Open Access

Associations between biosecurity and outbreaks of canine distemper on Danish mink farms in 2012–2013

  • Louise Gregers-Jensen1,
  • Jens Frederik Agger2,
  • Anne Sofie Vedsted Hammer1,
  • Lars Andresen1,
  • Mariann Chrièl3,
  • Emma Hagberg4,
  • Mette Kragh Jensen4,
  • Mette Sif Hansen3,
  • Charlotte Kristiane Hjulsager3 and
  • Tina Struve4Email author
Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica201557:66

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13028-015-0159-2

Received: 30 October 2014

Accepted: 25 September 2015

Published: 30 September 2015

Abstract

Background

During 8 months from July 2012 to February 2013, a major outbreak of canine distemper involving 64 mink farms occurred on the Danish peninsula of Jutland. The canine distemper outbreak was associated with exposure of farmed mink to infected wild carnivores and could represent a deficit in biosecurity on the mink farms. The aim of this study was to investigate the extent and association of specific biosecurity measures with the outbreak. The study was carried out in an epidemiological case–control design. The case group consisted of the 61 farms, which had a confirmed outbreak of canine distemper from July 2012 to February 2013. The control group included 54 farms without an outbreak of canine distemper in 2012 or 2013, selected as the closest geographical neighbour to a case farm.

Results

The results showed that significantly more control than case farms had vaccinated their mink against canine distemper virus. Mortality was only assessed on the case farms, and there was a non-significantly lower mortality on vaccinated farms than on the non-vaccinated farms. Furthermore, the proportion of farms with observations of wild red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) inside the farm enclosures were larger for case farms, indicating that the control farms had a better biosecurity or were not equally exposed to canine distemper virus. Generally, all farms had very few specific precautions at the gate entrance in respect to human visitors as well as animals. The use of biosecurity measures was very variable in both case and control farms. Not using plastic boot covers, presence of dogs and cats, presence of demarcated area for changing clothes when entering and leaving the farm area and presence of hand washing facilities significantly lowered the odds of the farm having a canine distemper virus outbreak.

Conclusions

The results of the study indicate that consistent use of correct vaccination strategies, implementation of biosecurity measures and limiting human and animal access to the mink farm can be important factors in reducing the risk for canine distemper outbreaks.

Keywords

Canine distemper virus Biosecurity Mink Neovison vison

Background

Canine distemper virus (CDV) is classified in the Morbillivirus genus of the Paramyxoviridae family. The virus particle is enveloped and contains a single-stranded negative sense RNA genome of approximately 16 kb. CDV is one of the most important causes of infectious disease in both domestic and wild carnivores of the Canidae (e.g. dog, fox, and wolf) and Mustelidae (e.g. mink, ferret, badgers, and martens) orders [1]. CDV can also infect felids and cetaceans [26]. The virus is highly contagious and can cause high rates of mortality, especially in young animals. No efficient treatment is available, but prevention of canine distemper is possible and effective through vaccination [7]. The virus is shed in oral, respiratory and ocular fluids and exudates [1]. Transmission between animals is predominantly through aerosols. Transmission from contaminated environment is also possible although hampered by the fragility of the enveloped virus outside the host. Thus, CDV is easily inactivated by UV-light, heat and drying [7]. In addition to horizontal spread, vertical transmission may contribute to the persistence of virus in wild populations [8]. CDV has been a notifiable disease in Denmark since 1945 [9].

Outbreaks of canine distemper have occurred with variable frequency and severity on Danish mink farms (Neovison vison) [10] and CDV has also been diagnosed in wild carnivore species in Denmark including red fox (Vulpes vulpes), stone marten (Martes foina), wild ferret (Mustela putorius) and Eurasian badger (Meles meles) [1113]. Between 2008 and 2010, there were no confirmed outbreaks of canine distemper on Danish mink farms. However, in 2011 three mink farms were confirmed positive for CDV and between July 2012 and February 2013 a major epidemic of canine distemper was recorded on the peninsula of Jutland with 64 farms found positive for CDV [8]. During the same period, diseased and dead wild red foxes were observed in the same areas. Molecular analysis revealed that the CDV isolates from such wild foxes and from infected farmed mink were closely related [8]. Thus, wild carnivores may have served as a reservoir for infection in commercial mink farms.

In general movement of live animals poses the greatest risk for spread of infectious diseases, however indirect contact via physical vectors such as people, vehicles and fomites are important as well [14].

In order to avoid the introduction and spread of CDV and other pathogens, the farms are dependant of efficient biosecurity procedures. Implementation of biosecurity measures is considered to have a positive effect on the health and productivity in animal production [15], and recently a direct quantitative effect has been demonstrated [16]. Consistency in the application of biosecurity measures is essential for the success of all types of animal production [17, 18]. However, several studies have shown that the level of biosecurity is often moderate to low irrespective of the type of animal production [15, 1923]. Furthermore, compliance of the farmers to the implemented biosecurity measures is often poor [2426].

In Denmark, it is mandatory to have a perimeter fence around every mink farm [27]. The purpose of this fence is to keep out wildlife and to prevent mink from escaping from the farm. Additionally, electrical wires on top of the fence are recommended for the same purposes. All Danish mink farms have mandatory consultations from their veterinarian four times a year, during which the biosecurity measures on the farm must be addressed [28]. Furthermore, Kopenhagen Fur visits all farmers to (among other things) discuss relevant biosecurity measures. In Denmark, it is not mandatory to vaccinate the farmed mink against CDV unless the farm is at the same location as a commercial pelting site [29].

The aim of this study was to investigate biosecurity practices and associations with outbreaks of canine distemper on Danish mink farms during the period 2012–2013.

Methods

Study design

The study was performed in a case–control design based on a questionnaire survey via personal telephone interviews with the owner or manager of the included mink farms. Four veterinarians from Kopenhagen Fur performed all interviews using the same questionnaire (Additional file 1). The questions focussed on biosecurity measures, CDV vaccination strategies, hygiene precautions for visitors, procedures for visiting other mink farms, access of domestic and wild life to the farm premises, purchase of breeding animals and equipment, and hygiene procedures for farm personnel. The interviews were performed in the fall of 2012 and throughout 2013.

A total of 64 case farms and 64 control farms were selected for the study. The case group consisted of mink farms diagnosed with CDV infection at the Danish National Veterinary Institute between July 2012 and February 2013. For each case farm a control farm was selected as the geographically closest mink farm with no record of canine distemper in neither 2012 nor 2013. None of the control farms experienced any clinical symptoms resembling those of canine distemper neither in the study period nor in the remaining part of 2013.

The vaccination strategy in three of the case farms were classified as ‘unknown’, because these farmers could not recall the name or type of vaccine used, which made it impossible to identify if CDV-antigens were included in the vaccine. Therefore, they were excluded from the study. Ten control farms were not included because the interviewers were either unable to contact the farms or because the farmers did not want to participate in the survey.

Data management and statistical analyses

The distribution of each variable was evaluated and categorised. Vaccination strategies were divided into three groups based on their latest vaccination time point: no vaccination, summer vaccination (2012) and winter vaccination (2011/2012). Summer vaccinations includes those vaccinated in June–August 2012, winter vaccination includes those vaccinated in December 2011–February 2012. Summer vaccinations on the control farms also included farms, which vaccinated late in the season (September/October, 2011).

The questions about the personal hygiene measures regarded whether or not the farmers used plastic boot covers, coveralls, disinfecting footbath and/or a clear demarcation of farm area when entering the farm. Furthermore, the farmers were asked if they had access to handwashing facilities in close connection to the farm area. Access of other domestic animals to the farm premises was categorised as follows: was the farmer’s own dog allowed to enter the farm, and, if yes, whether the dog was regularly vaccinated against canine distemper or not. Observation of cats (feral or domestic) and wild red foxes on the farm premises was included as yes/no answers.

Information regarding purchase of breeding stock and mortality (only case farms) was extracted from the database at Kopenhagen Fur.

Data was analysed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Variables regarding biosecurity measures on the farm were investigated in the statistical analysis, although the case control design only allows for conclusions about associations. Analysis of variance for differences in mortality risk between vaccination strategies among case farms was done in proc glm. Associations between case or control farm status and explanatory variables were analysed by univariable logistic regression (proc genmod). The modeling procedure assumed the binomial distribution and used logit as the link function.

Results

Descriptive analysis

A total of 61 case farms and 54 control farms were included in the analyses. Farm size varied between 240 and 21,000 breeding animals. The geographical location of the farms is illustrated in Fig. 1. The crude mortality risk on the case farms ranged between 0.004 and 29.4 %. Analysis of variance with multiple comparisons of mean mortality risk in case farms showed no statistically significant difference between the three vaccination groups (none, summer, winter). The mortality among the vaccination groups are shown in Table 1.
Fig. 1

Geographical location of the 61 case and 54 control farms. Location of the farms included in the biosecurity survey. Red circle case farms (Farms diagnosed with CDV between July 2012 and February 2013). Green circle control farms (farms not diagnosed with CDV in 2012 or 2013)

Table 1

Mortality according to vaccination strategy in 61 case farms

Vaccination (year)

Number of farms

Mean mortality

95 % confidence interval

No

14

6.1

3.0; 9.2

Summer (2012)

13

2.5

0.7; 4.2

Winter (2011–2012)

34

3.3

1.2; 5.4

Univariable analysis showed a significant effect of the following variables: Vaccination strategy, farmer visiting other farms, using plastic boot covers, hand washing facilities, use of demarcation line for changing clothes and boots when entering the mink farm area, observation of wild red foxes in farm area, access for farm dogs, cats in farm area, and purchase of breeding stock from other farms (Table 2).
Table 2

Results of univariable logistic regression analyses of associations between case control farm status for canine distemper virus and explanatory variables

Variable

Na

Cases

Controls

OR

P value

Vaccinationb

115

    

 Yes

 

47

51

0.20

0.006

 No

 

14

3

1

 

Vaccinationc

101

    

 No

 

14

3

6.46

0.017

 Winter

 

34

19

2.48

0.08

 Summer

 

13

18

1

 

Has the farmer visited other farms?

81

    

 Yes

 

10

37

0.27

0.007

 No

 

17

17

1

 

Did visitors use plastic boot covers?

114

    

 Yes

 

39

21

2.92

0.005

 No

 

21

33

1

 

Is hand wash possible at entrences/exits?

     

 Yes

114

4

25

0.08

<0.0001

 No

 

56

29

1

 

Does the farm have clean and dirty zones at entrances/exits?

114

    

 Yes

 

2

9

0.17

0.020

 No

 

58

45

1

 

Were foxes observed on or around the farm?

     

 Yes

104

25

9

5.00

0.0003

 No

 

25

45

1

 

Did farm dogs have access to the farm area?

     

 Yes

91

25

32

0.13

<0.0001

 No

 

29

5

1

 

Were cats observed on or around the farm?

     

 Yes

114

40

47

0.30

0.012

 No

 

20

7

1

 

Has the farmer purchased or shared equipment used on other farms?

     

 Yes

115

4

5

0.69

0.849

 No

 

57

49

1

 

Did the farmer purchase breeding animals from other farms?

113

    

 No

 

10

18

0.41

0.043

 Yes

 

49

36

1

 

aNumber of farmers that answered the question

bVaccination categorized in yes or no regardless of season

cVaccination categorized according to season of vaccination

Discussion

Given the retrospective design of the study, time elapsed between the canine distemper outbreaks and the interviews. This could induce a recall bias, as most of the control farms were interviewed approximately 1 year after the outbreak whereas the case farms were interviewed shortly after the outbreak. However, the question causing most problems in regard to recall was whether the farmer had visited other farms prior to the outbreak. A total of 34 farmers in the case group did not answer this question. In addition, there is a potential bias in the answers to the biosecurity questions as the interviewers were employed at Kopenhagen Fur that instructs farmers in relevant biosecurity measures.

The univariable analysis showed a significant impact of the vaccination strategy implemented. Surprisingly more than 50 % of the case farms had vaccinated their animals prior to the outbreak. A possible explanation could be that most of the case farms vaccinated their mink kits earlier than the recommended 8–9 weeks of age, which could cause an interference with maternal antibodies and subsequently lead to only a partial protection against CDV infection [30]. It is also possible that some farms vaccinated to late compared to the likely time point of introduction of CDV into the farm. By vaccinating the breeding stock in winter season, mink kits born in spring would have had a period where they were susceptible to CDV; i.e. the period with insufficient protection from maternal derived antibodies until protection from vaccine-induced antibodies. The univariate analysis implies that vaccination is an important factor in protection against CDV infection, and furthermore seems to reduce the mortality on the individual mink farm when an outbreak occurs.

The use of plastic boot covers seemed to increase the odds of being a case farm. This was contrary to the expected relationship, and not in agreement with biosecurity recommendations. However, the fact that the control farms did not use plastic boot covers should not be interpreted as protective against introduction of CDV, but may instead reflect the immediate use of plastic boot covers during the outbreak in the case farms. Firestone et al. [26] recommend having a disinfecting footbath in place and changing clothes and boots when entering the farm. Racicot et al. [25] support this recommendation and state that a preferable approach is to use dedicated farm boots and having a physical barrier such as a bench, delimitating the area. Plastic boot covers are not very durable and are sometimes reused, furthermore cross contamination of personal boots or socks often occur when removing the boot covers [25]. Availability of hand washing facilities at entry and exit were also found to have a significant effect, lowering the odds of being a case farm. This measure has previously been linked with disease status on a farm [26]. However, compliance studies suggest that the presence of the facilities are not always enough to ensure that the measure is implemented [23, 25, 26].

The observation of wild foxes on the farm area was highly associated with increased odds of being a case farm. This should be regarded as a major breach of biosecurity. Additionally a recent Danish study [8] supports the assumption that wild carnivores introduced CDV to the farmed mink in 2012–2013. Therefore, the incentive to increase the general level of biosecurity to prevent disease introduction should be encouraged.

Traditionally Danish mink farms are semi-open systems with cages placed in outdoor sheds surrounded by fencing that wild carnivores can cross if no additional precautions are taken. Therefore, the farmers are encouraged to place an electrical wire on the top of the fence. The access of domestic dogs and domestic or feral cats on the farm area was significantly associated with the reduced odds of canine distemper on the farm. Data shows, that the access to the farm area of these animals was more frequent in the control farms. However, their presences are considered a breach of the general biosecurity measures.

In Denmark, it is mandatory that all animals are tested for Aleutian disease before they are moved from a farm. Therefore, Kopenhagen Fur has a database with information on movement of all live animals in Denmark. This database was used to investigate if the case and control farms had moved animals in or out of the farm prior to the outbreak. No associations were found between direct movement of animals and outbreak of canine distemper, though significantly more case farms purchased animals.

To our knowledge, this study represents the first investigation of the association between canine distemper outbreaks and biosecurity measures on Danish mink farms. A similar study has investigated biosecurity measures in association with Aleutian disease, by grouping biosecurity measures into nine variables relevant for analysis [31]. These groupings are not easily comparable since all variables regarding accessibility to the farm was grouped in one variable called “Requirements for guest’s attire” [31]. Though the farm size was found to be associated with Aleutian disease [31], the farm size was not found to be associated with outbreaks of canine distemper in this study.

Conclusions

Vaccination against CDV is effective in protecting against disease outbreak and seems to reduce mortality if applied timely. Furthermore, clear demarcation of entry and exit area and the availability of hand washing facilities, significantly reduced the odds of a farm becoming CDV infected. The presence of foxes on/inside the farm premises significantly increased the odds of a farm becoming CDV infected.

Consistent use of biosecurity measures, limiting human and animal traffic into and out of the mink farm, and appropriate vaccination strategies are essential key factors in preventing future outbreaks of canine distemper.

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

MC, TS and LGJ participated in the study design. MC, MSH and CH did the sampling and analysis of clinical samples from case farms. EH, MKJ, LGJ and TS conducted the interviews with the farmers. LGJ, JFA and TS performed the statistical analysis. All authors participated in drafting and revising the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Research Foundation of the Danish Fur Breeders’ Association for financial support, and all the farmers participating in the survey for the time and effort they put into the interviews. The authors gratefully acknowledge Anne H. Bertelsen for providing the map in Fig. 1.

Compliance with ethical guidelines

Competing interests Apart of the project was financed by the Research Foundation of the Danish Fur Breeders’ Association, http://www.kopenhagenfur.com. The foundation had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Veterinary Disease Biology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen
(2)
Department of Large Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen
(3)
National Veterinary Institute, Technical University of Denmark
(4)
Kopenhagen Diagnostics, Kopenhagen Fur

References

  1. Frölich K. Canine distemper in carnivores. In: Gavier-Widén D, Duff JP, Meredith A, editors. Infectious diseases of wild mammals and birds in Europe. 1st ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2012. p. 101–5.Google Scholar
  2. Meli ML, Simmler P, Cattori V, Martinez F, Vargas A, Palomares F, et al. Importance of canine distemper virus (CDV) infection in free-ranging Iberian lynxes (Lynx pardinus). Vet Microbiol. 2010;146:132–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Harder TC, Osterhaus ADME. Canine distemper virus—a morbillivirus in search of new hosts? Trends Microbiol. 1997;5:120–4.Google Scholar
  4. Mamaev L, Visser I, Belikov S, Denikina N, Harder T, Goatley L, et al. Canine distemper virus in Lake Baikal seals (Phoca sibirica). Vet Rec. 1996;138:437–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Appel MJ, Yates RA, Foley GL, Bernstein JJ, Santinelli S, Spelman LH, et al. Canine distemper epizootic in lions, tigers, and leopards in North America. J Vet Diagn Invest. 1994;6:277–88.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Blixenkrone-Møller M, Svansson V, Appel M, Krogsrud J, Have P, Orvell C. Antigenic relationships between field isolates of Morbilliviruses from different carnivores. Arch Virol. 1992;123:279–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Appel M. Canine distemper virus. In: Appel MJ, editor. Virus infections of carnivores. 1st ed. The Netherlands: Elsevier Academic Press; 1987. p. 133.Google Scholar
  8. Trebbien R, Chriel M, Struve T, Hjulsager CK, Larsen G, Larsen LE. Wildlife reservoirs of canine distemper virus resulted in a major outbreak in Danish farmed mink (Neovison vison). PLoS One. 2014;. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085598.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Momberg-Jørgensen HC. Virusinfektioner. In: Pelsdyrssygdomme. Copenhagen: A/S Carl Fr. Mortensen, Veterinærmedicinsk Bog-og Instrumenthandel; 1953. p. 96–109.Google Scholar
  10. Struve T, Wolf-Jäckel G, Hammer AS, Holm E, Larsen G. The worst outbreak of canine distemper in many years [in Danish]. Dansk Pelsdyravl. 2012;8:12–4. http://www.kopenhagenfur.com/da/om-os/fagbladet-dansk-pelsdyravl/tidligere-numre/2012. Accessed 22 Sep 2015.
  11. Chriél M, Holm E, Larsen G, Jensen TK, Hansen MS, Enemark H, et al. Annual report of wildlife health 2012. National Veterinary Institute, DTU. 2013; p. 26. Accessed 22 Sep 2015.Google Scholar
  12. Nielsen L, Arctander P, Jensen TH, Dietz H, Hammer AS, Banyard AC, et al. Genetic diversity and phylogenetic analysis of the attachment glycoprotein of phocine distemper viruses of the 2002 and 1988 epizootics. Virus Res. 2009;144:323–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hammer AS, Dietz H, Andersen T, Nielsen L, Blixenkrone-Møller M. Distemper virus as a cause of central nervous disease and death in badgers (Meles meles) in Denmark. Vet Rec. 2004;154:527–30.Google Scholar
  14. Olofsson E, Nöremark M, Lewerin SS. Patterns of between-farm contacts via professionals in Sweden. Acta Vet Scand. 2014;56:70.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Ribbens S, Dewulf J, Koenen F, Mintiens K, De Sadeleer L, de Kruif A, Maes D. A survey on biosecurity and management practice in Belgian pig herds. Prev Vet Med. 2008;83:228–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Laanen M, Persoons D, Ribbens S, de Jong E, Gallens B, Stubbe M, et al. Relationship of biosecurity to production and treatment-characteristics in Belgian pig herds. Vet J. 2013;198:508–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gifford DH, Shane SM, Hugh-Jones M, Weigler BJ. Evaluation of biosecurity in broiler breeders. Avian Dis. 1987;31:339–44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Shane SM. Preventing erosive diseases in broiler parents. Zoot Int. 1993;16:58–60.Google Scholar
  19. Wells SJ. Biosecurity in dairy operations: hazards and risks. J Dairy Sci. 2000;83:2380–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Boklund A, Alban L, Mortensen S, Houe H. Biosecurity in 118 Danish fattening swineherds: descriptive results and factor analysis. Prev Vet Med. 2004;66:49–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Heffernan C, Nielsen L, Thomson K, Gunn G. An exploration of the drivers to bio-security collective action among a sample of UK cattle and sheep farmers. Prev Vet Med. 2008;87:358–72.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ellis-Iversen J, Cook AJ, Watson E, Nielsen E, Woolridge MD, Hogeveen H. Perceptions, circumstances and motivators thet influence implementation of zoonotic control programs on cattle farms. Prev Vet Med. 2010;93:276–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Laanen M, Maes D, Hendriksen C, Gelaude P, De Vliegher S, Rosseel Y, Dewulf J. Pig, cattle and poultry farmers with a known interest in research have comparable perspectives on disease prevention and on-farm biosecurity. Prev Vet Med. 2014;115:1–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Rogers CW, Cogger N. A cross-sectional survey of biosecurity practices on Thoroughbred stud farms in New Zealand. N Z Vet J. 2010;58:64–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Racicot M, Venne D, Durivage A, Vaillancourt J-P. Evaluation of strategies to enhance biosecurity compliance on poultry farms in Québec: effect of audits and cameras. Prev Vet Med. 2012;103:208–18.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Firestone SM, Lewis FI, Schemann K, Ward MP, Toribio J-ALML, Dhand NK. Understanding the associations between on-farm biosecurity practice and equine influenza infection during the 2007 outbreak in Australia. Prev Vet Med. 2013;110:28–36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Anonymous. BEK nr. 265 af 28/03/2006 Bekendtgørelse om husning af mink og hegning af minkfarme. https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=31661. Accessed 22 Sep 2015.
  28. Anonymous. BEK nr. 261 af 30/03/2011 Bekendtgørelse om obligatorisk sundhedsrådgivning i minkfarme. https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=136500. Accessed 22 Sep 2015.
  29. Anonymous. Bek nr. 836 af 19/10/1993 Bekendtgørelse om hvalpesyge hos pelsdyr. https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=78252. Accessed 22 Sep 2015.
  30. Gorham JR. Some experiments and field observations of distemper in mink and ferrets. Adv Vet Med. 1999;41:557–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Themudo GE, Houe H, Agger JF, Østergaard J, Ersbøll AK. Identification of biosecurity measures and spatial variables as potential risk factors for Aleutian disease in Danish mink farms. Prev Vet Med. 2012;107:134–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Gregers-Jensen et al. 2015

Advertisement