lens: a qualitative study of UK cattle farmers. Prev Vet Med. 2023;220:106030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2023.106030 .
doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2023.106030
pubmed: 37806078
Matthews SG, Miller AL, PlÖtz T, Kyriazakis I. Automated tracking to measure behavioural changes in pigs for health and welfare monitoring. Sci Rep. 2017;7:17582. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-17451-6 .
doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-17451-6
pubmed: 29242594
pmcid: 5730557
Pandey S, Kalwa U, Kong T, Guo B, Gauger PC, Peters DJ, et al. Behavioral monitoring tool for pig farmers: ear tag sensors, machine intelligence, and technology adoption roadmap. Animals. 2021;11:2665. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11092665 .
doi: 10.3390/ani11092665
pubmed: 34573631
pmcid: 8466302
Calba C, Antoine-Moussiaux N, Charrier F, Hendrikx P, Saegerman C, Peyre M, et al. Applying participatory approaches in the evaluation of surveillance systems: a pilot study on African swine fever surveillance in Corsica. Prev Vet Med. 2015;122:389–98.
doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.10.001
pubmed: 26489602
Faiola AJ, Srinivas P, Doebbeling BN. A ubiquitous situation-aware data visualization dashboard to reduce ICU clinician cognitive load. In: 2015 17th international conference on E-health networking, application & services (HealthCom). IEEE, 2015, pp. 439–42. https://doi.org/10.1109/HealthCom.2015.7454540 .
Filonik D, Medland R, Foth M, Rittenbruch M. A customisable dashboard display for environmental performance visualisations, 2013, pp. 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37157-8_8 .
Kaler J, Ruston A. Technology adoption on farms: using Normalisation Process Theory to understand sheep farmers’ attitudes and behaviours in relation to using precision technology in flock management. Prev Vet Med. 2019;170:104715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.104715 .
doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.104715
pubmed: 31421497
pmcid: 6745618
Trilles S, González-Pérez A, Huerta J. An IoT platform based on microservices and serverless paradigms for smart farming purposes. Sensors. 2020;20:2418. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20082418 .
doi: 10.3390/s20082418
pubmed: 32344569
pmcid: 7219504
Castells Gasia JP. Design and implementation of an architecture to assist decision making in livestock 4.0. 2021 [cited 2024 Apr 16]. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/10459.1/71729 .
Simon G, Larsen LE, Dürrwald R, Foni E, Harder T, Van Reeth K, et al. European surveillance network for Influenza in pigs: surveillance programs, diagnostic tools and swine influenza virus subtypes identified in 14 European countries from 2010 to 2013. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e115815.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115815
pubmed: 25542013
pmcid: 4277368
Vincent A, Awada L, Brown I, Chen H, Claes F, Dauphin G, et al. Review of influenza A virus in swine worldwide: a call for increased surveillance and research. Zoonoses Public Health. 2014;61:4–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/zph.12049 .
doi: 10.1111/zph.12049
pubmed: 23556412
O’Sullivan TL, Friendship RM, Pearl DL, McEwen B, Dewey CE. Identifying an outbreak of a novel swine disease using test requests for porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome as a syndromic surveillance tool. BMC Vet Res. 2012;8:192. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-8-192 .
doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-8-192
pubmed: 23072647
pmcid: 3514316
Van Metre DC, Barkey DQ, Salman MD, Morley PS. Development of a syndromic surveillance system for detection of disease among livestock entering an auction market. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2009;234:658–64. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.234.5.658 .
doi: 10.2460/javma.234.5.658
pubmed: 19250046
Rodríguez-Prieto V, Vicente-Rubiano M, Sánchez-Matamoros A, Rubio-Guerri C, Melero M, Martínez-López B, Martínez-Avilés M, Hoinville L, Vergne T, Comin A, Schauer B, Sánchez-Vizcaíno JM. Systematic review of surveillance systems and methods for early detection of exotic, new and re-emerging diseases in animal populations. Epidemiol Infect. 2015;143:2018–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095026881400212X .
doi: 10.1017/S095026881400212X
pubmed: 25353252