Back in September, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) conducted a functional African swine fever (ASF) exercise code-named Swine Fever Exercise for Agriculture Response (SFEAR). This 4-day event was the culmination of a year-long effort focusing on our preparedness to deal with an introduction of ASF into the US swine herd. This exercise was initiated as a result of a request made by the American Association of Swine Veterinarians, the National Pork Board, the National Pork Producers Council, and the Swine Health Information Center to USDA in the fall of 2018. The USDA leadership agreed with the swine industry that there was a need to exercise our capabilities and response plans targeting ASF and dedicated the resources needed to pull it off.
A functional exercise is different than the more common tabletop exercise with which we are all familiar. The goal of SFEAR was to engage all facets of the response plan at the industry, laboratory, state, and federal levels. It explored the challenges associated with how we would deal with an outbreak by designing an as close to real-world scenario as possible that would test our response strategies at all levels.
By engaging all levels of industry and government, exercise participants were able to perform the activities they would be expected to conduct during a real outbreak. Veterinarians and producers dealt with recognizing a disease incursion, reporting those findings, and dealing with a foreign animal disease (FAD) response on their farm. Foreign animal disease diagnosticians were able to be on a farm, coordinate activities with the producer and veterinarian, collect samples, and submit samples to the diagnostic labs. State animal health officials got to work through the process of responding to an FAD outbreak in swine – addressing issues associated with stop movements, deployment of resources, interactions with local and federal government bureaucracies, sample submissions, and permitting. Veterinarians, producers, and animal health officials tackled the still unanswered questions regarding depopulation and carcass disposal while faced with the real-world scope of that challenge.
I was impressed by the commitment of all those involved with the exercise. The USDA contracted with a third-party company to facilitate the design and implementation of the exercise. They utilized subject matter experts throughout the design process and conducted three large-scale planning meetings focused on ensuring that SFEAR was as realistic as possible. Fourteen of the top swine production states dedicated time and resources to the planning process and participated during the actual exercise. In addition, numerous swine producers and veterinarians donated their time, personnel, and resources as well as allowed their farms and data to be used to support the realism of SFEAR. The veterinary diagnostic labs also actively participated – even to the point of accepting actual field samples (ok, prunes instead of spleen. It was only an exercise after all) to test the sample submission and handling protocols. State and federal officials worked with the labs to coordinate sample delivery methods and the dissemination of lab results.
All-in-all, it was probably the best example I have seen of industry working with state and federal government to achieve an outcome that benefitted all involved. So, what was the outcome of all this effort? You’ll be hearing much more about that going forward as multiple groups evaluate what they learned and prepare their after-action analysis. To me, however, the biggest achievement was the opportunity for all parties to actively engage. The entire process promoted networking between industry, the labs, and animal health officials at the state and federal levels. The SFEAR forced the consideration of issues that heretofore had only been described on paper or theorized on a tabletop.
During SFEAR, actual people stood face-to-face with actual pigs and had to make a decision. Each party had the opportunity, and responsibility, to explore each other’s objectives and work together to try to overcome the barriers identified. On the upside, I do not think the exercise identified any challenges about which we were not already aware. Did it provide answers to all those challenges? No. Many issues, some major, still remain unresolved. I think, however, as we go forward, all the parties involved have a better understanding of the plans in place, the challenges we face, and the barriers to solving those challenges. Hopefully, we also better understand the faces behind those plans and the reasons those challenges exist. That understanding can hopefully foster enhanced cooperation, input, and accomplishment.
Harry Snelson, DVM
Executive Director