106

THE EPIDEMIOLOGY AND CONTROL OF FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE IN THE ASEAN REGION

P.G. Joseph, Veterinary Research Institute, Ipoh, .

SUMMARY The earliest record of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in the ASEAN region was in Indonesia in 1887. Brunei had never recorded the disease while the only records in Singapore were in 1935 and 1973. In Malaysia, the disease was recorded only in the Peninsula; East Malaysia was never affected. In Indonesia the disease is now confined to Java. It is endemic in the Philippines and Thailand. The disease is commonly observed in cattle, buffaloes and pigs and rarely in goats and sheep. In calves and in pigs it can be severe, in most others it is mild. In Thailand and the Philippines, both epidemic and endemic patterns of the disease occur. The 1978/79, 1980/81 and 1985 outbreaks in Malaysia and the 1983 outbreak in Indonesia were more recent epidemics. The most important means of spread is with the movement of infected animals. The predominant virus type in the ASEAN countries is type 0. Indonesia has recorded only type 0, Malaysia type A in 1973, type 0 from 1978 to 1984 and Asia 1 in 1985. In the Philippines type 0, A and C have been recorded whereas in Thailand types 0, A and Asia 1 are present. The factors that influence control measures are many and include geographical features, animal movements between and within countries, epidemiological surveillance, diagnostic capabilities, vaccine supply, funding and public co-operation. The current control measures in Brunei, Singapore and East Malaysia are aimed at maintaining their free-status. Indonesia and Malaysia are working towards eradication of the disease. In Thailand and in the Philippines the strategy is to create disease-free zones as the first step in the eradication of the disease.

INTRODUCTION Foot-and-mouth disease is a highly contagious, acute viral disease of cloven-footed animals. The disease is characterised by a high fever (upto 1070F), formation of vesicles and erosions in the mouth, tongue, muzzle, teat and feet, salivation and lameness. The disease has an incubation period of 1 to 5 days or longer and in a susceptible population results in almost 100% morbidity. Mortality in the young is around 50% whereas in the adults it is about 5%. The disease is transmitted through direct contact, aerosal spread, infected animal by-products and fomites.

The foot-and-mouth disease virus was first isolated in 1897. It is classified with the aphthovirus as a member of the picornaviridae. There are seven immunologically and serologically distinct types of virus identified as types 0, A, C, SAT-1, SAT-2, SAT-3 and Asia 1. Within the seven types are at least 61 sub-types. The SAT virus types have never been recorded east of Iran.

The distribution of the disease is worldwide except for Australia, Japan, New Zealand, islands of the Western Pacific, North and Central America and parts of Western Europe. The earliest recognition of the disease in the ASEAN region was in East Java in 1887. In the Philippines the disease has been endemic since 1902 or probably earlier. In Malaysia and Singapore the disease was reported in the early thirties but for 34 years (1939 to 1973) and 38 years (1935 to 1973) Malaysia and Singapore respectively were free of the disease. The first official record of the disease in Thailand was made in 1953 and it has been endemic since then. Brunei and the east Malaysia states of and have never recorded the disease. Currently the disease is endemic in Thailand and in parts of the Philippines, Indonesia and Peninsular Malaysia (FAO/APHCA Report, 1984).

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL FEATURES Species affected: In all outbreaks of the disease cattle and buffaloes were affected. However, in the 1977 and 1980 outbreaks in Central Thailand and in the 1978/79 and 1980/81 outbreaks in Peninsular Malaysia,

Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics, 1985 Available at www.sciquest.org.nz 107

a large number of pigs were affected as well. Similarly in the Philippines the outbreaks in 1975, 1976 and 1980 involved a large number of pigs and currently most outbreaks in the Central and South Luzon are in pigs (Mago, 1984). Reported cases in sheep and goats are rare and these animals are not thought to play a significant role in the epidemiology of the disease. Potential wildlife include several species of deer, wild cattle (banteng) and pigs. The role of these in the epidemiology of the disease is unknown.

Virus types: Virus types A, 0, C and Asia 1 have been recorded in the ASEAN region as shown in the table below.

Table 1: FMD virus types and sub-types in ASEAN

Country Virus types and sub-types

Thailand 01; 0 (Bangkok, 80); A15 ; A22 -like (Songkla, 73); Asia 1

Malaysia A -like (73); 0 (78-84); Asia 1 (85) 22 1 Singapore -like (73) A2 2 Indonesia 0 (Bali, 62); 0 (Java, 83) 11 1 Philippines 0 • A • C 3(75-79; 84) l 24 3

Disease pattern: Both the epidemic and endemic patterns of the disease may occur in a country as was seen in Thailand, the Philippines and Malaysia. The epidemics have occurred at irregular intervals and are usually widespread involving a large number of animals. Several inter-related factors are probably responsible for such epidemics e.g. emergence of more invasive virus strains, emergence or importation of new antigenic sub-types, waning immunity, large scale movement of infected or carrier animals, and weather patterns particularly conducive to spread of infection. The endemic disease is characterised by the occurrence of a number of small localised outbreaks in which virus spread is often comparatively slow and self-limiting. Endemic FMD also exhibits a seasonal pattern, with the highest incidence during the wet season and during major festivals.

Disease transmission: The most important source of virus spread in the region is with the movement of infected animals. Airborne virus spread is less important, close contact between animals is required for efficient virus transmission. Mechanical transmission is less likely to occur in tropical climates because of poorer virus survival in hot weather. In pigs, swill feeding is another means of virus spread. In the Philippines, importation of meat from South America, was thought to be responsible for the introduction of A24 and C3 virus sub-types. Although Malaysia imports beef from FMD infected India, it restricts import to deboned beef without lymph nodes and organ meat. Although transmission from carrier animals has never been proven it has been suspected as the cause of outbreaks. In Java, Indonesia, carrier animals have been suggested as the source of the July 1983 outbreak (Sukobagyo and Teken Temadja, 1984).

CURRENT CONTROL MEASURES Brunei, Singapore and the East Malaysian States of Sabah and Sarawak continue to maintain their free status by enforcing the ban on the importation of animals and their products from FMD, affected countries

Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics, 1985 Available at www.sciquest.org.nz 108

or areas. The island status of these regions coupled with a low livestock population are factors in their favour. These countries would attempt to stamp out the disease if it ever occurs in their territories. Singapore has made contigency plans to use vaccines should a "stamping out" policy be difficult to implement. In the Philippines the major islands of Penay, Cebu, Samar, Leyte and Palawan have been free of FMD for more than eight years. The disease is, however, endemic in the islands of Luzon (particularly in the Metro-Manila area in Central Luzon), Masbate and Mindano (particularly in South Cotabato). In March 1982, a small outbreak took place in the island of Negros. Mindoro, where the previous recorded case was in 1965, was affected in June 1984 (FAO-WHO-OIE Animal Health Yearbook 1984). The National FMD Control and Eradication Programme is still in its first phase. In this phase the incidence of the disease is being reduced by vaccination, quarantine and movement restrictions. A trivalent imported vaccine (0, A, C) is being employed but vaccination coverage is in the order of 10-20% of susceptible population. Vaccination is provided free to smallholders and charged for commercial farmers.

In Indonesia, the occurrence in Java of FMD in July 1983 put back the eradication programme. For the three years from 1980 to 1982, no case of FMD was reported in the country and Indonesia was on the verge of declaring itself free of the disease. Mass vaccination of all cattle and buffaloes in Java began immediately and by December 1983 the outbreak was effectively controlled with no case being reported since then. In the first phase of the vaccination campaign (1983/84) vaccination was carried out twice at an interval of 2-4 weeks. In the second phase (1984/86) only one vaccination is to be given annually. Total vaccination coverage for a population of over 4.5 million cattle and buffaloes in Java was over 95% in the first phase (FAO-WHO-OIE Animal Health Yearbook, 1984). Both locally produced and imported vaccines are used, and provided free of charge.

In Peninsular Malaysia, the 1973, A22-like outbreak was eradicated by a "stamping out" method. The 1978/79 and 1980/81 01 outbreaks were effectively controlled by area-wise vaccination which ultimately extended to the whole country (Joseph, 1981). There were two isolated outbreaks due to 01 virus in December 1982 and May 1984 (Joseph, 1984). In June 1985, however, an outbreak due to Asia 1 took place in State which later extended to the adjacent Trengganu State. Vaccination against Asia 1 is now included along with 01 vaccination, initially with the use of separate monovalent vaccines and currently with a bivalent vaccine. All vaccines used are imported and are provided free of charge. There is considerable variation among states in vaccination cover which ranges from 20 to 80% of the cattle and buffalo population.

In Thailand, FMD outbreaks occur sporadically in the north, north-east and the central regions of the country. The efforts to re-establish the disease-free zone status to Southern Thailand took a step back with the recent (June 1985) outbreak of Asia 1 FMD in the eastern part of Region 9. In respect of FMD control policy Thailand may be divided into three zones, viz. a) Disease-Free Zone (DFZ) consisting of regions 9 and 8 and the southernmost province of region 7 between 6-120LN; (b) Buffer Zone (BZ) consisting of region 7 north of the DFZ and, (c) Endemic Zone consisting of regions 1 to 6. Importation of animals and their products into the DFZ is prohibited with the exception of breeding animals that have undergone quarantine and trivalent vaccination. Movement of animals into the BZ is also restricted and cattle and buffaloes in the BZ are vaccinated twice a year. In the rest of the country, control measures have been largely restricted to quarantine of infected properties and ring vaccination around

Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics, 1985 Available at www.sciquest.org.nz 109

outbreaks. Vaccination is provided free to smallholders. The Department of Livestock Development is not responsible for vaccination of commercial pig, beef or dairy herds where vaccination is voluntary and at cost (FAO/APHCA Report, 1984; Pradit Maneemann, 1984).

FACTORS AFFECTING CONTROL MEASURES Livestock movement: Livestock movement, most of it illegal, takes place between countries with long unsupervised borders such as between Thailand and Malaysia. Thailand also has a very long border with Burma in the west, Laos and Kampuchea to the north and north-east through which animal movements take place bringing with it FMD. Movement of fighting bulls into the DFZ of Southern Thailand was thought to be the cause of the 1973, A22-outbreak in the DFZ which extended to Singapore and Malaysia.

Movement within the countries have also resulted in spread of FMD as was seen in the 01 outbreaks in Southern Thailand and from the border states of Peninsular Malaysia to the other parts of the country. In Thailand, the predominant livestock movement patterns are from the north-eastern and northern regions, where the FMD incidence is high, to central Thailand and Bangkok. In the Philippines there are well defined traditional movement patterns for cattle. The main flow is from the south to the north especially to the cattle fattening and marketing areas north and south of Manila. There are specific legislative and departmental restrictions to livestock movement in all the countries of ASEAN; however, their enforcement is frequently ineffective.

Livestock population: The FMD susceptible livestock population in ASEAN is as shown in Table 2.

Table 2: FMD susceptible population in ASEAN (X1000)

Country Cattle Buffalo Sheep Goat Pig

Thailand 4,632 6,150 22 30 4,150 Malaysia 625 253 69 335 2,050 Singapore 2 2 - 2 1,310 Indonesia 6,985 2,391 4,790 7,910 3,620 Brunei 4 15 - 2 15 Philippines 1,931 2,900 30 1,850 7,779

Total 14,179 11,711 4,911 10,129 18,924

Source: FAO-WHO-OIE Animal Health Yearbook for 1984•, FAO, Rome, 1985.

In spite of about 26 million cattle and buffaloes in ASEAN, all the countries, with the possible exception of Indonesia, import cattle and buffaloes and/or fresh, chilled or frozen meat. Outbreaks of FMD have resulted due to this legal trade as in the case of Singapore in 1973, (A22-like outbreak), Philippines (A24 and C3 outbreaks) and Peninsular Malaysia (01 outbreaks). The importation of the beef requirements from FMD free countries is costlier than the supply of beef from neighbouring countries where FMD is still present. The increasing demand for beef in some countries encourages the illegal movement of animals and the risk of infection.

Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics, 1985 Available at www.sciquest.org.nz 110

Epidemiological surveillance: The lack of epidemiological data poses difficulties for the planning, implementation and evaluation of control measures. Outbreaks are rarely detected by the staff of the veterinary services; more often they are reported by the farmers and invariably after the disease had established itself and spread. There is insufficient specimen collection and submission for virus isolation, typing and sub-typing. The current prevalence of the virus types and sub-types is not known in some of the countries. There is also inadequate investigations into the origin of outbreaks and in instances of "vaccination breakdowns". Field evaluation of vaccines and vaccination programmes is essential at regular intervals or when indicated.

Lack of diagnostic facilities: Only Pak Chong in Thailand and Surabaya in Indonesia in ASEAN have the capability to carry out virus isolation and typing work. These facilities are by no means adequate. Specimens for virus isolation may be submitted to the World Reference Laboratory for FMD at Pirbright in the United Kingdom. Reports are usually received within a week or sooner. However, virus sub-typing and vaccine evaluation studies would take longer and be expens- ive. There is a need to improve the existing diagnostic facilities in the region as well as to set-up facilities in the Philippines and in Malaysia.

Vaccine supply, storage and distribution: The vaccine production facility at Surabaya, Indonesia has a capacity to produce five million doses of monovalent vaccine. It has, however, produced not more than 1.5 million doses annually. At the Pak Chong facility in Thailand, about seven million monovalent doses (total for 0, A and Asia 1) are produced annually (FAO/APHCA Report 1984). The facility has a capacity for 15 million doses. All the countries in the region where vaccination is carried out import all or part of their vaccine requirements. This is costly. Imported vaccines may not provide adequate immunity against certain field viruses. The inclusion of the prevailing.field virus in the imported vaccine is sometimes necessary.

The storage and distribution of vaccines is dependent on an adequate cold chain being present. In many instances this is inadequate and has resulted in vaccines not reaching the places where it is needed in time, and possibly with a loss in potency.

Operating costs for control programmes: The lack of funds for the purchase of vaccines, vehicles, fuel, equipment and for the payment of allowances and overtime to staff is a major constraint. Unless governments take FMD control and eradication seriously, long-term allocation of funds will not be forth- coming. It will be necessary to make a cost-benefit appraisal of FMD control in each country.

Cooperation of farmers: The poor response to vaccination campaigns by livestock owners is a problem seen in all the ASEAN countries with the exception of Indonesia. Smallholders fail to appreciate the economic signif- icance of FMD. The combination of FMD vaccination with vaccination against a killer disease such as haemorrhagic septicaemia has been shown to be both safe and effective (Joseph and Hedger, 1984). In Malaysia this is practised to obtain higher vaccination coverage against both diseases. There is however, need for greater farmer education in disease control measures.

Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics, 1985 Available at www.sciquest.org.nz 111

Access to livestock: In most of the countries in ASEAN access to livestock is sometimes difficult because of the terrain, remoteness, or insurgency prevailing in certain areas. In Malaysia, some herds of cattle and buffaloes are maintained in a semi-wild state and are difficult to be restrained for vaccination.

REGIONAL COOPERATION At the Seventh ASEAN - Australia Forum, a project proposal for the control and eradication of FMD was presented by the ASEAN Co-ordinating Group on Livestock (CGL). This resulted in a study of the proposal in 1983 by consultants of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. The consultants report, although modifying some aspects of the CGLs proposal, was supportive of the strategies and programmes and recommended that Australia provide the assistance sought. It is unfortunate, however, that Australia at this juncture is unable to provide such assistance. ASEAN should endeavour to seek elsewhere for assistance as there is governmental concern and deter- mination for the control and eradication of FMD.

There are, however, bilateral assistance programmes for thecontrol of FMD in the ASEAN region. Indonesia had Australian aid and Japan provides assistance to Thailand. Malaysia and Thailand meet regularly to deal with the disease. Both countries have agreed that it is essential to have the DFZ re-established and maintained as such in Southern Thailand. Towards this end there is a need for joint efforts between Malaysia and Thailand. Similarly, it will be useful for Brunei, Indonesia and Malaysia to jointly maintain the FMD free status of the island of Borneo.

REFERENCES (1) FAO/APHCA Report (1984). Control of foot-and-mouth disease in Asia-Pacific region. Publication No. 4, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok. (2) FAO-WHO-OIE Animal Health Yearbook (1984). Report of the FAO Animal Production and Health Commission for Asia, the Far East and South West Pacific (APHCA) on foot-and-mouth disease in APHCA member and neighbouring countries. FAO, Rome. pp. 170-171. (3) Joseph, P.G. (1981). The epizootiology and control of foot-and-mouth disease in Peninsular Malaysia. Sing. Vet. J., 5 : 24-36. (4) Joseph, P.G. (1984). Control and eradication of foot-and-mouth disease from Peninsular Malaysia. In: Vete rinary Viral Diseases - Their significance in South-east Asia and the Western Pacific (ed.) A.J. Della-Porta, Academic Press Australia, pp. 277-280. (5) Joseph, P.G. and Hedger, R.S. (1984). Serological response of cattle to simultaneous vaccinations against foot-and-mouth disease and haemorrhagic septicaemia. Vet. Rec., 114 : 494-496. (6) Mago, Floro M. Jr. (1984). The epizootiology and control of FMD in the Philippine. In: Report of Third Country Training Programme in Foot-and-Mouth Disease Control, Department of Livestock Development, Bangkok pp. 267-270. (7) Pradit maneemann (1984). FMD control in Thailand. In: Third Country Training Programme in Foot-and- Mouth Disease Control, Department of Livestock Development, Bangkok, pp. 105-114. (8) Sukobagyo, P. and Tekan Temadja, I.G.N. (1984). Foot-and-mouth disease eradication programme in Indonesia. In: Veterinary Viral Diseases - Their significance in South-east Asia and the Western Pacific (ed.). A.J. Della- Porta, Academic Press Australia, pp. 290-293.

Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics, 1985 Available at www.sciquest.org.nz