For virus detection, isolation is the gold standard. However, antigen capture ELISA (NS3, Erns) and real-time RT-PCR are used more routinely. Both are used for testing of blood and ear notch samples in standard screening. Many real-time RT-PCR kits are widely available from commercial suppliers.For exposure, VNT is the gold standard for diagnostics, however, routinely blocking ELISAs (NS2-3, or Erns) or indirect ELISAs (total antibodies) are used for serum, plasma and milk.
List of commercial diagnostic kits (Diagnostics for Animals).
GAPS :
Kit release testing according to national regulations in some European countries (eg Germany, Belgium, Ireland, Switzerland, France). Work is ongoing in Europe through CEN (www.cencenelec.eu) to develop standards in animal health diagnostics.
GAPS :
Lack of central co-ordination of approval of test kits and batch release certification results in duplication of efforts between countries.
Yes, chapter available on BVD in the terrestrial manual from WOAH (chapter 3.4.7).
Ongoing and newly started national and regional control programmes means there is a huge market for commercial diagnostic kits. However the market for NEW kits with similar performance may be limited.
Currently not available.
GAPS :
MLV (based on noncytopathic viruses or double deleted mutant virus) and inactivated vaccines are available.
Projects involving RNA vaccines are underway but cost is likely to be an impediment in the immediate future.
GAPS :
Currently no marker vaccines available.
MLV and inactivated vaccines are available globally. The prevention of establishment of persistent infection is the major goal with vaccination, and close to 100% efficacy would be required for efficient BVD control. The efficacy of most vaccines under various field conditions is less than 100%.
GAPS :
Very high in the short term until control programmes prohibit their use.
GAPS :
Agreement on what will be an acceptable marker antibody for detection in bulk milk and/or serum. Broader cross-reactivity against more recent field subtypes. The goal should be to develop vaccines demonstrating 100% foetal protection.
Currently none.
All current vaccines are prepared using conventional cell lines. Production is amenable to scale up using bioreactors.
GAPS :
Alternative production cell lines may be needed to emerging bovine pestiviruses to the titers required for vaccine production.Alternative platforms for vaccine production (mRNA, DNA, vector vaccines, recombinants proteins etc.) might be envisaged.
Currently none.
No pharmaceutical therapy available commercially to treat acute transient infections. Prototypes are available (tested for related human viruses as well as for CSFV). Treatment of PI animals not realistic.
Unlikely.
No.
No.
Not considered applicable.
Yes.
GAPS :
International standards for test validation, test registration and batch release testing need to be established. Tests should be validated against all pestivirus species that have been isolated from cattle and domestic, especially border disease virus (wich can circulate between ovine and bovine population) and free ranging ruminants that may be in contact with domestic cattle and against subgenotypes of species in circulation in the geographic region from which samples will be collected.
Development and registration of diagnostic tests needs 1 – 3 years in general. The veterinary diagnostics market errs on the side of conservatism and new concepts/technologies may need longer time for market penetration.
In many countries there is a close collaboration between industry and research institutes as well as regulatory bodies that facilitates test development and evaluation.
GAPS :
The availability of standard pestivirus-positive reference material with low and high viral loads (e.g. semen, serum, milk) is a limiting factor in test validation and test comparison.
GAPS :
Currently no tests licensed for differential diagnosis between the different ruminant pestiviruses.Rapid, reasonably priced on-site diagnostic tests that allow timely identification of PI animals would be of great benefit to control efforts.
RT-PCR is recognized as the most sensitive method for virus detection. Repeated testing by RT-PCR within a specified time frame provides information about the animal status. Freedom from virus in a population can only be guaranteed in terms of statistical probability.
GAPS :
The high sensitivity of RT-PCR sometimes yields results that are difficult to interpret, as transient infections are detected as well. In addition, there are PI animals with a high Ct (>30), and transiently infected animals with a low Ct (<25).
Vaccines have been shown to reduce the incidence of acute infections and persistent infections.
GAPS :
No vaccine tested to date has been 100% effective in preventing virus from crossing the placenta and establishing a persistent infection in the fetus. Reducing but not eliminating the number of PI’s conpromises control by vaccination alone.
Prototypes exist (all are Npro-deletion mutants).Estimation of a time frame: 5 years.
GAPS :
Other mutants or double mutants might be helpful, as Npro is not a good marker for DIVA vaccines.
Could be considerable as the model for evaluating efficacy requires the use of cattle. Cattle are expensive, naïve cattle are difficult to acquire and cattle housing is expensive.
Better understanding of transplacental transmission of ncp BVDV, in order to provide improved means of blocking virus passage across the placenta. Better understanding of impact of passive antibodies on efficacy of vaccination.
Unlikely to be any means of pharmaceutical treatment.
N/A.
N/A.
NA.
Three main species of pathogens in cattle, Bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) type 1 (BVDV1) (Pestivirus A), BVDV type 2 (Pestivirus B) and Hobi-like (Pestivirus H) viruses (previously referred to as BVDV3 and atypical bovine pestivirus) are associated with the group of clinical presentations known as bovine viral diarrhea (BVD). All three species are classified in the genus Pestivirus of the family Flaviviridae. They are single stranded, enveloped RNA viruses similar to Classical swine fever virus (hog cholera virus; Pestivirus C) and Border disease virus (Pestivirus D) of sheep. All three species can be grouped, based on phylogenetic analysis, into subgroups (subgenotypes). While it appears that there are differences between subgenotypes in geographic distribution and antigenic cross reactivity, the criteria for differentiating subgenotypes has not been defined.Viruses in all three species may exist as one of two biotypes, cytopathic and noncytopathic, based on their activity in cell cultures. Regardless of species, the noncytopathic biotype predominates in nature, as only this biotype is able to induce persistence.In addition, several other emerging pestivirus viruses originating from non-bovine species have been described during recent years (e.g. “Antelope” and “Atypical porcine pestivirus). However, the host tropism of these emerging viruses has not been established and it is not known if they infect bovines and cause clinical presentations similar to those seen with BVD.
GAPS :
Virus isolates from the main species exhibit considerable antigenic and biological diversity. The three species may be differentiated from each other and from other pestiviral species by monoclonal antibodies directed against the E2 and Erns major glycoproteins, differential PCR amplification or by phylogenetic analysis. Relative prevalence of the three varies by geographic location. BVDV-1 and BVDV-2 viruses are more geographically dispersed than HoBi-like viruses. BVDV1 viruses are prevalent in Europe, South America and North America. BVDV2 viruses are found at higher rates in North America and South America than in Europe. Hobi-like viruses thus far have only been reported in South America, Europe and Asia. Regardless of species or geographic location, the non-cytopathogenic biotype predominates in the field. While both BVDV1 and BVDV2 have been isolated following outbreaks of severe acute disease associated with haemorrhage in the field, severe acute disease has only been reproduced under controlled conditions with BVDV2 strains. It should be noted that highly virulent BVDV2 strains are in the minority in nature and that the majority of BVDV2 strains are no more virulent thanBVDV1 or HoBi-like virus strains.
The genomes of all three species consist of 1 long open reading frame (ORF) flanked by two non-translated regions. The ORF is translated into one long polypeptide, which is subsequently cleaved into the individual viral proteins by viral and cellular proteases. Recombination events, resulting in genomic insertions, have been observed with all three species. These insertions might be associated with changes in biotype and in some cases virulence.
GAPS :
BVDV does normally not survive in the environment for more than two weeks; although it has been shown that virus may survive for a longer period of time under wet and cold conditions (winter snows).
Virus may also survive and remain infective for longer periods in hair samples, desiccated tissues, fomites and beddings.BVDV is susceptible to common disinfectants.
GAPS :
Persistently infected (PI) cattle are the main carriers. Their role in the epidemiology of the disease cannot be overestimated.
Acutely infected cattle are transient carriers. The length of transmission following acute infection may vary based on health, stress level, age and presence of other pathogens.
Small ruminants and other domestic and wild even toed ungulates are potential carriers.
Some studies have described evidence of infection/susceptibility to infection in rabbits and European hares.
GAPS :
No.
GAPS :
While there is no direct evidence that any of the three species cause clinical disease in humans, human vaccines have been demonstrated to be contaminated with BVDV. Given the plasticity of pestiviruses and their ability to rapidly adapt to new hosts, more effort should be exercised in reducing human exposure to pestiviruses by eliminating BVDV contamination of vaccines and determining how effective food processing protocols are in eliminating/reducing BVDV contamination of milk and meat.
Insects may carry the virus passively.Passive vectors like vehicles and veterinarians etc can play a significant role in transmission.
GAPS :
The importance of vectors (flies) for passive transmission of BVDV not well understood. Risk estimates needed.
Persistently Infected (PI) animals including cattle, other domestic ruminants and wildlife are the major reservoirs.
Minor sources of infection include transiently infected animals, semen of infected cattle, frozen colostrum, transplanted embryos, contaminated live vaccines and cell lines and other biologicals produced using contaminated fetal bovine serum (FBS).
GAPS :
The ability of small and wild ruminants (independent of contact with cattle or otherwise) and of non-ruminant species to serve as reservoirs of infection, and the potential impact of this on control and eradication programmes, needs further investigation.
Spread is mainly by direct contact with infected animals or bodily fluids from infected animals, in particular by contact with PI cattle. Vertical transmission plays an important role in its epidemiology and pathogenesis. Viruses may be transmitted across the placenta from dam to fetus.
Semen from persistently and acutely infected animals and, rarely, recovered animals may be suspect.
The general use of FBS in embryo transfer and in vaccine production is a risk factor for long distance/high impact transmission.
GAPS :
Not relevant.
BVD manifests itself as different clinical presentations depending on among other things virus strain, age and immunophysiological status of the animal when first infected:
GAPS :
Generally 6 to 12 days post infection although this period may be shorter following infection with high virulence strains.
Mortality due to acute uncomplicated BVD is generally considered low, however this is strain dependent and for strains inducing haemorrhagic syndrome, mortality can exceed 50%. During outbreaks with bovine respiratory disease complex (BRDC), in which BVDV interacts with other pathogens, and/or at various stress conditions, mortality may also be significant, and a certain post-natal mortality in calves infected in late gestation (non-PI), can be expected. In addition, infection can result in abortion.In PI animals the mortality is significantly higher than in acutely infected animals, and reaches 100% in those that develop mucosal disease.
GAPS :
Persistent infection: Every excretion with high titers of up to 107 TCID50 per ml (exception: during colostral immunity).Acute infection: typically low to medium titers (102 to 104 TCID50 per ml). However infection with high virulence strains associated with hemorrhagic syndrome can result in higher titers.
GAPS :
Ruminant pestiviruses can cross the placenta and infect the fetus resulting in congenital defects (including persistent infections).Mucosal disease (MD) occurs when a PI animal, persistently infected with a noncytopathic strain, is superinfected with a cytopathic strain. The immunosuppression accompanying acute infections can foster secondary infections.Ruminant pestiviruses can interact directly with secondary pathogens to increase severity of disease.Some viral strains cause hemorrhagic syndrome in acute, uncomplicated infections.
GAPS :
None (one old report without convincing or reproduced data).
Unknown, likely none.
None.
Low, although contamination of human vaccines with bovine pestiviruses is a potential route by which humans could be exposed to BVDV where normal immune defence mechanisms are circumvented.
GAPS :
Risk of spread to human population through contaminated vaccines unknown. Impact and consequence of potential spread unknown.
1) Impact due to disease:
The animal welfare impact of BVD is hard to estimate. However, given the worldwide spread of the disease and its immunosuppressive effects, resulting in general impaired health in affected herds, the global impact is huge.
2) Impact due to control:
The impact on animal welfare associated with the implementation of effective control measures is low. Control measures do not require any pre-emptive culling. Only PI animals need to be removed from the herd.
GAPS :
BVD infection could have an impact on biodiversity if it is present in herds with endangered cattle breeds (including the preservation of semen from these breeds), zoos, game parks, and free ranging ruminant populations due to the disease itself or indirectly due to control efforts.
GAPS :
Extent of problem in captive (zoos, parks and preserves) and free ranging wildlife (e.g. chamois, mountain goats) needs further investigations.
PI animals should be slaughtered to reduce transmission.
BVDV1 strains are found in all continents that support domestic or wild ruminant herds. BVDV2 strains have a similar distribution with the exception of its apparent absence in Australia and perhaps New Zealand. Hobi-like viruses have thus far been only reported in South America, Asia and Europe.
GAPS :
Introduction or reintroduction of ruminant pestiviral species into naïve population can have epidemic characteristics.
GAPS :
Vaccination. The role of vaccines of less than 100% efficacy in disease outbreaks in a BVD-free country is unknown (e.g. can disease-free state be maintained with the aid of currently available vaccines?).
Virus may be shed, based on virus isolation, in body secretions and excretions from days 4 to 15 post-transient (acute) infection. Bulls with persistent testicular infections can shed virus in semen for many months. Horizontal transmission to seronegative cattle has been shown to occur after only one hour of direct contact with a PI animal.
GAPS :
High via global trade with potentially infected semen, and embryos, or the trade of PI animals or dams carrying PI foetuses (so called PI-carriers).
The global trade with potentially infected FBS, or biological products based on FBS (incl. cell cultures and live-attenuated vaccines) has further implications on the potential for transboundary spread.
GAPS :
Horizontally via contact with excretions or secretions of PI animals and vertically by foetal infection during early pregnancy – generally thought to be before 125 days of pregnancy. Common modes of between-herd transmission, apart from over-the-fence contacts and contacts during co-pasturing etc is through trade with PI animals or dams pregnant with PI foetuses. Indirect contacts through animals, feed, people, carriers, etc.
GAPS :
Contaminated embryos, semen and biological products based on FBS such as vaccines.Iatrogenic, ET, other indirect means such as fomites, bedding, slurry, lochia, afterbirth, flies, contamination of equipment used to handle, process and transport animals.
GAPS :
Conditions that FAVOUR spread include animal trade (purchase of PIs or pregnant animals, potentially carrying PI foetuses), common pasturing (including cattle and domestic small ruminants), grouping of animals from different sources (such as in sale barns and feedlots), contact between domestic and wild species, and other cattle management strategies that increases the likelihood of between-herd contacts.Inadequate attention to bioexclusion to address indirect transmission pathways between herds. Survival of the virus in biologicals favours spread through indirect means.
Generally, inapparent clinical signs of the disease make early detection difficult.
GAPS :
In non-PI animals infection elicits a serological antibody response and a T cell response; in PI animals, a humoral (serological) and cellular immune response is not seen unless the infecting virus is sufficiently heterologous.A reduction in circulating WBC is observed following acute infection and is probably associated with immune suppression.
GAPS :
To date, immunological based tests cannot differentiate between exposed and vaccinated animals. In the absence of vaccination, antibodies may be detected via ELISA or serum neutralisation test (SNT) using paired serum samples taken 21 days apart (but this is rarely done). At the herd level, more commonly used, antibody detection in bulk milk or spot samples may be used as the basis for diagnosis regarding the likely presence or absence of the infection.
GAPS :
Identification and removal of PI animals is a prerequisite for further sanitary measures aimed at removing the infection. The use of a closed herd policy with strict control of semen (and embryos in herds where embryo transfer is used) should be implemented. The effectiveness of a closed herd policy will be a function of prevalence in the neighbourhood and in the market, and the compliance with biosecurity measures such as pre-introduction testing or sourcing animals from herds confirmed to be free from BVDV. In non-closed herds, adequate biosecurity measures to avoid introduction via added PI animals, dams carrying PI foetuses or transiently infected animals are required. In both circumstances, additional bioexclusion measures to prevent introduction by other direct or indirect transmission pathways (e.g. boundary contacts, personnel) are required. Serological testing will not identify PI animals so virus testing would be required to eliminate these animals. Pre-introduction testing is less efficient in identifying dams carrying PI foetuses (although quarantine and testing with negative serological results can help exclude the possibility of such animals being introduced) and introduction of these are best prevented by control at the herd of origin.
GAPS :
So far only strategies using improved biosecurity and elimination of PI animals have been shown to be successful.Non-systematic vaccination strategies have been widely used in many settings, so far with no proof of sustainable decrease in disease prevalence or impact.Various BVD control programmes based on improved biosecurity and elimination of PI animal, and either with or without permitted use of vaccines, are underway in a number of countries and regions.
Virus isolation (gold standard) using multiple sample types, most commonly whole blood, serum, buffy coat and spleen. In routine practice methods more commonly used include antigen capture ELISAs (ACE) (in blood, milk, semen and ear notches), RT-PCR (in blood, milk, semen and ear notches) and immunohistochemistry (fixed tissue samples, particularly ear notches).Serological based tests are useful in determining exposure but only in the absence of vaccination.
GAPS :
Conventional MLVs, double deleted live vaccine and inactivated vaccines are available.Efficacy, safety and duration remain issues.Non-systematic vaccination strategies have been widely used in many settings, so far with no proof of sustainable decrease in disease prevalence or impact.Various BVDV control programmes based on improved biosecurity and elimination of PI animal, and either with or without permitted use of vaccines, are successfully underway in a number of countries and regions.
GAPS :
There are no therapeutic treatments available. Prophylactic treatments may be used and antibiotics may be used to treat secondary infections, but their overuse should be avoided.Prototypes (NS5b polymerase blocking pharmaceuticals) have been tested in vitro (from HCV research).
GAPS :
Impact of overuse of antimicrobials in PI animals and cohorts of PI animals has been largely unaddressed.
See Section “Sanitary measures”. Most important biosecurity measure for herd prevention is to prevent contact with/introduction of PI animals/PI carriers. Most important biosecurity measure to control the infection at the herd level is to identify and remove PI animals, and using quarantine measures for new animals to avoid introduction of the virus via transiently infected animals.Several studies have shown that herd biosecurity measures alone can lead to free herds in many cases through self-clearance. This is probably particularly true in small-size herds, but is also commonly seen in larger herds.
GAPS :
Impact of timing/frequency of PI screening and removal on effectiveness of within-herd control measures. Recognition of common production practices that decrease effectiveness of testing and control strategies.
BVDV1 (Pestivirus A) and BVDV2 (Pestivirus B) are not currently a significant barrier to international trade. Countries with national or regional control programmes may have certain regulations for affiliated farmers that effectively restrict trade with animals of unknown BVDV status. AI stations are under regulatory control and there are requirements for the testing of both bulls and semen.Within the European Union, under the new Animal Health Law (REGULATION (EU) 2016/429 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 9 March 2016 on transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health (‘Animal Health Law’)), countries or regions may apply for either approval of eradication programmes or recognition of freedom, according to the requirements of COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2020/689. Where such approval or recognition is granted, specific requirements and/or prohibitions are put in place regarding the introduction of animals from other herds and Member Sates (COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2020/688).
GAPS :
The primary target for BVDV prevention is usually the herd. Biosecurity measures and vaccination may be used as strategies for prevention.
Wide variation in practices across the globe.May be done by testing for antibodies in bulk milk or on a small sample of individuals (spot tests) and/or by bulk tank milk (BTM) or individual testing for viral RNA or antigen using RT-PCR or antigen capture ELISA, respectively. BTM testing using RT-PCR alone is NOT recommended.
GAPS :
Several European countries have experience with systematic large scale BVD programmes aimed at eradication or control on a regional basis in other countries. Despite different pre-conditions in terms of initial prevalence, herd density, regulatory support etc these have all proven to be successful in eliminating or strongly reducing the prevalence of infection. Strategies aimed at elimination have also proven to be cost-efficient. National/regional systematic strategies that permit vaccination as an additional biosecurity tool are included in some of these European programs, while in others use of vaccine is prohibited in order not to interfere with serological surveillance.Non-systematic vaccination strategies have been widely used in many settings, so far with no proof of sustainable decrease in disease prevalence or impact.
GAPS :
Costs will vary by geographic region and type of production. For an overview please see:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2021.688078/full
GAPS :
Yes. Direct link.
Terrestrial Animal Health Code - 28/06/2019.
Collection and processing of bovine, small ruminant and porcine semen.
Collection and processing of oocytes and in vitro produced embryos from livestock and horses.
Minimal except in the case of increased resistance.
Not applicable.
Direct losses between and within countries were largely heterogeneous with respect to the monetary level.For an overview of the worldwide production losses please see Richter et al., 2017. The Veterinary Journal.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090023317300102?via%3Dihub
GAPS :
See Section “Main means of prevention, detection and control – costs of above measures” and “Direct impact on production.
GAPS :
Difficult to calculate (country, control programs, number of PI animals, vaccination etc.).
GAPS :
Currently no or very low impact on trade from EU. Many external trading partners have specific health requirements relating to vaccination or testing for BVD in relation to live exports.
Within the European Union, under the new Animal Health Law (REGULATION (EU) 2016/429 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 9 March 2016 on transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health (‘Animal Health Law’)), countries or regions may apply for either approval of eradication programmes or recognition of freedom, according to the requirements of COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2020/689. Where such approval or recognition is granted, specific requirements and/or prohibitions are put in place regarding the introduction of animals from other herds and Member Sates (COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2020/688).On the other hand, countries with national control programmes may have regulations regarding importation of animals equal to those regarding purchase of animals of unknown BVDV status. Such measures do not require national legislation but have the same potential function with regards to international trade.
GAPS :
Good studies on impact on trade, involving economists and political scientist needed.
Initially high in countries with control programs, when there is a need for a market that can handle animals from herds with different statuses, and when there is still an additional market value for BVDV free animals. Both these impacts decrease as the majority of herds become free.No impact in other countries.
GAPS :
The relationship between national animal policies (e.g. declaring herd status and/or requiring pre-movement testing) to mitigate BVD risk and the impact on national trade is largely unexplored. Assessment required to calculate the costs and impact of trade restrictions on the one hand, and the costs for surveillance and risk for re-introduction of BVD on the other hand have not been completed for most control programs. There is a trade-off between reducing trade restrictions for farmers to avoid unnecessary losses, and the risk detecting a PI animal too late for efficient control and finally eradication.
No.
No.
Has been described as a consequence of flooding, leading to emergency movement of cattle (crowding and exposure to multiple herds).Climate flux can lead to changes in migratory routes or grazing ranges of free ranging wildlife populations that result in greater contact between domestic and free ranging species.
None recognised.
Obstacles are not on the tool side. Rather, the main obstacles can be found in the attitudes and priorities of influential individuals/groups within the industry, academia and authorities.There is often lack of awareness among farmers and veterinarians, and because in many countries the producers will bear the cost of BVD control, the producer “buy-in” is critical.A trustful relationship between farmers, practitioners and governmental authorities is a prerequisite, and commitment of all involved parties is necessary.
GAPS :
A cooperative and nation-wide farming industry, efficient interface between industry and academia, good and trustful collaboration between authorities and industry, a well-founded communication strategy. An integrated national database to facilitate co-ordination at national level, processing large volumes of data and used to control movements and assign statuses in more or less real-time at animal- and herd-levels.
GAPS :
Control or eradication of BVD is recognised to confer advantages in wider animal health, particularly in calves and therefore to reduce antimicrobial usage, which in turn contributes to reducing the development of AMR.
GAPS :
Specific studies quantifying impact of BVD control and eradication on AMU and ultimately on development of AMR.
NA.
NA.
NA.
NA.
NA.
NA.
NA.
NA.
NA.
NA.
BVD is recognised to reduce the efficiency of dairy and beef production. Control and eradication will therefore reduce the emissions per unit of output (kg of beef or litre of milk). If accompanied by a reduction in animal numbers while maintaining the same level of output, this will also deliver absolute reductions in emissions.
GAPS :
NA.
NA.
Mathematical models have been developed to inform decision making in several European countries, including Ireland, France and Germany.
NA.
NA.
Cattle of all ages are susceptible to BVD and the viruses which cause BVD are endemic worldwide. Clinical signs range from sub-clinical to fatal (mucosal disease and haemorrhagic syndrome). Acute infections may result in transient clinical disease with non-specific signs (respiratory tract, intestinal tract, fever, leukopenia). The virus spreads mainly by contact between cattle or via indirect contact, but vertical transmission plays the major role in its epidemiology and pathogenesis. Infections of the bovine foetus may result in abortions, stillbirths, teratogenic effects or persistent infection of the neonatal calf. Persistently infected (viraemic) animals (PI) may be born as weak, unthrifty calves or very often appear as normal healthy calves and be unrecognised clinically. Antibody positive pregnant cattle carrying persistently infected calves are important transmitters of the disease. There is some degree of cross protection seen. Currently the only restriction placed on the market is in the sale of semen from infected bulls.
Julia Ridpath, Ridpath consulting LLC, USA – [Leader].
Matheus Nunes Weber, Universidade Feevale, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
David Graham, Animal Health Ireland, Ireland.
Maria Guelbenzu, Animal Health Ireland, Ireland.
Matthias Schweizer, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Switzerland.
Beate Conrady, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
Matt Yarnall, Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica.
Peter Kirkland, Elizabeth Macarthur Agriculture Institute, Australia.
Nicola Decaro, University of Bari, Italy.
Carolyn Gates, Maasey University, New Zealand.
15/05/2023
https://www.woah.org/fileadmin/Home/fr/Health_standards/tahm/3.04.07_BVD.pdf.Regulation (EU) 2016/429 on transmissible animal diseases.
Jaka Jakob Hodnik, Žaklin Acinger-Rogić, Mentor Alishani, Tiina Autio, Ana Balseiro, John Berezowski, Luís Pedro Carmo, Ilias Chaligiannis, Beate Conrady, Lina Costa, Iskra Cvetkovikj, Ivana Davidov, Marc Dispas, Igor Djadjovski, Elsa Leclerc Duarte, Céline Faverjon, Christine Fourichon, Jenny Frössling, Anton Gerilovych, Jörn Gethmann, Jacinto Gomes, David Graham, Maria Guelbenzu, George J. Gunn, Madeleine K. Henry, Petter Hopp, Hans Houe, Elena Irimia, Jožica Ježek, Ramon A. Juste, Emmanouil Kalaitzakis, Jasmeet Kaler, Selcuk Kaplan, Polychronis Kostoulas, Kaspars Kovalenko, Nada Kneževič, Tanja Knific, Xhelil Koleci, Aurélien Madouasse, Alvydas Malakauskas, Rene Mandelik, Eleftherios Meletis, Madalina Mincu, Kerli Mõtus, Violeta Muñoz-Gómez, Mihaela Niculae, Jelena Nikitović, Matjaž Ocepek, Marie Tangen-Opsal, László Ózsvári, Dimitrios Papadopoulos, Theofilos Papadopoulos, Sinikka Pelkonen, Miroslaw Pawel Polak, Nicola Pozzato, Eglé Rapaliuté, Stefaan Ribbens, João Niza-Ribeiro, Franz-Ferdinand Roch, Liza Rosenbaum Nielsen, Jose Luis Saez, Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Gerdien van Schaik, Ebba Schwan, Blagica Sekovska, Jože Starič, Sam Strain, Petr Šatran, Sabina Šerić-Haračić, Lena-Mari Tamminen, Hans-Hermann Thulke, Ivan Toplak, Erja Tuunainen, Sharon Verner, Štefan Vilček, Ramazan Yildiz, Inge M. G. A. Santman-Berends. Front Vet Sci. 2021; 8: 688078. Published online 2021 Jul 30. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.688078
Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): bovine viral diarrhoea (BVD). EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); More S, Bøtner A, Butterworth A, Calistri P, Depner K, Edwards S, Garin-Bastuji B, Good M, Gortázar Schmidt C, Michel V, Miranda MA, Nielsen SS, Raj M, Sihvonen L, Spoolder H, Stegeman JA, Thulke HH, Velarde A, Willeberg P, Winckler C, Baldinelli F, Broglia A, Dhollander S, Beltrán-Beck B, Kohnle L, Bicout D. EFSA J. 2017 Aug 4;15(8):e04952. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4952. PMID: 32625618; PMCID: PMC7009957.
Moennig V, Yarnall MJ. The Long Journey to BVD Eradication. Pathogens. 2021 Oct 7;10(10):1292.. doi: 10.3390/pathogens10101292. PMID: 34684241; PMCID: PMC8539298.