DATA AVAILABILITY : The data used in the publication are archived at the FAO,
Tanzania, and the DVS, MoLF, Dodoma, Tanzania. Data can
be provided on reasonable request to the Director of Veterinary
Services, MoLF, Dodoma, Tanzania.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL : SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE 1 : triage criteria for evaluation of the need for a rapid risk assessment. A threshold of 7 out of 14 was set (criteria 1–3: 1/2 + 3/6 + 3/6 = 7/14). )e threshold value beyond which the triage score triggers an RRA varies depending on the capacity of the veterinary services to perform an RRA. For instance, if the veterinary services have the mandate and several staff members have the capacity and are available to perform an RRA, a lower threshold value will be set than when the veterinary services have few officers with the capacity and availability to conduct a RRA. SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE 2 : farmer’s self-rated questionnaire on biosecurity protocol in smallholder pig farms, Tanzania. SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE 3 : expert opinion elicitation of risk transmission pathways for in-country and transboundary introduction and transmission of ASF virus. (i) Please rank the following risk transmission pathways for in-country and transboundary introduction and transmission of ASF virus (1 being the riskiest and the highest number being the least risky). Add any other, if known and rank too. SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE 4 : expert opinion elicitation of facilitators of ASF introduction and transmission to new premises for in country and transboundary introduction and transmission of ASF virus. (i) Please rank the following Facilitators of ASF introduction and transmission to new premises for in country and transboundary introduction and transmission of ASF virus (1 being the riskiest and the highest number being the least risky). Add any other, if known and rank too. At subnational levels, sometimes, the agricultural officers, extension officers, and ward and village administrative staff serves as animal health officers and issue animal movement permits. SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE 5 : expert opinion elicitation of hazard among the group of pigs in the farm premises. (i) Please rank the following hazard among the group of pigs in the farm in premises (1 being the most affected and the highest number being the least affected). Add any other category, if known and rank too. At the farm level, the subgroupings of pigs listed above were affected to different degrees. Based on your experience with ASF in farms, kindly rank them based on degree of affection providing reasons for your ranking. SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE 6 : expert opinion elicitation of pathways and risk reduction measures to mitigate the burden of ASF in the farm premises. (1) Considering the table, kindly comment on the following: (a) are there pathways that should be added to the list? If yes, add it below. (b) Are the factors for consideration comprehensive enough? If not, can you modify appropriately tracking your responses? (c) Do you agree with the risk reduction measures? If not, what should be changed/added? Service providers and other value chain actors include middlemen, transporters, pig farmers, traders (whole pig and pork), abattoir workers/butchers, LGA officials (vets and para-veterinarians, livestock officer, and agricultural extension officers), border officials, police, and control officers. SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE 7 : identified risk pathways and basis for inclusion and scoring in the risk analysis. Where an issue has been raised in the previous cell as a reason to justify the rank, it was not repeated in subsequent cells especially for common issues like importation and contamination. Note: 1 = the riskiest and 15 = the least risky. Experts’ opinions were provided based on selection of persons with significant contributions in the field of ASF research and diagnostics, field practice, teaching and or years of experience. All responses were based on independent empirical evaluations of ASF in farms. SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE 8 : identified facilitators and basis for inclusion and scoring in the risk analysis. Note: 1 = the most ranked and 15 = the least ranked. Experts’ opinions were provided based on years of experience and empirical evaluation of ASF in farms. At subnational levels, sometimes, the agricultural officers, extension officers, ward and village administrative staff serve as animal health officers and issue animal movement permits. SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE 9 : identified pig groups and basis for inclusion and scoring in the susceptibility analysis. Note: 1 = the most affected and 8 = the least affected. Stakeholders observed and provided anecdotal evidence that at the farm level, the subgroupings of pigs listed above have been affected to different degrees. It is hypothesized that different degrees of immunities in different pigs and the dose of infection may in Wuence the degree of affection. Experts’ opinions were provided based on years of experience and empirical evaluation of ASF in farms. Piglets die typically due to starvation because of the death of sow. It should be noted that most dead piglets are not examined pathologically for causes of death. There was no significant difference between the rankings; hence, all subgroupings of pigs were classified as high in terms of susceptibility to the hazard. SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE 1 : rapid risk assessment (RRA) triaging process undertaken during the ASF mission in Tanzania, 2021 [5]. SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE 2 : classification of ASF virus based on the risk profile. SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE 3 : classification of ASF virus based on risk profile plausibility and likelihood. SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE 4 : schematic representation of interdistrict movement of pig and pig products. Partial representation of the map of Tanzania showing some of the districts in Kagera region and how interdistricts movement of pigs and pig products are operated. SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE 5 : schematic representation of intradistrict movement of pig and pig products. SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE 6 : sample of pig movements to and from the farms and towards the slaughter slabs and livestock markets.
