STATUS, CHALLENGES, AND COPING MECHANISMS AMONG AFRICAN SWINE

FEVER-STRICKEN BACKYARD RAISERS

IN THE SELECTED BARANGAYS OF SOGOD, SOUTHERN LEYTE

A Research Manuscript
Presented to the Faculty of the
Department of Teacher Education
Southern Leyte State University
Sogod, Southern Leyte

In Partial Fulfilment of the

Requirements for the Degree of
BACHELOR IN TECHNOLOGY AND LIVELIHOOD EDUCATION
MAJOR IN AGRI-FISHERY ARTS

RESEARCHERS:
Mary Rose Nova
Pinky Virtudazo
Rovelia Magsinolog
Christian De Jesus
Gerlie Mae Bada
Chennie Mae Saldua-Lambot

NELFA C. GIL, PhD

Research Adviser
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

ASF is caused by a DNA virus, member of the Asfarviridae family. The disease was first

described in Africa in 1921, where it has remained endemic. ASF with the acute form has a

rapid onset and a short course of disease, which are characterized by high fever, loss of appetite,

cyanosis, severe bleeding of internal organs and a high mortality rate of nearly 100%. The less

virulent strains can lead to mild clinical signs, subacute forms of disease, or even chronic

infections (Wu et al., 2020). In the mid-20th century, ASF was first detected outside of this

continent, in the Iberian Peninsula, with some limited spread throughout Europe and the

Americas, but since 2007, ASF has spread at an unprecedented rate. Today, ASF is without

doubt the most important and economically devastating disease of swine. Present in the five

continents, the disease had never infected and killed so many animals as it does today, seriously

becoming endemic in affected nations and threatening to continue spreading into still

unaffected countries. Recently, the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) issued a

report on the “Global Situation of ASF” which indicated that there has been a marked pattern

of increasing ASF outbreaks worldwide since 2016.

Moreover, the case of African Swine Fever (ASF) in Asia has been unprecedented with

outbreaks occurring around many countries, significantly impacting animal health and welfare,

the agricultural economy and food security (Costard et al., 2009; FAO, 2020; Tian and von

Cramon-Taubadel, 2020). While ASF does not pose direct risk to human health, its highly

contagious and fatal characteristics affecting both young or old, and domestic and the wild boar

population could lead to severe devastation of the pig industry (Costard et al., 2009; Costard

et al., 2013). Inevitably enough, many Asian countries have been affected since, including

Mongolia in January, Vietnam in February, Cambodia in April, North Korea in May, Laos in

June, Myanmar in August, and South Korea in September, among others the Philippines rank
as the 9th country affected (Pig Progress, 2019; Estienne, 2019; FAO, 2020; Kim et al.,

2020; Parrocha, 2020).

The Philippines reported its first case of ASF in July 2019 in Rodriguez (Rizal Province)

affecting several backyard farmers (i.e., raising pigs at a maximum of 20 fattener heads and/or

10 breeder pigs per household) as defined by the (Registry System for Basic Sectors in

Agriculture under the Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation). By the end of 2019, ASF had

spread to a total of 10 provinces from five regions, affecting more than 18,000 farms belonging

mostly to the backyard sector. According to the evaluation of cost outbreaks, the cost of ASF

in the Philippines was the highest of the evaluated ASF epidemics due to the high number of

affected premises (18,221) and the application of stamping out measure in all these farms,

which represented 55% of the total cost. (Casal et al.; 2022). However, since the ASF DNA

virus is complex being unusually related to other viruses, no effective vaccine has yet been

developed (Costard et al., 2013), thus calling for a comprehensive approach to contain and

control its impact.

Due to the potential catastrophic impact of ASF on the country’s swine industry, the

former President of the Philippines Rodrigo Roa Duterte, signed Executive Order No. 105 in

February 21, 2020 “creating a national task force to prevent the entry of animal-borne diseases,

contain and control the transmission thereof, and address issues relating thereto”, and

mandating the “Department of Agriculture, through the Bureau of animal Industry to control

and eradicate dangerous communicable diseases of domestic animals” (Offical Gazette, 2020).

Towards the end of 2020, The Philippines has seen several thousands of deaths and/or mass

culling of pigs to control the spread of ASF particularly in Luzon in the north but has also

affected Mindanao in the southern part of the country (Parrocha, 2020)

The Eastern Visayas Region, (Region VIII) in Central Philippines with specific target

municipality mainly; Southern Leyte (Sogod), had experienced the devastating catastrophe of
ASF as early as March 2021. According to provincial veterinarian, the latest reported incident

of an African Swine Fever (ASF) case that occurred in the province was in August, since the

infestation began in March, 2021. Within that span of time, a duration of 17 months, 12

municipalities and one city were affected involving 74 barangays, with 2,500 heads of pigs

deliberately culled as a preventive measure to prevent further spread, the hogs owned by a total

of 511 growers.

Gain (2019) articulated that, preventing further spread of ASF from the initially affected

areas appears to be the core strategy to contain the economic losses caused by ASF. The Food

and Agriculture Organization (2020) through the Agriculture and Consumer Protection

Department emphasizes early reaction, detection and notification including the application of

strict biosecurity measures. This also includes improved husbandry practices, disinfection and

good surveillance and monitoring of live pigs being transported. Stringent compliance with

biosecurity measures and cooperation with government initiatives are key strategies to prevent

introduction and contain the impact of ASF.

Although, the government has implemented various strategies and preventive measures

to counterattack the unprecedented increase of ASF-stricken swine, it is with great importance

to study and evaluate the status, problems, and coping mechanisms of the actual experiences

of swine raisers. For a reason that, there might be experiences that are not known to the LGU

or government that is necessary, to substantiate further the claims and theories correlating to

ASF preventive measures and strategies.

The opinions of the swine raisers that experienced the devastating impact of ASF

firsthand, are important in crafting preventive measures, it can provide valuable insights into

the challenges and barriers that can be of big help in preventing and containing the impact of

ASF. This study aimed to understand and determine the current situation, challenges and
examine the adoptive strategy of ASF-Stricken backyard Swine raiser in the selected barangays

of Sogod, Southern Leyte.

Objectives of the Study

This study will attempt to determine the status, challenges and coping mechanism among

ASF-stricken backyard swine raisers in the selected barangays of Sogod, Southern Leyte.

Specifically, it ought to answer the following sub-problems:

1. Determine the status of the swine raisers before, during and after the ASF outbreak in

terms of:

a. Income

b. Number of swine heads raised

c. Price

d. Insurance

e. Farming practices

e.1. Feeding & Nutrition

e.2. Housing & Facilities

e.3. Health & Biosecurity

2. Determine the challenges encountered during and after ASF outbreak by the backyard

swine raisers in terms of:

a. Uncertainty to business continuity

b. Loss of Income

c. Insufficient capital to start anew

d. Others
 3. Identify the coping mechanisms applied by the backyard swine raisers during and after

the ASF outbreak in terms of:

a. For utilization of Indemnification fund for alternative source of income

b. Strict-compliance to DA rules and regulations

c. Loan Assistance

d. Others

4. Determine the backyard swine raisers’ precautionary measures for future ASF outbreak.

5. Prepared module for secondary TVL/AFA curriculum integration.

Importance of the Study

This study will be of great and profound contribution in determining the current situation,

challenges and examine the adoptive strategy of ASF-Stricken backyard swine raiser in the

selected barangays of Sogod, Southern Leyte. Therefore, the study is expected to benefit the

following:

1. BACKYARD SWINE RAISERS – this study will help swine farmers understand their

roles and know the significance of sharing their firsthand experiences for the betterment

of the community.

2. LGU – this study will provide relevant information that may serve as their input to

consider for more ASF programs.

3. EDUCATORS – this study may as a guide in integrating modules for basic education

TVL Track-AFA curriculum

 Conceptual/Theoretical framework

This study is anchored on the Health Belief approach, focusing on the constructs of self-

efficacy as a factor affecting decision making, the belief that is one capable of carrying out the

behavior. Individuals’ perceptions of risks, benefits, and obstacles add up to their readiness to

act or lack of readiness. Social and cultural factors surrounding and going beyond the individual

must be considered in designing preventive interventions.(Green, 2003). Using Heath Belief

Model (HBM) approach, the study will examine the status, challenges, and coping mechanisms

among backyard swine raisers affected by the African Swine Fever (ASF) in the selected

Barangays of Sogod, Southern Leyte. Furthermore, the researchers are convinced that through

examining and determining the status, challenges, and coping mechanisms helps to integrate

precautionary measures/intervention in the future outbreak of ASF.

STATUS
(Before, During, After)

ASF-stricken PRECAUTIONARY
Backyard Swine CHALLENGES
(During, After) MEASURES
Raisers’ (Future)
Experiences

COPING MECHANISMS
(During, After)

Figure 1. Presents the Conceptual Framework of the study

Scope and Limitations

This study will primarily focus on the status, challenges and coping mechanism among

ASF-Stricken backyard swine raisers. The data collection will be conducted at the 3 selected

Barangays of Sogod, Southern Leyte. This study might serve as an aide for swine raisers, local

government unit (LGU) and educators to know what the specific perspectives should be applied

for. This study is limited to the experiences for backyard swine raisers in the selected barangays

of Sogod, Southern Leyte. The study will be done through a questionnaire to the swine raisers

as a survey method. With these strategies the researchers will be aware and thus determine the

status, challenges, coping mechanism among ASF-Stricken backyard swine raiser in the

selected Barangays of Sogod, Southern Leyte.

Definition of Terms

The following terms are defined in order to give a clear understanding of the terms and

in the study. This is necessary to enable to future readers of this thesis easily understand the

contents of the research.

1. Income – refers to the amount of money that comes from different financial resources.

This can include earnings that are generated from the sale of pigs or pork products and

other activities. Loss of income can result from the death or culling of pigs, the inability

to sell pigs due to quarantine restrictions, or the decreased demand for related products and

services. Measuring the net income or profit is a key metric for evaluating the financial

performance of the business.

2. Farming practices – refers to the actual practices and procedures that is being done in terms

of feeding, biosecurity, in and out of transporting animal, breeding and etc. Farming

practices may need to be modified in order to prevent the spread of the disease and protect

the health of the remaining pigs.

3. Prices – refers to the amount of money pay or receive for the purchase of goods and

services. The prices of goods can vary including the price of live weight, dressed weight,

offal, hock and other pork parts/products sold in the market depending on the severity and

duration of the before, during and after outbreak, and the response of the government and

industry. By tracking changes in the price of swine products over time which help backyard

swine raisers adapt to the changing market conditions.

4. Insurance – refers to the contract that indemnifies another against financial losses. This

may provide coverage for losses and hazards caused by the disease, such as loss of income

due to the death or culling of pigs, or the costs of implementing biosecurity measures to

prevent the spread of the disease. An indemnification fund may be established to provide

financial assistance to affected farmers to help cover financial losses.

5. Loan Assistance – refers to the financial service in which an individual or organization

receives a loan or financial support from a lender to help meet their financial needs or

goals. Loan assistance may be provided to help cover the costs of implementing

biosecurity measures, restocking farms, purchasing new equipment, or making necessary

upgrades to infrastructure.
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

African swine fever

African swine fever (ASF) is a hemorrhagic and fatal disease of domestic pigs and wild

boars caused by the African swine fever virus (ASFV) (Wang et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022).

ASFV is a large DNA virus that replicates in the cytoplasm and is the only member of

the Asfarviridae family. The virus genome termini are covalently closed by imperfectly base-

paired hairpin loops that are present in two forms that are complimentary and inverted with

respect to each other. The virus encodes 150–165 proteins, which have ‘essential’ functions in

virus replication, as well as ‘non-essential’ roles in host interactions, including evasion of host

defenses; for example, many proteins inhibit the early innate responses, including type I

interferon and cell death pathways (Dixon et al., 2013).

Though ASF does not pose direct risk to human health, it’s highly contagious and fatal

characteristics affecting both young or old, and domestic and the wild boar population could

lead to severe devastation of the pig industry (Costard et al., 2009). The ASF situation presents

a global risk to animal health and welfare, national and international economies, rural

development, national food security and national and international markets (FAO, 2020).

History

African Swine Fever (ASF) had existed a very long time and was first endemic in East

Africa and most sub-Saharan African countries (Mulumba-Mfumu et al., 2019). The spread of

ASF across countries had highly affected the supply of pork products and causes severe

economic losses since it infected both domestic and wild pig species (Tao et al., 2020;

Kedkovid et al., 2020).

 The first ASF outbreak in China was reported on August 3rd, 2018, when 400 pigs in a

farm near Shenyang City (in the north-eastern Liaoning province) developed an acute clinical

disease after feeding on table scraps. Mortality was 100%, and so the farm was abandoned, but

similar cases were soon observed in nearby farms (Zhou et al., 2018). By October 8th, ASF

had spread to eight provinces and caused 33 outbreaks (Wang et al., 2018). The outbreak

quickly spread to all mainland Chinese provinces and which had caused severe socio-economic

consequences: the national pig herd was reduced by approximately 40% within 1 year of ASFV

being introduced to the country and affected many pig farmers and pork producers. (Tao et al.,

2020).

Further spread throughout Asia was seen as inevitable, and in 2019, the virus was reported in

Mongolia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Hong Kong, North Korea, Laos, the Philippines, Myanmar,

Indonesia, Timor-Leste, and South Korea (Mighell and Ward, 2021). This was followed by

detection of introductions into India and Papua New Guinea in 2020, and into Malaysia, Bhutan,

and Thailand in 2021 (Mighell and Ward, 2021).

In neighboring Germany, ASFV was first identified via passive surveillance of wild boar

near the border with Poland in November 2020, though epidemiological study suggested that

initial introduction may have occurred several months prior to detection (Sauter-Louis et al.,

2021).

Transmission Cycles

African Swine Fever was caused by the African Swine Fever Virus (ASFV), which is the

only DNA virus that can efficiently transmitted by an arthropod vector, soft ticks of the genus

Ornithodoros (Costard et al., 2009; Pietschmann et al., 2016). Historically, ASF was originally

endemic in the Eastern and Western Africa. The transmission was described into three

independent epidemiological cycles; sylvatic cycle, tick–pig; and, domestic cycle. ASF occurs

through transmission cycles involving domestic pigs, wild boar, wild African suids and soft
ticks, and pig-derived products such as pork (Chenais et al., 2019; Penrith et al., 2019; Sánchez-

Vizcaíno et al., 2015). However, the Ornithodoros spp.is not considered to play a role in the

epidemiology of ASF in the current epidemic in Central and Eastern Europe (Chenais et al.,

2019).

ASFV exhibits complex transmission dynamics in the field that make it difficult to

generalize the epidemiological lessons learned from specific outbreaks or geographical

locations. After the initial Georgian ASF outbreak in 2007, the virus’s high virulence suggested

that it might be self-limiting within pig populations (Schulz et al., 2019), but this has not been

the case since. The environmental tenacity of ASFV (perhaps even in the carcasses of deceased

animals) plays an important role in its persistence, particularly in wild boar populations, and

increases the ease with which humans can unwittingly transfer the virus across distances

(Chenais et al., 2019; Schulz et al., 2019).

In the field, ASFV transmission between animals is often a slow process, with viral

infectiousness depending on many factors including the virus strain, the infectious medium,

and the route of transmission (Schulz et al., 2019; Pikalo et al. 2019). The epidemiological

significance of survivor/carrier animals is controversial and has received substantial attention

over the past 6 years. Such animals would necessarily be difficult to identify and track.

Moreover, the circumstances capable of producing survivors with chronic ASF infection may

32 vary depending on virus strain, individual animal parameters, and other epidemiological

factors (Schulz et al., 2019).

In the case of O’Neill et al.’s model of ASF persistence in wild boar, describes that the

inclusion of a low rate of transmission from survivor animals was necessary to match observed

outbreak data. The result also suggests that the higher underlying host density and longer

breeding season associated with supplementary feeding leads to a more pronounced epidemic
outbreak and persistence of the disease in the long-term. As such, more detailed analyses of

survivor animals in ASF epidemiology are needed (O’Neill et al., 2020).

In 2015, Gallardo et al. experimentally infected domestic pigs with the isolate and

showed that in-contact pigs became seropositive with transient viraemia at 28 days post-

exposure (Gallardo et al., 2015). The clinical signs in these pigs were minimal, suggesting that

such infections could escape notice under field conditions. These results were in line with

previous studies from the 20th century epidemic in the Iberian Peninsula, demonstrating

persistent infection in tissues by moderately virulent strains (Gallardo et al., 2015). Later that

year, Pietschmann et al. examined the risk of chronic disease and the establishment of carriers

by experimentally infecting domestic pigs and European wild boar via the oronasal route with

very low doses of the highly virulent strain Armenia08 (Pietschmann et al., 2015). The low

dose regimen, however, led to detectable infection only in the weakest animals in each group,

which then showed a typical onset, course, and disease outcome (Pietschmann et al., 2015).

The question of whether there may be a prolonged or chronic disease course in domestic or

wild animals under some circumstances thus remains open.

In 2019, Eblé et al. studied pigs experimentally infected with the moderately virulent

ASFV strain Netherlands ’86, looking for transmission from recovered pigs to naïve animals

via direct contact. The researchers observed direct contact transmission from clinically healthy

survivor pigs to 2/12 naïve contact pigs, corresponding to a contribution of 0.3 to the virus’s

(Eblé et al. 2019).

In the same year, Ståhl et al. conducted a systematic review to resolve definitional

uncertainties on the nature of carrier animals and to assess their potential role in ASFV

epidemiology. They found that, while shedding of infectious virus by survivor animals is

theoretically possible (though unlikely), there is currently no evidence for any significant role

played by clinically healthy survivor animals (Ståhl et al., 2019). Overall, no link between ASF
epidemiology and viral shedding by healthy carriers has been established (Blome et al., 2020),

though the topic remains active in the literature and questions related to low-dose infections,

chronic/persistent disease courses, and wild boar epidemiology remain (Pietschmann et al.,

2015; Ståhl et al., 2019). ASF epidemiology play a major role in establishing effective

prevention and control programs.

Prevention and Control

Disease control studies commonly reveal a conflict between efficacy and practicality –

in wildlife biosecurity, for instance, active surveillance and carcass removal are considered

some of the most effective strategies for ASF control, but they are also among the least practical

(Danzetta et al., 2020). Alongside such studies, there is a growing understanding that technical

knowledge is not itself sufficient to achieve disease control (Penrith et al., 2021). On-farm

biosecurity measures in particular require the cooperation and assistance of actors within the

pork food system (e.g., farmers, breeders, veterinarians, etc.) who are unlikely to act against

their own economic security and livelihood. Many recent studies have therefore focused on the

“participatory” aspect of on-farm biosecurity, wherein local actors are specifically engaged in

the development and implementation of economically and regionally feasible biosecurity

measures (Penrith et al., 2021; Dixon et al. 2020; Chenais et al. 2019).

A wide array of biosecurity measures, with varying cost and invasiveness, have been

implemented in the pork production sector and among wild boar populations in the many

countries currently experiencing the ongoing ASF pandemic. For on-farm biosecurity, such

measures include restrictions on contact with external pigs, disinfection of premises and farm

vehicles, strict bans on swill feeding, and close veterinary supervision (ASF-STOP 2021).

Culling of all infected herds and movement bans on neighboring herds are commonly employed

in response to outbreaks (Guinat et al. 2017). Broad culling mandates can encounter resistance

from local stakeholders in the pork production chain, particularly when compensation schemes
are inadequate to ensure farmers’ economic security (Ståhl et al., 2019). For wildlife

biosecurity, significant challenges are posed by the inherently uncontrollable nature of wild

animal populations (Guinat et al., 2017). Strategies like fence construction, bans on feeding,

and carefully controlled hunting programs have seen success in the EU (Cwynar et al., 2019).

The ASF outbreak can be overcome through immediate and effective control measures (Kim

et al., 2021).

Livelihood Impact

Due to the ASF outbreak across countries, it poses treat to the livestock market and to

smallholder swine producer. Globally and historically, domestic pigs in smallholder settings

are most frequently affected and the main driver of ASF virus transmission (Chenais et al.,

2022). Socioeconomic factors such as lack of veterinary services, lack of compensation to

farmers for culled animals and the consequent hiding of the diseased animals in its first stages,

facilitate the spread of the disease within the country and to neighboring countries. This

situation is also occurring in some areas of the Caucasus and the Russian Federation (Beltrán-

Alcrudo et al., 2009).

Besides the economic cost, the introduction of Transboundary Animal Diseases (TADs) has

also an important social effect, especially in smallholder farms in developing countries,

pushing families into poverty by reducing their purchasing capacity, their sources of protein

and even their capacity to pay health and education expenses (Chenais et al., 2017; Cooper et

al., 2022). In the long term, the occurrence of such diseases might shift those affected from

livestock farming to other sources of income, change their social standing and reduce the public

confidence on the authorities (Mohan et al., 2021). Small producers may have varied sources

of income (i.e., diversified activities), which can partially compensate the losses (Nguyen-Thi

et al., 2021). The occurrence of such diseases may create concerns on food safety and drop the

consumption of the affected species because of the fear of zoonotic transmission, which will
affect not only farmers but also other actors along the value chain, such as traders,

slaughterhouses and retailers (Nguyen-Thi et al., 2021).

 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This study will use a descriptive survey method. Descriptive survey method is a research

method in which the researcher gathers data from a sample of individuals or a population in

order to describe and understand the characteristics of that population or group. This method

is often used to gather quantitative data, such as statistics, and to identify patterns or trends in

the data. The researcher typically uses a questionnaire or survey to collect data from

participants, which may include both closed-ended questions (with pre-determined response

options) and open-ended questions (allowing participants to provide their own responses). The

data is then analyzed and used to create a detailed picture of the population or group being

studied (Fowler, 2013).

In this study, the researchers will use questionnaire to support the conduct of this

descriptive survey research design to determine the status, challenges, and coping mechanisms

among ASF-stricken backyard swine raisers in the selected barangays of Sogod, Southern

Leyte.

Research Respondents

Backyard swine raisers coming from the barangay of Zone V, Mahayahay, and Maac

Sogod, Southern Leyte with confirmed cases either infected or near the infected area are the

primary respondents of the study. From the confirmed cases and from nine (9) more

neighboring backyard swine raisers will be chosen as the respondents per barangay. A total of

thirty (30) respondents from the selected barangays of Sogod, Southhern Leyte. The

researchers choose the respondents based on their credibility to the study that will be conducted.
Research Locale

Southern Leyte is a province situated in the Eastern Visayas region of the Philippines. It

is one of the 6 provinces of Region VIII or the Eastern Visayas region. Southern Leyte has 18

municipalities and 1 city. Sogod as one of the municipalities in Southern Leyte had also

suffered from the ASF outbreak. Three confirmed cases from three barangays specifically;

Maac, Zone V and Mahayahay, and 15 barangays shows clinical signs of ASF in the said

municipality.

The researchers prefer the municipality of Sogod as their research location since it has a

record of confirmed cases which is credible for the study to be conducted. Furthermore, the

researchers will be able to obtain essential information, different ideas, and distinct opinions

from the ASF-stricken backyard swine raisers’ life experiences that are required for the study.

This study will be conducted in the selected barangays of Sogod, Southern Leyte.

Figure 2. Map of Sogod, Southern Leyte

Sampling Procedure

This study will be conducted in the 2nd semester of the academic year 2022-2023. In this

study, the researchers will use a purposive sampling to obtain essential information about the

ASF-stricken backyard swine raisers in the barangays of Sogod, Southern Leyte. The

respondents will be interviewed in their houses or any comfortable place the respondents will

choose to. There will be 10 to be considered per barangay in total of 30 respondents.

Research Instrument

The researchers utilize a structured questionnaire in tabular form, compiled in organized

series to enhance proper understanding of the study. The questions use, seeks to address the

specific problems and variables mentioned in the objectives of the study, to obtain essential

information from the responses of the respective respondents. The interview questionnaire is

composed of specific parts that seeks to understand the 1. Status of the Swine Raisers 2.

Challenges experienced and 3. Coping Mechanisms the swine raisers employed during ASF.

Part 2 and 3 indicates a ranking method in which the respondents will choose, given three

different variables. In this ranking method, the researchers will be able to identify which

challenges are most encountered during and after ASF, and what coping mechanisms are most

employed during and after ASF.

Statistical Treatment of Data

All the data to be gathered in this study will be analyzed through the use of descriptive

statistics. The researchers will use the method to measure the central tendency, percentage, and

ranking of the data gathered from the respondents in order to determine the status, challenges,

and coping mechanisms of the ASF-stricken backyard swine raisers in the selected barangays

of Sogod, Southern Leyte.

REFERENCES

Beltrán-Alcrudo, D., Guberti, V., De Simone, L., De Castro, J., Rozstalnyy, A., Dietze, K.,
Wainwright, S., & Slingenbergh, J. (2009). African swine fever spread in the Russian
Federation and the risk for the region. Empres Watch, 1–9.

Blome, S., Franzke, K., & Beer, M. (2020). African swine fever – A review of current
knowledge. Virus Research, 287, 198099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2020.198099

Casal, J., Tago, D., Pineda, P., Tabakovski, B., Santos, I., Benigno, C., Huynh, T., Ciaravino,
G., & Beltran-Alcrudo, D. (2022). Evaluation of the economic impact of classical and African
swine fever epidemics using OutCosT, a new spreadsheet-based tool. Transboundary and
Emerging Diseases, 69(5), e2474–e2484. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14590

Chenais, E., Boqvist, S., Emanuelson, U., von Brömssen, C., Ouma, E., Aliro, T., Masembe,
C., Ståhl, K., & Sternberg-Lewerin, S. (2017). Quantitative assessment of social and economic
impact of African swine fever outbreaks in northern Uganda. Preventive Veterinary Medicine,
144, 134–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2017.06.002

Chenais, E., Depner, K., Guberti, V., Dietze, K., Viltrop, A., & Ståhl, K. (2019).
Epidemiological considerations on African swine fever in Europe 2014–2018. Porcine Health
Management, 5(1), 1–10.

Chenais, E., Depner, K., Ebata, A., Penrith, M.-L., Pfeiffer, D. U., Price, C., Ståhl, K., &
Fischer, K. (2022). Exploring the hurdles that remain for control of African swine fever in
smallholder farming settings. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, 69(5), e3370–e3378.
https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14642

Cooper, T. L., Smith, D., Gonzales, M. J. C., Maghanay, M. T., Sanderson, S., Cornejo, M. R.
J. C., Pineda, L. L., Sagun, R. A. A., & Salvacion, O. P. (2022). Beyond Numbers: Determining
the Socioeconomic and Livelihood Impacts of African Swine Fever and Its Control in the
Philippines. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2021.734236

Costard, S., Mur, L., Lubroth, J., Sanchez-Vizcaino, J. M., & Pfeiffer, D. U. (2013).
Epidemiology of African swine fever virus. Virus Research, 173(1), 191–197.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2012.10.030

Costard, S., Wieland, B., de Glanville, W., Jori, F., Rowlands, R., Vosloo, W., Roger, F.,
Pfeiffer, D. U., & Dixon, L. K. (2009). African swine fever: How can global spread be
prevented? https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0098

Cwynar, P., Stojkov, J., & Wlazlak, K. (2019). African Swine Fever Status in Europe. Viruses,
11(4), 310. https://doi.org/10.3390/v11040310

Danzetta, M. L., Marenzoni, M. L., Iannetti, S., Tizzani, P., Calistri, P., & Feliziani, F. (2020).
African Swine Fever: Lessons to Learn From Past Eradication Experiences. A Systematic
Review. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2020.00296
Dixon, L. K., Chapman, D. A. G., Netherton, C. L., & Upton, C. (2013). African swine fever
virus replication and genomics. Virus Research, 173(1), 3–14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2012.10.020

Dixon, L. K., Stahl, K., Jori, F., Vial, L., & Pfeiffer, D. U. (2020). African swine fever
epidemiology and control. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences, 8, 221–246.

Eblé, P. L., Hagenaars, T. J., Weesendorp, E., Quak, S., Moonen-Leusen, H. W., & Loeffen,
W. L. A. (2019). Transmission of African Swine Fever Virus via carrier (survivor) pigs does
occur. Veterinary Microbiology, 237, 108345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2019.06.018

Estienne, M. J. (2019). An Update on African Swine Fever and its Effects on Pork Production
(1st ed.). Virginia Cooperative Extension. https://doi.org/10.21061/APSC-126NP

FAO. (2020). ASF situation update—African Swine Fever (ASF)— FAO Emergency
Prevention System for Animal Health (EMPRES-AH). Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/empres/ASF/situation_update.html

Fowler, F. J. (2014). Survey research methods (Fifth edition). SAGE.

https://sundaramdesign.com/sites/default/files/pdf-survey-research-methods-applied-social-
research-methods-floyd-j-fowler-pdf-download-free-book-3eefdf9.pdf

GAIN. (2019). Philippines: African Swine Fever (ASF) Confirmed in the Philippines. USDA
Foreign Agricultural Service. https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/philippines-african-swine-fever-
asf-confirmed-philippines

Gallardo, C., Soler, A., Nieto, R., Sánchez, M. A., Martins, C., Pelayo, V., Carrascosa, A.,
Revilla, Y., Simón, A., Briones, V., Sánchez-Vizcaíno, J. M., & Arias, M. (2015).
Experimental Transmission of African Swine Fever (ASF) Low Virulent Isolate NH/P68 by
Surviving Pigs. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, 62(6), 612–622.
https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12431

Green, E., Murphy, E., & Gryboski, K. (2003). The Health Belief Model.
https://doi.org/10.10002/9781119057840.ch68

Guinat, C., Vergne, T., Jurado-Diaz, C., Sánchez-Vizcaíno, J. M., Dixon, L., & Pfeiffer, D. U.
(2017). Effectiveness and practicality of control strategies for African swine fever: What do
we really know? Veterinary Record, 180(4), 97–97. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.103992

Kim, Y.-J., Park, B., & Kang, H.-E. (2021). Control measures to African swine fever outbreak:
Active response in South Korea, preparation for the future, and cooperation. Journal of
Veterinary Science, 22(1).

Kedkovid, R., Sirisereewan, C., & Thanawongnuwech, R. (2020). Major swine viral diseases:
An Asian perspective after the African swine fever introduction. Porcine Health Management,
6(1), 1–11.

Mighell, E., & Ward, M. P. (2021). African Swine Fever spread across Asia, 2018–2019.
Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, 68(5), 2722–2732.
https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14039
Mohan, N. H., Misha, M. M., & Gupta, V. K. (2021). Consequences of African swine fever in
India: Beyond economic implications. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, 68(6), 3009–
3011. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14318

Mulumba‐Mfumu, L. K., Saegerman, C., Dixon, L. K., Madimba, K. C., Kazadi, E.,
Mukalakata, N. T., Oura, C. A. L., Chenais, E., Masembe, C., Ståhl, K., Thiry, E., & Penrith,
M. L. (2019). African swine fever: Update on Eastern, Central and Southern Africa.
Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, tbed.13187. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.13187

Nguyen-Thi, T., Pham-Thi-Ngoc, L., Nguyen-Ngoc, Q., Dang-Xuan, S., Lee, H. S., Nguyen-
Viet, H., Padungtod, P., Nguyen-Thu, T., Nguyen-Thi, T., Tran-Cong, T., & Rich, K. M. (2021).
An Assessment of the Economic Impacts of the 2019 African Swine Fever Outbreaks in
Vietnam. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2021.686038

OIE. (2016). Global Situation of ASF. Retrieved January 17, 2023, from
https://www.woah.org/app/uploads/2022/01/asf-situation-report-18062020.pdf
Official Gazette. (2020). Executive Order No. 105, s. 2020 | GOVPH. Official Gazette of the
Republic of the Philippines. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2020/02/21/executive-order-
no-105-s-2020/

Parrocha, A. (2020). Duterte creates national task force vs. ASF.

https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1094968

Penrith, M., Bastos, A. D., Etter, E. M. C., & Beltrán‐Alcrudo, D. (2019). Epidemiology of
African swine fever in Africa today: Sylvatic cycle versus socio‐economic imperatives.
Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, 66(2), 672–686. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.13117

Penrith, M.-L., Bastos, A., & Chenais, E. (2021). With or without a Vaccine—A Review of
Complementary and Alternative Approaches to Managing African Swine Fever in Resource-
Constrained Smallholder Settings. Vaccines, 9(2), 116.
https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9020116

Pietschmann, J., Guinat, C., Beer, M., Pronin, V., Tauscher, K., Petrov, A., Keil, G., & Blome,
S. (2015). Course and transmission characteristics of oral low-dose infection of domestic pigs
and European wild boar with a Caucasian African swine fever virus isolate. Archives of
Virology, 160(7), 1657–1667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-015-2430-2

Pietschmann, J., Mur, L., Blome, S., Beer, M., Pérez-Sánchez, R., Oleaga, A., & Sánchez-
Vizcaíno, J. M. (2016). African swine fever virus transmission cycles in Central Europe:
Evaluation of wild boar-soft tick contacts through detection of antibodies against Ornithodoros
erraticus saliva antigen. BMC Veterinary Research, 12(1), 1–5.

Pig Progress. (2019). ASF China: An underestimated crisis—Pig Progress.

https://www.pigprogress.net/health-nutrition/asf-china-an-underestimated-crisis/

Pikalo, J., Zani, L., Hühr, J., Beer, M., & Blome, S. (2019). Pathogenesis of African swine
fever in domestic pigs and European wild boar – Lessons learned from recent animal trials.
Virus Research, 271, 197614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2019.04.001
O’Neill, X., White, A., Ruiz-Fons, F., & Gortázar, C. (2020). Modelling the transmission and
persistence of African swine fever in wild boar in contrasting European scenarios. Scientific
Reports, 10(1), 5895. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62736-y

Sánchez-Cordón, P. J., Montoya, M., Reis, A. L., & Dixon, L. K. (2018). African swine fever:
A re-emerging viral disease threatening the global pig industry. Veterinary Journal (London,
England : 1997), 233, 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2017.12.025

Sánchez-Vizcaíno, J. M., Mur, L., Gomez-Villamandos, J. C., & Carrasco, L. (2015). An

Update on the Epidemiology and Pathology of African Swine Fever. Journal of Comparative
Pathology, 152(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcpa.2014.09.003

Sauter-Louis, C., Forth, J. H., Probst, C., Staubach, C., Hlinak, A., Rudovsky, A., Holland, D.,
Schlieben, P., Göldner, M., & Schatz, J. (2021). Joining the club: First detection of African
swine fever in wild boar in Germany. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, 68(4), 1744–
1752.

Schulz, K., Conraths, F. J., Blome, S., Staubach, C., & Sauter-Louis, C. (2019). African Swine
Fever: Fast and Furious or Slow and Steady? Viruses, 11(9), 866.
https://doi.org/10.3390/v11090866

Ståhl, K., Sternberg-Lewerin, S., Blome, S., Viltrop, A., Penrith, M.-L., & Chenais, E. (2019).
Lack of evidence for long term carriers of African swine fever virus—A systematic review.
Virus Research, 272, 197725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2019.197725

Tao, D., Sun, D., Liu, Y., Wei, S., Yang, Z., An, T., Shan, F., Chen, Z., & Liu, J. (2020). One
year of African swine fever outbreak in China. Acta Tropica, 211, 105602.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2020.105602

Tian, X., & von Cramon-Taubadel, S. (2020). Economic consequences of African swine fever.
Nature Food, 1(4), 196–197.

Wang, T., Sun, Y., & Qiu, H.-J. (2018). African swine fever: An unprecedented disaster and
challenge to China. Infectious Diseases of Poverty, 7(1), 111. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-
018-0495-3

Wang, F., Zhang, H., Hou, L., Yang, C., & Wen, Y. (2021). Advance of African swine fever
virus in recent years. Research in Veterinary Science, 136, 535–539.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2021.04.004

Wu, K., Liu, J., Wang, L., Fan, S., Li, Z., Li, Y., Yi, L., Ding, H., Zhao, M., & Chen, J. (2020).
Current State of Global African Swine Fever Vaccine Development under the Prevalence and
Transmission of ASF in China. Vaccines, 8(3), Article 3.
https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8030531

Zhang, P., Nie, T., Ma, J., & Chen, H. (2022). Identification of suitable areas for African swine
fever occurrence in china using geographic information system-based multi-criteria analysis.
Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 209, 105794.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2022.105794
Zhou, X., Li, N., Luo, Y., Liu, Y., Miao, F., Chen, T., Zhang, S., Cao, P., Li, X., Tian, K., Qiu,
H.-J., & Hu, R. (2018). Emergence of African Swine Fever in China, 2018. Transboundary
and Emerging Diseases, 65(6), 1482–1484. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12989