Research Article

Qualitative Risk Assessment of the Introduction of Trichinella spp. in Wild Boar Meat from Bengkulu to Java Island Through Bakauheni Port, Lampung

Jemi Diporianto1,4, Denny Widaya Lukman2*, Yusuf Ridwan3

1Graduate Student of Veterinary Public Health and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary and Biomedical Science, Jl. Agatis, IPB Dramaga Campus, IPB University, Bogor, 16680; 2Division of Veterinary Public Health and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, Jl. Agatis, IPB Dramaga Campus, 16680, IPB University, Bogor, 16680; 3Division of Parasitology and Medical Entomology, School of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, Jl. Agatis, IPB Dramaga Campus, 16680, IPB University, Bogor, 16680; 4Agricultural Quarantine Agency, Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Indonesia, Jl. Harsono RM No. 3, 12550, Jakarta.

Received | May 27, 2023; Accepted | June 20, 2023; Published | August 30, 2023

*Correspondence | Denny Widaya Lukman, Division of Veterinary Public Health and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, Jl. Agatis, IPB Dramaga Campus, 16680, IPB University, Bogor, 16680; Email: dennylukman@apps.ipb.ac.id

Citation | Diporianto J, Lukman DW, Ridwan Y (2023). Qualitative risk assessment of the introduction of Trichinella spp. In wild boar meat from Bengkulu to Java Island through Bakauheni Port, Lampung. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 11(9): 1573-1584.

DOI | https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.aavs/2023/11.9.1573.1584

ISSN (Online) | 2307-8316

 

 

Copyright: 2023 by the authors. Licensee ResearchersLinks Ltd, England, UK.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

INTRODUCTION

The development of transportation has increased the traffic of animal products, that potentially causing the risk of disease transmission between regions. The risk increased as the volume of animal products being transported increased (WOAH, 2022b). Trichinellosis is one of the zoonosis transmitted through animal-derived products, namely through the consumption of raw or undercooked meat from infected livestock or wild animals carrying Trichinella spp. larvae (Diaz et al., 2020; Gómez-Morales et al., 2021; WOAH, 2022a). This disease is caused by nematodes from the genus Trichinella (Borhani et al., 2023). Currently, the utilization of wild boar meat for feed and food purposes continues to increase, posing a threat to public health (Sgroi et al., 2023). Franssen et al. (2017) using quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA), it was found that the consumption of wild boar meat is responsible for 55% of the trichinellosis cases in humans. Bengkulu Province is one of the largest producers of wild boar meat in Indonesia. Quarantine data indicates that the traffic of wild boar meat from Bengkulu Province from 2018 to 2020 amounted to 153.79 tons (SKP Bengkulu, 2023).

Trichinella spp. can infect approximately 150 species of carnivorous and omnivorous animals (Cybulska et al., 2016). The genus Trichinella currently consists of nine species and four additional genotypes (T-6, T-8, T-9, and T-13) whose taxonomic status has not been determined yet (Marucci et al., 2021; Pozio, 2021; Zarlenga et al., 2020). There are three classes of vertebrates that serve as hosts for Trichinella spp., namely mammals, birds, and reptiles (WOAH, 2022a). Wild carnivores serve as the main reservoir hosts, although the majority of infections in humans are caused by the consumption of pork (Pozio, 2021) Therefore, historically, it has been considered a “pig parasite.” (Zarlenga et al., 2020). The life cycle of Trichinella spp. consists of two types: the domestic cycle that occurs in synanthropic and domestic animals, and the sylvatic cycle that occurs in wild animals (Foreyt, 2013). This disease also affects humans with varying degrees of severity, ranging from mild symptoms to death (WOAH, 2022a). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated 10,000 cases of trichinellosis every year (CDC, 2019).

The transportation of wild boar meat from endemic areas to disease-free areas can be facilitated by conducting a risk analysis to determine the necessary mitigation measures. Risk analysis provides likelihood results regarding the transmission of disease agents from the source area, also known as the entry assessment. The entry assessment is conducted by developing a biological pathway for the likelihood of pathogen transmission through wild boar meat from the source area to the entry area. The trafficking of wild boar meat requires attention as it poses a risk of spreading zoonotic diseases, including Trichinella spp., between regions (Bezerra-Santos et al., 2021; Pozio et al., 2019; Pozio & Zarlenga, 2013). Unlike most nematodes, the biomass of Trichinella spp. in the wild is larger compared to domesticated animals (Pozio, 2022). Several case studies on trichinellosis conducted through laboratory examination in domestic pig meat have been reported in Indonesia. Angi et al. (2015) reported the prevalence of trichinellosis in pigs in Kupang in 2014 was 0.9%. Pramono et al. (2016) found no Trichinella spp. infected pigs in Manado in 2015. Furthermore, Setyani et al. (2018) reported that the seroprevalence of trichinellosis in pig farms in the Tangerang Regency in 2018 was 1.25%. The seroprevalences of trichinellosis reported in wild boar meat testing are higher than in domestic pig meat. The Agricultural Quarantine Station in Palembang reported seroprevalence of trichinellosis in wild boar meat samples from Prabumulih and Palembang City in 2021-2022 was 22% (BKP Palembang, 2023). Therefore. this study is necessary to assess the likelihood of the introduction of Trichinella spp. in wild boar meat that will be transported from the Province of Bengkulu to Jawa Island through Bakauheni Port, Lampung, and develop the mitigation measures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was conducted from October to December 2022. The study activities included field observations, expert interviews, and literature collection. Data collection took place at authorized agencies and wild boar slaughterhouses in Bengkulu Province, Lampung Province, and Jakarta Province, Indonesia. The risk analysis referred to the Terrestrial Animal Health Code (TAHC) Chapter 2.1 (WOAH, 2022b). The entry assessment referred to the biosecurity import risk analysis guidelines 2016 by the Australian Government (DAWR, 2016) using a qualitative approach as presented in Table 1. While the level of uncertainty referred to The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) guidelines (Benford et al., 2018) as presented in Table 2.

 

Table 1: Category of likelihood and its interpretation

Likelihood	Interpretation
High	The event would be very likely to occur
Moderate	The event is equally likely to occur or not occur
Low	The event would be unlikely to occur
Very low	The event would be very unlikely to occur
Extremely low	The event would be extremely unlikely to occur
Negligible	The event would almost certainly not occur

Source : DAWE (2020); DAWR (2016)

 

Table 2: Qualitative uncertainty categories

Categories of Uncertainty		Interpretation
Low	Complete data, strong evidence presented by various references, various authors have the same conclusion, structured observation conducted
Medium	There were several incomplete data, evidence presented in limited references, and the authors conclusions varied.
High	Data are very scarce or unavailable. Evidence is not available in references but can be found in unpublished reports or based on observations or communication.

Source : Benford et al., 2018

Table 3: Categories of experts, criteria of experts, number of experts, and data collection method in the study

No.	Experts	Criteria of experts	Number of experts	Data Collection Method
1   2       3           4     5     6   7 8	Parasitology experts   Agricultural quarantine officers     Laboratory supervisors           Veterinary authorities at provincial and district offices Bakauheni Port Authority   Wild boar collectors /hunters Colectors member Drivers and assistants	Someone who knew about Trichinella spp. and had publications in national or international journals. The animal quarantine officers have experience inspecting wild boar meat at the Agriculture Quarantine Station in Bengkulu and the Agriculture Quarantine Station in Bakauheni, Lampung. The laboratory supervisors at the Lampung Veterinary Office, the veterinary public health laboratory of the Provincial Office, the Agriculture Quarantine Station in Bengkulu, the Agriculture Quarantine Station in Bakauheni, Lampung, and the Agricultural Quarantine Standard Testing Center (BBUSKP). Authorised veterinarians at Provincial and District Offices conducting wild boar meat inspection. Officers from relevant agencies, such as the port authority and the port police at the Bakauheni Port in Lampung. The person who hunted wild boars. The owner and members of the wild boar slaughterhouses. Drivers and assitant of vehicles transporting wild boar meat	2   18       6           6     5 7   12   2	In-depth interview   In-depth interview       In-depth interview             In-depth interview   In-depth interview   In-depth interview In-depth interview In-depth interview

 

Table 4: Matrix of combination rules for combining likelihood levels

		Likelihood 2
		High (H)	Moderate (M)	Low (L)	Very low (VL)	Extremely low (EL)	Negligible (N)
Likelihood 1	High (H)	H	M	L	VL	EL	N
	Moderate (M)	M	L	L	VL	EL	N
	Low (L)	L	L	VL	VL	EL	N
	Very low (VR)	VL	VL	VL	EL	EL	N
	Extremely low (EL)	EL	EL	EL	EL	N	N
	Negligible (N)	N	N	N	N	N	N

Source : DAWE (2020); DAWR (2016)

 

Table 5: Rules for combining the likelihood levels of more than one partial risk

Description	Overall Assessment
One of the partial risks is "high"	High
More than one partial risk is "moderate"	High
One of the partial risks is "moderate," and every other partial risk is "low."	High
There is one partial risk that is "moderate," and not all other partial risks are "moderate."	Moderate
All partial risks are "low."	Moderate
One or more partial risks are "low."	Low
All partial risks are "very low"	Low
One or more partial risks are "very low"	Very low
All partial risks are "extremely low"	Very low
One or more partial risks are "extremely low"	Extremely low
All partial risks are "negligible"	Negligible

Source : DAWE (2020); DAWR (2016)

Data Collection

The data used in this study consist of primary and secondary data. Primary data were obtained through expert opinions and direct field observations. Experts were individuals who were knowledgeable in specific fields and could provide opinions and information related to their expertise. The categories of experts, criteria of experts, number of experts, and data collection method in the study were presented in Table 3. Secondary data were obtained through the exploration of scientific publications, literature, laboratory test results, and reports or documents from authorized agencies, whether published or unpublished.

Entry Assessment

The risk assessment for entry consists of three stages: the development of biological pathways, the assessment of likelihood and uncertainty, and the final entry assessment. The biological pathways were constructed based on the process flow of wild boar meat from hunting, collection, cutting, laboratory testing, permits procedures, and transportation of wild boar meat from Bengkulu Province to Java Island through Bakauheni Port.

The likelihood assessment was conducted by considering scenarios and posing questions at each stage or node formed in the biological pathway. Primary and secondary data were used as information to answer each question. The likelihood level would estimate the probability of wild boar meat infected with Trichinella spp. being transmitted when passing through a node, taking into account biological factors, area factors, and commodity factors based on the established biological pathway. Primary and secondary data were used as information to answer each question. The level of uncertainty was assessed based on the availability of primary and secondary data required for the likelihood assessment. The level of uncertainty serves to assess the validity of the obtained data qualitatively and was categorized into three categories based on EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) guidelines (Benford et al., 2018).

The final assessment was conducted once the qualitative likelihood level had been determined for each node and pathway in the biological pathway. A form of combination rules was required to calculate the probability of all scenarios, referring to the combination rule matrix based on the likelihood levels as presented in Table 4, and the combination rule for multiple partial risks as described in Table 5.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Based on the in-depth interview results from experts, as well as direct field observations, a diagram of the biological pathway was developed as presented in Figure 1. Eight nodes were formed in the biological pathways, from the province node (L1) to large collectors (L4), representing hunting activities. Meanwhile, from the District office node (L5) to the Bakauheni quarantine node (L8), it represented the surveillance activities carried out by the local veterinary authorities.

 

The forest and plantation areas in Bengkulu Province (L1) were locations for wild boar hunting. There were three parties involved in the hunting activities in Bengkulu Province, namely hunters (L2), small collectors (L3), and large collectors (L4). The hunters sold their hunted wild boars to the small collectors, who then sold them to the larger collectors. The small and large collectors also obtained wild boars from their hunting activities. Inspection and supervision were conducted in stages, starting from the District Office (L5), Provincial Office (L6), Bengkulu Quarantine (L7), and finally by Bakauheni Quarantine (L8). Each stage, starting from the District Office, issued a veterinary certificate that would be required for the next stages permits. If Bengkulu Province were a Trichinella spp. free area, wild boar meat would not pose a potential hazard of

 

Table 6: Likelihood assessment results at each of the nodes based on the biological pathways

No.	Nodes		Key Question	Answer	Likelihood Assessment Results	Uncertainty	Data Source
1	Bengkulu Province (L1)	1	Is Bengkulu Province a free area of Trichinella spp.?	Bengkulu Province is an endemic area of Trichinella spp. The test results showed high seropositive results (seroprevalence range 7.14%-68.2%).	High	Low	BBUSKP, 2020; Lestari et al., 2018; In depth interview
		2	Is there a potential transmission of Trichinella spp. in nature?	There are hunter activities that can potentially increase the prevalence of Trichinella spp. in nature, such as disposing of slaughtering waste in nature, feeding pets with hunted pork, and the presence of sensitized wild animals in nature.	High	Low	In-depth interview
		3	Has monitoring and surveillance of Trichinella spp. been conducted?	No monitoring and surveillance activities have been conducted.	High	Low	In-depth interview
Results of likelihood assessment at Bengkulu Province node (L1)					Higha	Low
2	Hunters (L2)	1	Do hunters know information about Trichinella spp. or trichinellosis?	Hunters do not know any information about Trichinella spp. or trichinellosis.	High	Low	In-depth interview
		2	Do veterinary authorities conduct antemortem and postmortem examinations on wild boars obtained by hunters?	The veterinary authorities do neither antemortem nor postmortem examinations in hunted wild boars.	High	Low	In-depth interview
Results of likelihood assessment at Hunters node (L2)					Higha	Low
3	Small collectors (L3)	1	Are owners and members of small collectors aware of information on trichinellosis?	Owners and members at small collecting nodes know nothing about Trichinella spp. or trichinellosis.	High	Low	In-depth interview
		2	Do veterinary authorities conduct inspections and supervision of wild boar meat?	The veterinary authority at small collectors does not conducts inspection and supervision	High	Low	In-depth interview
		3	How do small collectors store wild boar meat?	The meat will be cut into 3-5 kg pieces, then packed in 20 kg plastic packages with a 15-30 cm thickness. They are then stored in a freezer. The maximum shelf-life is two weeks. In high-cutting activities, the storage period is only a few hours before being sold. There is no recording and organization of the layout of wild boar meat in the freezer.	Moderate	Low	In-depth interview
Results of likelihood assessment at small collectors node (L3)					Higha	Low
4	Large collectors (L4)	1	Are owners and members at large collectors aware of information on trichinellosis?	Owners and members at small collecting do not know about Trichinella spp. or trichinellosis.	High	Low	In-depth interview
		2	Do veterinary authorities inspect wild boar meat?	Inspection and supervision of wild boar meat are carried out by the veterinary authority at the location of large collectors.	Low	Low	In-depth interview
		3	How do large collectors store wild boar meat?	The meat will be cut into 3-5 kg pieces, then packed in 20 kg plastic packages with a 15-30 cm thickness. They are then stored in a freezer. The maximum shelf life is two months. In high-cutting activities, the storage period is only a few hours before being sold. There is no recording and organization of the layout of wild boar meat in the freezer.	Moderate	Low	In-depth interview
Results of likelihood assessment at large collectors node (L4)					Higha	Low
5	District office (L5)	1	Does the district office conduct regular inspections and supervise wild boar slaughterhouses and wild boar meat?	The district office routinely inspects and supervises wild boar slaughterhouses and meat.	Low	Low	In-depth interview
		2	Is laboratory examination for Trichinella spp. conducted by the district office?	The district office does not conduct laboratory examinations for Trichinella spp. testing, but if there is a request, the district office can collect and send samples to the laboratory for testing.	Moderate	Low	In-depth interview
Results of likelihood assessment at District office node (L5)					Moderatea	Low
6	Provincial offices (L6)	1	Does the provincial office conduct regular inspections and supervision of wild boar slaughterhouses and wild boar meat?	The Provincial Office does not conduct routine inspection and supervision and laboratory testing. This is because the district office has carried out the inspection. The provincial office only issues veterinary certificates based on the examination conducted by the district offices.	High	Low	In-depth interview
Results of likelihood assessment at provincial offices node (L6)					Higha	Low
7	Bengkulu quarantine (L7)	1	Does Bengkulu Quarantine conduct routine inspection and supervision of wild boar slaughterhouses and wild boar meat?	Bengkulu Quarantine routinely monitors and inspects wild boar slaughterhouses and wild boar meat.	Low	Low	In-depth interview
		2	Does quarantine in Bengkulu conduct laboratory tests?	Bengkulu quarantine does not routinely carry out laboratory examinations. In certain activities, Bengkulu quarantine conducts sampling for Trichinella spp. testing at the animal quarantine laboratory at the Agricultural Quarantine Standard Test Center.	Moderate	Low	In-depth interview
Results of likelihood assessment at Bengkulu Quarantine node (L7)					Moderatea	Low
8	Bakauheni quarantine (L8)	1	Does the Bakauheni Quarantine conduct routine inspections and surveillance of wild boar slaughterhouses and meat?	Since 2019, the Bakauheni Quarantine has only checked the completeness of documents and the integrity of the seals of vehicles transporting wild boar meat. Physical inspection had been no longer carried out because all activities have been carried out by authorized agencies in the area of origin of the wild boar meat.	High	Low	In-depth interview
Results of likelihood assessment at Bakauheni Quarantine node (L8)					Higha	Low

Note : aThe final entry assessment is obtained using combining the likelihood of more than one partial risk (Table 5).

Trichinella spp. transmission. However, Bengkulu Province is an endemic area, thus, there is a potential hazard from the traffic of wild boar meat. If Trichinella spp. were successfully detected or inactivated at a node, then the risk of transmission would be negligible. However, if it were not successfully detected or inactivated, it would become a risk for the next node. Furthermore, if Trichinella spp. were not detected or inactivated until the final node, wild boar meat would become a hazard for transmission to the destination area.

The likelihood assessment results for each node were presented in Table 6. There were six nodes with high likelihood assessment results and two nodes with moderate likelihood assessment results. The high likelihood assessment results in multiple nodes were due to the lack of any activities implemented to prevent Trichinella spp. infection in those nodes with the risk of transmission. The veterinary authorities should conduct the preventive measures of Trichinella spp. transmission through, among others, education about Trichinella spp. to hunters and collectors so that they have knowledge and awareness in prevention of Trichinella spp. in nature, animals, and humans. Furthermore, the preventive measures also include surveillance, e.g., antemortem, postmortem and laboratory examinations, and application of specific treatments to wild boar meat due to inactivation of Trichinella spp. larvae in wild boar meat.

On the other hand, the District Office node (L5) and Bengkulu Quarantine node (L7) have a moderate likelihood assessment. This value is one level lower due to the supervision and inspections conducted by the local veterinary authorities (veterinarians at the District Office and Agricultural Quarantine) to maintain the quality of wild boar meat through monitoring the handling and storage processes. The veterinary authority’s supervision is carried out by ensuring that the wild boar meat remains frozen throughout the storage period of up to two months. This activity indirectly reduces the risk of Trichinella spp. in wild boar meat. The overall uncertainty assessment is low due to the availability of complete primary and secondary data required for the assessment.

In the biological pathway shown in Figure 1, it can be observed that wild boar meat from Bengkulu Province is obtained through hunting activities carried out by hunters,

 

Table 7: Evaluation of each risk pathway formed within biological pathways and the final results of the entry assessment.

Risk Pathways	Node	Likelihood Combining	Likelihood Value	Uncertainty
Risk Pathways 1	L1  L2  L3  L4  L5  L6  L7  L8  Infected wild boar meat was transported to Java Island through Bakauheni Port, Lampung.	H x H x H x H x M x H x M x H	Lowa	Low
Risk Pathways 2	L1  L3  L4  L5  L6  L7  L8  Infected wild boar meat was transported to Java Island through Bakauheni Port, Lampung.	H x H x H x M x H x M x H	Lowa	Low
Risk Pathways 3	L1  L4  L5  L6  L7  L8  Infected wild boar meat was transported to Java Island through Bakauheni Port, Lampung.	H x H x M x H x M x H	Lowa	Low
Final Entry Assessment			Moderateb	Low

Note : a The likelihood is obtained using a combination rule matrix combining the likelihood levels (Table 4)

b The final entry assessment is obtained using combining the likelihood of more than one partial risk (Table 5). H : High , M : Moderate.

small collectors, and large collectors. This forms three risk pathways, namely Risk Pathway 1, 2, and 3 (Table 7). The assessment of these three risk pathways indicate similar results due to the nearly identical handling processes of wild boar meat and the absence of significant treatments that can significantly reduce the risk of Trichinella spp. transmission in each pathway.

Based on the obtained likelihood assessment results for each node and the assessment of the three existing risk pathways, the risk of Trichinella spp. entry in wild boar meat transported through Bakauheni Port, Lampung can be evaluated. The final result of the entry risk assessment is moderate with low uncertainty level. A moderate risk value indicates that the likelihood of Trichinella spp. entry through wild boar meat is the event is equally likely to occur or not occur.

All wild boar meat produced in Bengkulu Province originates from hunting activities conducted in areas endemic for trichinellosis. The Agricultural Quarantine Standard Testing Center (BBUSKP) reported in 2019, using the Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) testing method, that 7.14% of the 26 samples of wild boar meat from Bengkulu were seropositive for Trichinella spp. (BBUSKP, 2020). Lestari et al. (2018) was also reported that 68.2% of the total 44 serum samples from wild boar meat obtained through hunting in Central Bengkulu District were seropositive for Trichinella spp. Specifically, 12 out of 18 serum samples from wild boars (66.7%) in Pondok Kubang Sub-district and 18 out of 26 serum samples from wild boars (69.2%) in Pondok Kelapa Sub-district were seropositive for Trichinella spp.

Wild boars obtained from hunting are often cut and handled in unsuitable locations such as forest areas, plantations, private homes, or makeshift buildings, without proper waste management. The wild boar heads and offal left from the butchering process are typically buried haphazardly using soil, wild grass, or oil palm fronds. Trichinella spp. larvae can survive in decaying animal carcasses, even when the carcasses have completely decomposed (Pozio, 2016, 2022). This condition renders the transmission of Trichinella spp., which should only occur through predation processes and risk-prone carnivores, less significant. This is because infected decomposing carcasses will contaminate plants or wild grass, which serve as food for herbivorous animals, thereby potentially infecting them with Trichinella spp. (Pozio, 2016). Additionally, these carcasses will also serve as food for wild rats in the natural environment (Foreyt, 2013). This activity represents a significant biomass of parasites re-entering the life cycle of wildlife (Pozio, 2022) and can dramatically increase the prevalence of Trichinella spp. in reservoir animals (Foreyt, 2013). Unfortunately, so far, there has been no monitoring and surveillance conducted on trichinellosis cases in Bengkulu Province by the local veterinary authorities. Based on interviews with the district and provincial offices, they have never conducted monitoring and surveillance for cases of trichinellosis in Bengkulu Province because this activity has not been a priority program. The latest decree of the minister of agriculture of the Republic of Indonesia, number 121 of 2023, concerning the determination of the type of strategic infectious animal disease, also does not include trichinellosis as a disease in this group, resulting in the required funds for such activities never being allocated.

Based on the interviews, neither hunters nor collectors have any knowledge about Trichinella spp. Lack of understanding among hunters and collectors contributes to the potential transmission of the parasite (Pozio, 2014). This information is also consistent with the interview results conducted with the District and Provincial Offices responsible for veterinary public health functions, indicating that Trichinella spp. has not yet become a priority program. Consequently, programs such as prevention, monitoring, surveillance, and education for hunters and collectors have not been implemented. Education and communication with hunters and collectors are crucial for reducing or eliminating potential sources of Trichinella spp. exposure (Borhani et al., 2023; Pozio, 2019; Vu Thi et al., 2013). Antemortem and postmortem examinations by veterinary authorities are never conducted at the hunting nodes and small collectors, but at the large collector nodes, postmortem examinations have been carried out. Antemortem and postmortem examinations should be conducted for the prevention of Trichinella spp. Infections (Noeckler et al., 2019; Pozio, 2019; WOAH, 2022a).

All individuals involved in both small and large collectors, from members to owners, do not have sufficient information about Trichinella spp. At small collectors, wild boar meat is typically cut into average sizes of 3-5 kg, then packaged in plastic packaging weighing approximately 20 kg and with a thickness of 15-30 cm. It is then stored in a freezer. The maximum storage period for wild boar meat is two weeks. The cutting locations are often private homes or makeshift buildings with inadequate waste management, and wild animals still have easy access to the meat handling area. The production sites should ideally serve as epidemiological units that enable the implementation of effective measures to prevent exposure to Trichinella spp. infections (Gamble et al., 2019).

The wild boar meat will also be packed in plastic packaging the same size as the small collector at the large collector level. The maximum storage period for meat at large collectors is two months, but on average, storage does not exceed two weeks. In high cutting activities, the storage period at both small and large collectors is only a few hours before being sold. Storing meat under frozen conditions can be used by large collectors to inactivate Trichinella spp. larvae in wild boar meat. Yera et al. (2022) stated Southeast Asia has no Trichinella spp. infections tolerant to cold temperatures, such as Trichinella britovi, Trichinella nativa, and Trichinella Genotype T-6. Therefore, freezing methods with specific combinations of temperature and duration are recommended as one of the larval inactivation methods for Trichinella spp., following International Commission on Trichinellosis (ICT) recommendations (Noeckler et al., 2019). In this study, no record is kept from the hunter nodes to the large collectors regarding the source of wild boar, date of slaughter, storage temperature records, and other relevant information. Codex Alimentarius Commission and European Commission state that recording is necessary at the cutting locations as a form of traceability (CAC, 2015; EC, 2015).

The veterinary public health department regularly conducts visits to the cutting locations to perform organoleptic inspections and assess the storage conditions of wild boar meat. In addition to inspections, the department also provides guidance on meeting the minimum requirements for proper cutting facilities. However, specific education on diseases in wild boar meat, particularly Trichinella spp., has not been provided. Routine laboratory examination for Trichinella spp. is also not conducted by the District Office.

The Provincial Office (Livestock and Animal Health Department) does not conduct physical inspections or laboratory examination for Trichinella spp. on wild boar meat. The Provincial Office only issues veterinary certificates and issuance recommendations based on the inspections conducted by the District Office. According to Gamble (2022), pigs that are not kept in controlled cage systems must undergo physical inspections and laboratory examination to ensure the absence of Trichinella spp. infection. The laboratory examination should refer to the method recommended by ICT (Bruschi et al., 2019; Gajadhar et al., 2019).

The Agriculture Quarantine Station in Bengkulu routinely conducts inspections of the meat quality and freezer conditions at large collection and cutting locations. Wild boar meat must always be in a frozen state in the freezer to ensure its quality. However, Trichinella spp. examination has not been prioritized. The Agriculture Quarantine Station in Bengkulu will issue animal product sanitation certificates and install seals and GPS (Global Positioning System) on transport vehicles once the inspections are deemed complete. Inspections carried out by the District Officer and Quarantine Officer regarding the quality of wild boar meat through proper freezing storage can reduce the risk of transmission of Trichinella spp.

The Agriculture Quarantine Station in Bakauheni, Lampung, conducts inspections to verify the completeness and authenticity of documents, as well as the integrity of seals on vehicles transporting wild boar meat. Physical inspections are no longer conducted by Bakauheni Quarantine officer since 2019. Bakauheni Quarantine officer serves as the final supervisory authority for veterinary regulations before the wild boar meat is transported. The absence of physical inspections and laboratory examination increases the risk of undetected Trichinella spp. in wild boar meat. Pozio (2015) and Rostami et al. (2017) reported that the traffic of wild boar meat had been proven to spread Trichinella spp. and cause outbreaks in several European countries.

Based on the obtained entry assessment results, several risk mitigation measures can be taken to reduce the risk of Trichinella spp. transmission through wild boar meat to meet the acceptable risk level for a region. These measures include: 1) The veterinary authorities conduct regular supervision and monitoring at slaughterhouses by systematically taking samples and testing for Trichinella spp. using recommended methods at accredited laboratories (Bruschi et al., 2019; EC, 2015; WOAH, 2022a). 2) Implement a policy of meeting technical requirements that stipulate that wild boar meat has undergone treatment to inactivate larvae in the issuance of veterinary certificates, and the wild boar meat being transported must be frozen. 3) Applying treatments to inactivate Trichinella spp. larvae. For wild boar meat, the recommended methods by ICT include heating the meat to reach an internal temperature of 62.2 °C for two seconds, or reaching an internal temperature of 54.5 °C for 30 minutes, or using other specific internal temperatures and times. Another treatment is freezing at specific temperatures and durations, such as freezing at -15 °C for 20 or 30 days depending on the thickness of the wild boar meat. Another method is the application of irradiation at a dose of 0.3 kGy to packaged wild boar meat (CAC, 2015; FSIS, 2018; Noeckler et al., 2019; WOAH, 2022a). Freezing is the most recommended method for wild boar meat originating from Bengkulu Province. 4) Provide education about Trichinella spp. to hunters, collectors, and the community.

CONCLUSION

The final result of the entry assessment for wild boar meat originating from Bengkulu Province, which is being transported to Java Island through Bakauheni Port, is moderate with low uncertainty level. This result is not sufficient to meet the acceptable risk level for a region, which is generally at a very low or extremely low level. Therefore, risk mitigation measures are needed to reduce the risk to an acceptable level.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank the authors wish grateful to the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Indonesia.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

We certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial, personal, or other relationships with other people or organization related to the material discussed in the manuscript.

NOVELTY STATEMENT

This study represents the first risk assessment conducted on the legal transportation of animal products from wild animals in Indonesia. The findings of this study can serve as a valuable reference for the government in the establishment of policies related to animal product transportation. Additionally, it can provide useful information for future risk assessment studies on different diseases and animal products.

AUTHOR’S CONTRIBUTION

Jemi Diporianto contributed to collecting data, data analysis, and preparing the original manuscript. Denny Widaya Lukman and Yusuf Ridwan contributed to the study design, revised the manuscript, and supervised. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript in the present journal.

REFERENCES

Angi HA, Satrija F, Lukman DW, Sudarwanto M, Sudarnika E (2015). Seroprevalence of trichinellosis on pig at Kupang City, Province of Nusa Tenggara Timur. J. Vet., 16(3): 320–324.

BBUSKP (Balai Besar Uji Standar Karantina Pertanian) (2020). Annual report 2019. Jakarta: Balai Besar Uji Standar Karantina Pertanian.

Benford D, Halldorsson T, Jeger MJ, Knutsen HK, More S, Naegeli H, Noteborn H, Ockleford C, Ricci A, Rychen G, Schlatter JR, Silano V, Solecki R, Turck D, Younes M, Craig P, Hart A, Von Goetz N, et al (2018). Guidance on uncertainty analysis in scientific assessments. EFSA J, 16(1): 5123. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5123.

Bezerra-Santos MA, Mendoza-Roldan JA, Thompson RCA, Dantas-Torres F, Otranto D (2021). illegal wildlife trade: a gateway to zoonotic infectious diseases. Trends Parasitol., 37(3): 181–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2020.12.005.

BKP Palembang (Balai Karantina Pertanian Kelas I Palembang) (2023). List of public information of the Agricultural Quarantine Center in Palembang: Trichinella spp. laboratory examination results data in 2020-2021. Palembang: Balai Karantina Pertanian Kelas I Palembang.

Borhani M, Fathi S, Harandi MF, Simsek S, Ahmed H, Wu X, Liu M (2023). Trichinella infections in animals and humans of Iran and Turkey. Front. Med., 10: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1088507.

Bruschi F, Gómez-Morales MA, Hill DE (2019). International commission on trichinellosis: recommendations on the use of serological tests for the detection of trichinella infection in animals and humans. Food Waterborne Parasitol., 12(2019): 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fawpar.2018.e00032.

CAC (Codex Alimentarius Commission) (2015). Guidelines for the control of Trichinella spp. in meat of suidae: Partners Available at: https://www.fao.org/input/download/standards/13896/CXG_086e_2015.pdf (accesed 22 May 2023).

CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) (2019). Trichinellosis : epidemiology & risk factors. centers for disease control and prevention: Partners Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/trichinellosis/epi.html (accesed 22 May 2023).

Cybulska A, Bień J, Moskwa B (2016). anti-trichinella antibodies in the meat juice of different species of carnivores. Ann. Parasitol., 62.

DAWR (Departement of Agriculture Water Reseources) (2016). biosecurity import risk analysis guidelines 2016 managing biosecurity risks for imports into Australia: Partners Available at: https://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity-trade/policy/risk-analysis/guidelines (accessed 03 may 2023).

DAWE (Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment) (2020). Import risk review for cooked duck meat from thailand-final report. Canberra: Departement of Agriculture, Water and the Environment.

Diaz JH, Warren RJ, Oster MJ (2020). the disease ecology, epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and management of trichinellosis linked to consumption of wild animal meat. Wilderness Environ. Med, 31(2): 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wem.2019.12.003.

EC (European Commission) (2015). laying down specific rules on official controls for trichinella in meat: Partners Available at: https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/fr/c/LEX-FAOC175939 (accessed 11 May 2023).

Foreyt WJ (2013). Trichinosis. Virginia: US Geological Survey: Partners Available at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1388/pdf/cir1388.pdf (accessed 11 May 2023).

Franssen F, Swart A, van der Giessen J, Havelaar A, Takumi K (2017). Parasite to patient: a quantitative risk model for Trichinella spp. in pork and wild boar meat. Int. J. Food Microbiol., 241(2017): 262–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2016.10.029.

FSIS (Food Safety and Inspection Service) (2018). FSIS compliance guideline for the prevention and control of trichinella and other parasitic hazards in pork products 2018. Washington DC: U.S Departement of Agriculture: Partners Available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/import/Trichinella-Compliance-Guide-03162016.pdf.

Gajadhar AA, Noeckler K, Boireau P, Rossi P, Scandrett B, Gamble HR (2019). International commission on trichinellosis: recommendations for quality assurance in digestion testing programs for Trichinella. Food Waterborne Parasitol., 16(2019): 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fawpar.2019.e00059.

Gamble HR. (2022). Trichinella spp. control in modern pork production systems. Food Waterborne Parasitol., 28(2022): 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fawpar.2022.e00172.

Gamble HR, Alban L, Hill D, Pyburn D, Scandrett B (2019). International commission on trichinellosis: recommendations on pre-harvest control of Trichinella in food animals. Food Waterborne Parasitol., 12(2019): 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fawpar.2019.e00039.

Gómez-Morales MA, Mazzarello G, Bondi E, Arenare L, Bisso MC, Ludovisi A, Amati M, Viscoli C, Castagnola E, Orefice G, Magnè F, Pezzotti P, Pozio E (2021). Second outbreak of Trichinella pseudospiralis in europe: clinical patterns, epidemiological investigation and identification of the etiological agent based on the western blot patterns of the patients’ serum. Zoonoses Public Health. 68(1): 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/zph.12761.

Lestari M, Satrija F, Tiuria R (2018). Seroprevalence of trichinellosis in wild boar in the district of Central Bengkulu, of Bengkulu Province. Jurnal Ilmu Pertanian Indonesia, 23(3): 220–226. https://doi.org/10.18343/jipi.23.3.220.

Marucci G, Romano AC, Interisano M, Toce M, Pietragalla I, Collazzo GP, Palazzo L (2021). Trichinella pseudospiralis in a red kite (Milvus milvus) from Italy. Parasitol. Res., 120(6): 2287–2290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-021-07165-0.

Noeckler K, Pozio E, van der Giessen J, Hill DE, Gamble HR (2019). International commission on trichinellosis: recommendations on post-harvest control of Trichinella in food animals. Food Waterborne Parasitol., 12(2019): 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fawpar.2019.e00041.

Pozio E (2014). Searching for Trichinella: not all pigs are created equal. Trends Parasitol., 30(1): 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2013.11.001.

Pozio E (2015). Trichinella spp. imported with live animals and meat. Vet. Parasitol., 213(1–2): 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2015.02.017.

Pozio E. (2016). Adaptation of Trichinella spp. for survival in cold climates. Food Waterborne Parasitol., 4(2016): 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fawpar.2016.07.001.

Pozio E (2019). Trichinella and trichinellosis in Europe. Vet. Glas., 73(2): 65–84. https://doi.org/10.2298/vetgl190411017p.

Pozio E (2021). Trichinellosis in animals: Partners Available at: https://www.merckvetmanual.com/generalized-conditions/trichinellosis/trichinellosis-in-animals# (accessed 22 May 2023).

Pozio E (2022). The impact of globalization and climate change on Trichinella spp. epidemiology. Food Waterborne Parasitol, 27(2022): 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fawpar.2022.e00154.

Pozio E, Ludovisi A, Pezzotti P, Bruschi F, Gómez-Morales MÁ (2019). Retrospective analysis of hospital discharge records for cases of trichinellosis does not allow evaluation of disease burden in Italy. Parasite, 26(42): 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1051/parasite/2019043.

Pozio E, Zarlenga DS. (2013). New pieces of the Trichinella puzzle. Int. J. Parasitol., 43(12–13): 983–997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2013.05.010.

Pramono S, Satrija F, Purnawarman T. (2016). Trichinellosis in pig in Manado North Sulawesi Province. Acta Vet. Indones., 4(1): 27–34. https://doi.org/10.29244/avi.4.1.27-34.

Rostami A, Gamble HR, Dupouy-Camet J, Khazan H, Bruschi F (2017). Meat sources of infection for outbreaks of human trichinellosis. Food Microbiol., 64: 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2016.12.012.

Setyani E, Satrija F, Sudarnika E (2018). Seroprevalence of trichinellosis in pigs in the Tangerang District Province of Banten. Jurnal Veteriner, 19(2): 269-275. https://doi.org/10.19087/jveteriner.2018.19.2.269

Sgroi G, D’Alessio N, Marucci G, Pacifico L, Buono F, Deak G, Anastasio A, Interisano M, Fraulo P, Pesce A, Toscano V, Romano AC, Toce M, Palazzo L, De Carlo E, Fioretti A, Veneziano V (2022). Trichinella britovi in wild boar meat from Italy, 2015-2021: a citizen science approach to surveillance. One health, 16, 100480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2022.100480

SKP Bengkulu [Stasiun Karantina Pertanian Kelas I Bengkulu]. (2023). List of public information of the Agricultural Quarantine Station in Bengkulu: Data on wild boar meat traffic in 2018-2020. Bengkulu: Stasiun Karantina Pertanian Kelas I Bengkulu.

Vu Thi N, Trung DD, Litzroth A, Praet N, Nguyen TH, Nguyen MH, Dorny P (2013). The hidden burden of trichinellosis in Vietnam: a postoutbreak epidemiological study. Biomed Res. Int., 2013: 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/149890.

WOAH (World Organisation for Animal Health). (2022a). Infection with Trichinella spp. articel 8.17: Partners Available at: https://www.woah.org/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahc/2018/en_chapitre_trichinella_spp.htm (accessed 11 May 2023).

WOAH (World Organisation for Animal Health) (2022b). Risk Analysis Chapter 2.1: Partners Available at: https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/?id=169&L=1&htmfile=chapitre_import_risk_analysis.htm (accessed 11 May 2023).

Yera H, Bory S, Khieu V, Caron Y (2022). Human trichinellosis in Southeast Asia, 2001–2021. Food Waterborne Parasitol. 28 (2022): 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fawpar.2022.e00171.

Zarlenga D, Thompson P, Pozio E (2020). Trichinella species and genotypes. Vet. Sci. Res. J., 133: 289–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2020.08.012.