Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Modeling the impact of control zone restrictions on pig placement in simulated African swine fever in the United States

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Under the U.S. National Response Plan, a simulated ASF outbreak leaves a median of 153,020 pigs unplaced in the first year; shorter control zones reduce that number by up to 33.5% while wider zones reduce depopulation but raise unplacement by up to 282%.

desk verdict Useful first estimate of ASF control-zone unplacement costs, but national numbers rest on one company's data; scenario trade-offs are internally sound. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14191 v2 pith:GHIREVHU submitted 2025-05-20 q-bio.QM

Chunlin Yi , Jason A. Galvis , Gustavo Machado This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.QM
keywords pigsunplacednumbercontrolzonedepopulatedeconomicmedian
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The authors use an existing farm-level SEID model of African swine fever spread among 1,981 U.S. commercial swine farms, driven by real 2020 movement records of pigs and trucks from three production companies. They simulate a one-year outbreak starting from each farm, and apply the USDA National Response Plan: depopulation of detected farms, a 72-hour movement standstill, contact tracing, and control zones around infected farms. Their new measurement is the number of healthy pigs that cannot be moved because their destination or origin falls inside a control zone, which they call unplaced pigs.

Under the standard plan, the median outbreak leaves about 153,000 pigs unplaced, but this ranges from about 27,000 to 1.3 million across simulations, and up to over 4.5 million in extreme cases. Shortening the control zone from 30 to 20 days cuts the median unplaced count by about a third, while extending it to 40 days raises it by about a third. Widening the infected zone from 3 km to 15 km reduces depopulated pigs by up to 74% but increases unplaced pigs by up to 282%, because more farms lie inside the restricted area.

The economic model is a simple linear formula: total loss equals the value of depopulated pigs plus a fraction x of the value of unplaced pigs that end up being culled. The authors show that the cost comparison between zones depends strongly on x, and that x=12% is the value at which total costs across all scenarios are most similar. That value is a model-derived threshold, not an independently measured culling rate, and the paper is explicit that the ranking of strategies flips depending on whether more or fewer than 12% of unplaced pigs are culled.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central quantitative claim is that under the U.S. National Response Plan, a simulated one-year ASF outbreak leaves a median of 153,020 unplaced pigs (IQR 27,377 to 1,307,899), and that changing control zone duration from 30 to 20 days reduces median unplacement by 33.5% while extending to 40 days raises it by 32%, with median infected farms unchanged across durations (§3.1, §3.2). If correct, the cost model L = D + x*U further implies that the ranking of zone strategies flips at x = 12%, the fraction of unplaced pigs requiring culling.

Load-bearing premise

The simulation treats the 2020 movement records of three production companies as the national counterfactual movement pattern, and Company A alone accounts for over 98% of transported pigs and of unplaced pigs (§2.1, §3.1, Figure 2C). If that one company's records are not representative of the U.S. commercial swine industry, the headline unplacement counts, the 53.6% to 282% zone-size effects, and the economic loss estimates do not generalize. This is distinct from the central claim: it is a premise about the input data, not about what the model computes from it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper simulates one-year African swine fever (ASF) epidemics in a network of 1,981 U.S. commercial swine farms, using a previously published SEID-type transmission model and 2020 pig and vehicle movement records from three production companies. It applies the USDA National Response Plan (NRP) control zone policy and six alternative scenarios that vary control-zone duration (20, 25, 40 days) or infected-zone radius (5, 10, 15 km). The main outputs are the number of unplaced pigs blocked from movement into control zones, the number of infected farms, the number of depopulated pigs, epidemic elimination rates, and an economic loss model L = D + x·U, where D is the value of depopulated pigs, U is the value of unplaced pigs, and x is the fraction of unplaced pigs ultimately culled. The headline results are a median of 153,020 unplaced pigs (IQR 27,377–1,307,899) under the NRP; a 33.5% reduction in median unplaced pigs with a 20-day control zone; a 32% increase with a 40-day zone; and increases of 53.6%, 176.4%, and 282% in median unplaced pigs for 5, 10, and 15 km infected zones, respectively. The economic analysis reports that total costs across scenarios are most similar at x = 12%, which the authors interpret as a policy-relevant switch point between smaller and larger control zones.

Significance. If the quantitative findings are valid for the U.S. commercial swine industry, they would provide useful evidence for ASF preparedness, particularly on the trade-off between disease containment and business continuity. The paper has notable strengths: the scenario comparisons are internally consistent, uncertainty is reported with quantiles rather than point estimates alone, the transmission parameters come from previously calibrated and peer-reviewed work, and the model implementation is available in a public GitHub repository. The separation of depopulation and unplacement costs into a simple two-parameter economic model is transparent, even if the parameter x is not empirically determined. The study also correctly identifies several of its own limitations, including the absence of slaughterhouse movements and the confidential nature of the movement data. However, the national generalizability of the headline numbers rests on a very thin empirical base, and the 12% threshold is derived from the model's own outputs rather than independent evidence; these issues must be addressed before the policy conclusions can be accepted as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1, §3.1, Supplementary Figure S1] The claim that the results describe a 'U.S.' outbreak is not supported by the movement data. Company A accounts for 98.06% of the 83,556,303 pigs transported and for over 98% of unplaced pigs (Figure 2C and Supplementary Figure S1), with Company B contributing a small share and Company C a median of zero. This means the headline unplacement counts, the duration effects (33.5% reduction at 20 days, 32% increase at 40 days), and the zone-size effects (53.6% to 282% increases) are essentially the properties of one company's production network. The manuscript provides no comparison of the 1,981 farms to national distributions of farm types, herd sizes, or geographic densities, and the raw data are confidential. I am not asking for a different model, but the claims and title should be scoped to the studied networks, or representativeness evidence should be provided.
  2. [§3.5 and Supplementary Material, 'Calculation of x'] The 12% threshold is not an independent empirical finding. The supplementary derivation explicitly computes x by minimizing the variance of the seven scenario medians, using the same median D and U values from Table 9 that are then used to report the x = 12% 'switch point.' A consequence of this construction is that the statements 'when fewer than 12% of unplaced pigs are culled, scenario 6 is cheaper' and 'when more than 12% are culled, scenario 1 is cheaper' are algebraic restatements of the cost model, not validated predictions. Moreover, minimizing the variance of seven medians is not a policy criterion; a policymaker would care about expected cost, worst-case cost, or a utility function, not the spread of median costs across hypothetical scenarios. The paper should present the dependence of cost rankings on x as a sensitivity analysis and remove or substantially rephrase the claim that x = 12% is a meaningful threshold.
  3. [§5, Limitations, and §3.1] The exclusion of slaughterhouse movements is load-bearing for the unplacement total, as the authors acknowledge in §5 but do not quantify. Because finisher, wean-to-finish, and farrow-to-finish farms mostly send pigs to slaughter, their median unplacement is zero in the model, and the paper states that 'movements to slaughterhouses were not considered in our analysis (data is unavailable).' This means the headline median of 153,020 unplaced pigs structurally omits a major category of placements, and the economic loss model consequently understates U for these farm types. The authors note this in the limitations section, but the abstract and conclusions still present the unplacement count as the national estimate. I would like to see either an explicit statement that the median 153,020 excludes market-bound pigs, with an estimate of the magnitude of the omission, or a revised framing.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Data Availability] The GitHub link (https://github.com/machado-lab/PigSpread-ASF) is given without a version or commit hash; since the paper reports simulation results, a tagged release or commit identifier would make the analysis reproducible.
  2. [Abstract and §3.5] The phrase 'over $800 millions' should be 'over $800 million.'
  3. [Acknowledgments] The phrase 'for their insists and concerns' appears to be a typo; it should likely be 'insights and concerns.'
  4. [Supplementary Material, 'Calculation of x'] The derivation is a simple quadratic minimization and should not be described as a 'mathematical proof' of a policy result; the language overstates the epistemic status of the 12% value.
  5. [Table 9 and Figure 5] The cost comparisons use median values, but the distribution of total costs is highly right-skewed (maxima exceed $800 million). Reporting only medians in Table 9 and in the threshold calculation understates the risk differences among scenarios; the 75th percentile and maximum columns should be used in the economic comparison as well.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the simulation outputs and the 12% economic crossover are transparently model-derived rather than fitted to the claimed outcomes.

full rationale

The paper's central results (unplaced pigs, depopulated pigs, infected farms, and economic losses) are produced by a farm-level SEID simulation that is run forward from 2020 movement data under the USDA National Response Plan and six alternative scenarios. The transmission parameters are taken from a previously published study by the same group (Sykes et al. 2025), but that prior work is an external, peer-reviewed calibration that does not incorporate the present paper's target outcomes, so citing it is normal method reuse rather than circularity. The x = 12% threshold is computed from the model's own median D and U values by minimizing the variance of L = D + xU across scenarios (Supplementary Material 'Calculation of x'). This is a transparent analytic crossover, explicitly presented as scenario-dependent, not an independent empirical estimate of the culling proportion; therefore it does not constitute a fitted input disguised as a prediction. The heavy reliance on Company A's movement records (over 98% of transported and unplaced pigs) is a representativeness limitation of the input data, not a circular derivation step. No equation in the paper reduces to its own inputs, and no load-bearing claim depends on an unverified self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on imported fitted transmission parameters, a single-company-dominated movement dataset, and a model-derived economic threshold. No new entities are invented, but the quantitative headline depends on parameters the reader cannot audit from this paper alone.

free parameters (4)
  • x, fraction of unplaced pigs requiring culling = 0.12 (12%) at variance minimum; also evaluated at 0.05 and 0.20
    Introduced in the cost model L = D + xU (§2.4). The paper computes x=0.12 by minimizing the variance of median total costs across scenarios (Supplementary Calculation of x) and then uses this value as a policy-relevant threshold in the abstract, results, and conclusion. This is a model-derived number, not an independently estimated parameter.
  • Transmission rates for pig and vehicle movements (beta_e, beta_i, beta_d, beta_pig truck, beta_market truck, beta_feed… = beta_e=beta_i=beta_d=1.51; beta_pig=0.0614; beta_market=0.0606; beta_feed=0.0288; beta_other=0.0605 (Table S1)
    Fitted in the authors' prior work (Sykes et al., 2025) and imported directly; the central epidemiological results depend on these values.
  • Local transmission kernel parameters phi and alpha = phi=0.0630, alpha=1.39
    Fitted in prior work (Sykes et al., 2025); controls the probability of local farm-to-farm spread.
  • Surveillance detection effectiveness L for sow, nursery, finisher farms and detection midpoint x0 = L_sow=0.851, L_nursery=0.634, L_finisher=0.556; x0=10 days before first detection, 7 after
    Detection timing drives the size of control zones; x0 is an assumption from prior literature (Malladi et al., 2022), L values from prior fitting.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math SEID compartment model structure with latent period sigma and logistic detection function
    Invoked in §2.2; standard disease modeling assumptions.
  • domain assumption Movement data from Jan-Dec 2020 from three companies in three states is representative of the U.S. commercial swine network
    §2.1; all simulations use these static movement schedules as the baseline flow. Company A moves 98% of pigs, so national extrapolation rests on this assumption.
  • domain assumption Transmission parameters calibrated in prior work by the same group apply to these simulated control scenarios
    §2.2 and Table S1; parameters are imported from Sykes et al. (2025) without re-estimation for the new unplacement metric.
  • domain assumption No slaughterhouse movements are needed to measure unplacement
    §3.1 and §5 state movements to slaughter are excluded; the paper reports zero unplacement for finisher, farrow-to-finish, and wean-to-finish farms as a direct consequence, even though these farm types dominate depopulation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling the impact of control zone restrictions on pig placement in simulated African swine fever in the United States." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GHIREVHU

@misc{pith2026250514191,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling the impact of control zone restrictions on pig placement in simulated African swine fever in the United States},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GHIREVHU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14191}
}
abstract

African swine fever (ASF) is a highly contagious viral disease that poses a significant threat to the swine industry, requiring stringent control measures, including movement restrictions that delay pig placements, impacting business continuity. The number and economic impact of unplaced healthy animals due to control zone restrictions remains unmeasured. This study evaluates the economic and epidemiological impacts of control zone placement restrictions during simulated ASF outbreaks in U.S. commercial swine farms. We model the spread of ASF and apply the U.S. National Response Plan (NRP) alongside alternative mitigation strategies, analyzing key metrics such as the number of unplaced pigs, depopulated pigs, infected farms, and total economic losses. Our findings estimate the median number of unplaced pigs in the first year was 153,020 (IQR 27,377 to 1,307,899) under the NRP scenario. Shorter control zone durations (20 to 25 days) effectively reduce the median number of unplaced pigs by 16.7% to 33.5%, whereas longer durations (40 days) increase unplacement numbers by 32%. The median number of depopulated pigs remains broadly consistent across all durations. Expanding the infected zone (5 to 15 km) increases the median number of unplaced pigs by 53.6% to 282% while reducing depopulated pigs by 28.8% to 73.9%, respectively. Economic losses are estimated through a model that includes depopulated and unplaced animals requiring culling. We examined the situations when 5%, 12%, or 20% of unplaced pigs required culling and found that the total cost ranged from zero (no second infection) to over $800 million.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14191 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the transitions between different health compartments in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cumulative number of unplaced pigs. A) The daily number of pigs not placed for 366 days, where the solid curve represents the median value, and the shaded area represents the 25% quantile to 75% quantile; B) the median number of pigs not placed categorized by infection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cumulative number of infected farms and depopulated pigs for the National [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Median number of depopulated pigs. A) categorized by companies; B) by farm types [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of estimated economic cost 𝐿 = 𝐷 + 𝑥 ⋅ 𝑈 across different scenarios. A) Scenario in which 5% of unplaced pigs were culled; B) Scenario with 12% of unplaced pigs were culled; C) Scenario in which 20% of unplaced pigs were culled, where y-axis is displayed u…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of estimated economic cost for each production type across different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_6.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Median number of depopulated pigs for scenario 6. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p052_19.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Introduction African swine fever (ASF) is a contagious viral disease affecting domestic and wild pigs (Dixon et al., 2019; Galindo and Alonso, 2017). While ASF poses no direct threat to human health, its consequences on pig populations and the economy are catastrophic (Herrera-Ibatá et al., 2017; Mason-D’Croz et al., 2020; Niemi, 2020). From its identific...

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Materials and methods 2.1. Population, animals, and trucks movement data The dataset used in this study comprises commercial swine farm population and geolocation data of 1,981 farms, as well as swine and vehicle movement records from three swine production companies with operations in three U.S. states. The population data includes geolocation informatio...

    work page 2024

  3. [4]

    commercial swine farms

    Discussion This study evaluated the impact of control zone movement restrictions on pig placement and economic losses via simulated ASF outbreaks in U.S. commercial swine farms. The model estimated that ASF outbreaks could result in a median of 153,020 (IQR: 27,377 - 1,307,899) unplaced pigs within one year under the current National Response Plan (USDA, ...

    work page 2023

  4. [5]

    to generate ASF epidemics. Briefly, the probability of transition from S to E compartment, denoted as 𝑌!", is determined by the force of infection from movements of exposed pigs, movements of contaminated vehicles, and local transmission (Sykes et al., 2025). The movement of pigs from an infectious or detected farm contributes to the probability of farms ...

    work page 2025

  5. [6]

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-018-0109-2 Cohen, N.E.,

    work page doi:10.1186/s40813-018-0109-2

  6. [7]

    and 25 days (scenario 2), while scenario 3 extends the duration to 40 days. Given that control zones may be determined on a case-by-case basis (USDA, 2023), factoring in epidemiological conditions, wild pig population distribution, and natural boundaries that could influence disease spread, scenarios 4 to 6 focus on expanding the infected zone (IZ) radius...

    work page 2023

  7. [9]

    Limitations and final remarks This study estimated the number of unplaced pigs due to movement restrictions in ASF control zones. However, the ability to move pigs out of these zones is contingent on obtaining movement permits (USDA, 2023), which can lead to delays, due to testing and administrative constraints. As demonstrated by Sykes et al. (Sykes et a...

    work page 2023

  8. [10]

    These results emphasize the need for region-specific policies that balance depopulation and unplacement costs

    proved more cost-effective by limiting unplacement. These results emphasize the need for region-specific policies that balance depopulation and unplacement costs. Targeted resource allocation, such as strategies for processing or rerouting unplaced pigs, can help mitigate economic burdens and support stricter containment measures without excessive financi...

    work page 2020

Show all 43 references
  1. [13]

    bioRxiv 2024–08

    Modeling the transmission dynamics of African swine fever virus within commercial swine barns: Quantifying the contribution of multiple transmission pathways. bioRxiv 2024–08. Dixon, L.K., Sun, H., Roberts, H.,

    2024

  2. [14]

    Antiviral Res

    African swine fever. Antiviral Res. 165, 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.antiviral.2019.02.018 Eadie, J.,

    2019 doi

  3. [15]

    Swinewebcom - Complete Swine News Mark

    [WWW Document]. Swinewebcom - Complete Swine News Mark. Comment. Tech. Info. URL https://www.swineweb.com/canada/weekly-hog-market-facts-summary-week-ending-july-12-2024/ (accessed 12.9.24). East, I.J., Roche, S.E., Wicks, R.M., de Witte, K., Garner, M.G.,

    2024

  4. [18]

    bioRxiv 2024–09

    Estimating sampling and laboratory capacity for a simulated African swine fever outbreak in the United States. bioRxiv 2024–09. Golnar, A.J., Martin, E., Wormington, J.D., Kading, R.C., Teel, P.D., Hamer, S.A., Hamer, G.L.,

    2024

  5. [19]

    Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis

    Reviewing the Potential Vectors and Hosts of African Swine Fever Virus Transmission in the United States. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 19, 512–524. https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2018.2387 Gonzales, W., Moreno, C., Duran, U., Henao, N., Bencosme, M., Lora, P., Reyes, R., Núñez, R.,...

    2018

  6. [22]

    PLOS ONE 12, e0182850

    Quantitative approach for the risk assessment of African swine fever and Classical swine fever introduction into the United States through legal imports of pigs and swine products. PLOS ONE 12, e0182850. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182850 Jean-Pierre, R.P., Hagerman,...

    doi

  7. [23]

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.960344 Jurado, C., Mur, L., Pérez Aguirreburualde, M.S., Cadenas-Fernández, E., Martínez-López, B., Sánchez-Vizcaíno, J.M., Perez, A.,

    2022

  8. [24]

    Risk of African swine fever virus introduction into the United States through smuggling of pork in air passenger luggage. Sci. Rep. 9, 14423. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-50403-w Kritas, S.K., Morrison, R.B.,

    doi

  9. [30]

    African swine fever virus – persistence in different environmental conditions and the possibility of its indirect transmission. J. Vet. Res. 63, 303–310. https://doi.org/10.2478/jvetres-2019-0058 Mighell, E., Ward, M.P.,

    2019 doi

  10. [32]

    Transbound

    Potential routes for indirect transmission of African swine fever virus into domestic pig herds. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 67, 1472–1484. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.13538 Olesen, A.S., Lohse, L., Boklund, A., Halasa, T., Gallardo, C., Pejsak, Z., Belsham, G.J., Rasmussen, T.B....

    doi

  11. [34]

    https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2022.EN-7320 Rodrigues da Costa, M., García Manzanilla, E., Diana, A., van Staaveren, N., Torres-Pitarch, A., Boyle, L.A., Calderón Díaz, J.A.,

    2022 doi

  12. [35]

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-021-00190-6 Sartore, S., Bonfanti, L., Lorenzetto, M., Cecchinato, M., Marangon, S.,

    doi

  13. [36]

    Transbound

    Rethinking the uncertainty of African swine fever virus contamination in feed ingredients and risk of introduction into the United States. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 69, 157–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14358 State Animal Health Official,

    doi

  14. [38]

    The role of movement restrictions in limiting the economic impact of livestock infections. Nat. Sustain. 2, 834–840. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0356-5 USDA,

    doi

  15. [39]

    PLOS ONE 16, e0249143

    Modeling transmission dynamics and effectiveness of worker screening programs for SARS-CoV-2 in pork processing plants. PLOS ONE 16, e0249143. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249143 Vergne, T., Gogin, A., Pfeiffer, D.U.,

    doi

  16. [40]

    Transbound

    Statistical Exploration of Local Transmission Routes for African Swine Fever in Pigs in the Russian Federation, 2007-2014. Transbound. 26 Emerg. Dis. 64, 504–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12391 Wodarz, D., Komarova, N.L., Schang, L.M.,

    2007 doi

  17. [41]

    medRxiv 2020–11

    Effect of hot zone infection outbreaks on the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 spread in the community at large. medRxiv 2020–11. Yang, Q., Yi, C., Vajdi, A., Cohnstaedt, L.W., Wu, H., Guo, X., Scoglio, C.M.,

    2020

  18. [42]

    Multilayer network analysis of FMD transmission and containment among beef cattle farms. Sci. Rep. 12, 15679. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19981-0 Zhang, X., Rong, X., Li, J., Fan, M., Wang, Y., Sun, X., Huang, B., Zhu, H.,

    doi

  19. [43]

    Modeling the outbreak and control of African swine fever virus in large-scale pig farms. J. Theor. Biol. 526, 110798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2021.110798 27 List of tables Table 1: Control zone duration and infected zone radius across seven scenarios Scenario NRP* 1 2 3...

    2021

  20. [69]

    Charles, K.M., Boyer, T., Goldsmith, T., Walz, E., Cardona, C.J., Culhane, M.R.,

    https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14334 Malladi, S., Ssematimba, A., Bonney, P.J., St. Charles, K.M., Boyer, T., Goldsmith, T., Walz, E., Cardona, C.J., Culhane, M.R.,

    doi

  21. [84]

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-022-03188-6 Mason-D’Croz, D., Bogard, J.R., Herrero, M., Robinson, S., Sulser, T.B., Wiebe, K., Willenbockel, D., Godfray, H.C.J.,

    doi

  22. [103]

    https://doi.org/10.3390/v9050103 Galvis, J.A., Corzo, C.A., Prada, J.M., Machado, G.,

    doi

  23. [334]

    https://doi.org/10.3390/v16030334 Machado, G., Farthing, T.S., Andraud, M., Lopes, F.P.N., Lanzas, C.,

    doi

  24. [2007]

    Relationships between tail biting in pigs and disease lesions and condemnations at slaughter. Vet. Rec. 160, 149–152. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.160.5.149 Lamberga, K., Viltrop, A., Nurmoja, I., Masiulis, M., Bušauskas, P., Oļševskis, E., Seržants, M., Laddomada, A., Ardelean,...

    doi

  25. [2014]

    Options for managing animal welfare on intensive pig farms confined by movement restrictions during an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Prev. Vet. Med. 117, 533–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.10.002 Galindo, I., Alonso, C.,

    2014 doi

  26. [2016]

    Transmission routes of African swine fever virus to domestic pigs: current knowledge and future research directions. Vet. Rec. 178, 262–267. 24 https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.103593 Guinat, C., Vergne, T., Jurado-Diaz, C., Sánchez-Vizcaíno, J.M., Dixon, L., Pfeiffer, D.U.,

    doi

  27. [2017]

    Effectiveness and practicality of control strategies for African swine fever: what do we really know? Vet. Rec. 180, 97–97. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.103992 Halasa, T., Bøtner, A., Mortensen, S., Christensen, H., Toft, N., Boklund, A.,

    doi

  28. [2019]

    Epidemiological considerations on African swine fever in Europe 2014–2018. Porc. Health Manag. 5,

    2014

  29. [2020]

    Modelling the global economic consequences of a major African swine fever outbreak in China. Nat. Food 1, 221–228. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0057-2 Mazur-Panasiuk, N., Żmudzki, J., Woźniakowski, G.,

    doi

  30. [2021]

    Transbound

    African Swine Fever spread across Asia, 2018–2019. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 68, 2722–2732. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14039 Niemi, J.K.,

    2018 doi

  31. [2022]

    =𝛽&∗𝑁&!", 𝜆!!

    before the first detected case, and 𝑥0=7 days after the first farm was detected, reflecting increased awareness. We constructed a daily, farm-level, three-layer contact network to simulate the dynamics of ASF transmission among farms (Sykes et al., 2023; Yi et al., 2022). The ...

    2023

  32. [2023]

    While these strategies are expected to contain the virus and facilitate early detection, they also present significant economic challenges

    demonstrated that implementing a control strategy combining quarantine, depopulation, movement restrictions, contact tracing, and enhanced surveillance was estimated to reduce secondary cases by 79%. While these strategies are expected to contain the virus and facilitate early...

    2018

  33. [2024]

    (Cardenas et al., 2024)

    and Cardenas et al. (Cardenas et al., 2024). 2.2 Mathematical model 6 We utilized our previous SEID model (Sykes et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2020; Zhang et al.,

    2024

  34. [2025]

    bioRxiv 2024–12

    Identifying control strategies to eliminate African swine fever from the United States swine industry in under 12 months. bioRxiv 2024–12. Tildesley, M.J., Brand, S., Brooks Pollock, E., Bradbury, N.V., Werkman, M., Keeling, M.J.,

    2024

  35. [2998]

    https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13192998 Pudenz, C.C., Schulz, L.L., Tonsor, G.T.,

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.