Bovine herpes virus 1 (BoHV-1) is the causative agent of infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) and was first reported in dairy cattle in California 70 years ago. IBR was later diagnosed worldwide (1). In the 1950s, a new manifestation of BoHV-1 infection, infectious pustular vulvovaginitis (IPV), was described in cows and bulls. At present, IBR/IPV causes a wide range of clinical signs (including abortion, infertility, respiratory problems, encephalitis, conjunctivitis, enteritis, and dermatitis) due to inflammatory processes affecting the respiratory, genital and other organ systems (2). BoHV-1 may establish latency and virus can be shed intermittently (3). The triggering factors for shedding in latent infection, which is a potential source of BoHV-1 infection in the herd, may include cattle movement, unfavorable weather conditions, and poor husbandry or diet (3–5). Virus shedding at reactivation can be reduced but not eliminated by vaccination (6).

Big differences in seroprevalence and disease incidence were observed worldwide (5, 7). Veterinarians and farmers in Europe recognized the danger of BoHV-1 infection in cattle farms and started to implement control programs to eradicate IBR/IPV in several countries since the 1980s. All programs, voluntary or compulsory, were based on the removal of wild-type virus seropositive animals from the herds with or without the application of vaccination. Some European countries or regions are already declared as IBR-free, many others have introduced control programs¹ (5).

As for other European countries, IBR/IPV can be a significant cause of financial loss due to respiratory and reproduction problems in Slovakian cattle. Virus infection has been detected by serology in all regions of Slovakia. However, clinical cases are rarely detected, for example, 14 cases with clinical signs of IBR were observed in 2003.²

The State Veterinary and Food Administration (SVFA) of the Slovak Republic has prepared an IBR control program (IBR CP) for cattle farms for all ages of animals in 1995, which was introduced the next year and has been continuously updated.² The aim of this study is to summarize the basic principles of the IBR control program and its progress in Slovakian cattle farms. We also concentrate on specific problems of farmers in Slovakia with introduction of IBR CP on small and large farms.

Many countries in Europe have applied IBR eradication programs based on different strategies (5), such as Scandinavian countries (10, 11), Switzerland (12), Germany (13), The Netherlands (14), Estonia (15), Hungary (16), and others. All the CPs are based on the removal of seropositive cattle from the herds with or without vaccination. Although live, attenuated or inactivated vaccines have been used in eradication of IBR (17–19), at present, the live and inactivated marker vaccines with deleted gE encoding genomes of BoHV-1 are used in these programs, as the marker vaccine helps to discriminate the infected animals within vaccinated herds (20).

Based on positive experiences in other European countries, the farmers in Slovakia also decided to introduce IBR CP in their farms. The basic aim of the CP was formulated as (i) to eradicate IBR/IPV in cattle farms, (ii) to improve the health status of animals, (iii) to decrease the losses in the cattle farm industry, (iv) to prevent eventual restrictions on internal and international trade of live cattle and their food commodities. The control program started as a voluntary project but farmers joined it too slowly. To achieve better progress, SVFA supported by state authorities, decided to change the voluntary program to one that is compulsory by law. This act has drastically changed the situation in control of IBR, leading to an approximately more than 10-fold increase in the number of holdings that joined the program each year. The progress of IBR eradication programs in Europe also indicates that compulsory programs are more effective than voluntary approaches (7, 14).

However, the progress in control of IBR in Slovakia has not been as fast as expected because the initial prediction was to finish the program in 7 years. Here, as in most other Eastern European countries with re-structured economies, the main problem with running the IBR CP is insufficient financial income and support for farmers due to economic problems in the country, especially in the agricultural sector. The costs for running the control program, i.e., price for laboratory investigation, vaccination, replacement of animals are too high for farmers. Despite IBR CP being compulsory and farms receiving customized IBR CPs, the economically weaker farms have problems to follow all the rules of the program.

When analyzing the IBR CP in Slovakia we see different motivation of farmers with small and large holdings. Most farms are very small with not more than 10 animals, 90% of them house 1-2 animals only. Production of these farms is focused for individual consumption of food products by the farming family and production of cattle dung. These farmers have no strong motivation to join the CP and bear the program costs. In their experience, when cattle are negative for IBR, the animals remain healthy for a long time as new cattle that might introduce infection are rarely introduced. In infected farms, the replacement of animals is rather slow. Vaccination is not welcomed without visible additional production value. However, despite the slow recovery process, the numbers of infected animals in small farms have diminished due to gradual recovery of commercial farms which are the main source for new animals bought by small farmers.

On the other hand, farmers with larger farms are more motivated to join the CP. They expect and usually achieve better health status, higher reproduction indicators and lower numbers of abortions and mortality rate in their herds. Export of animals is an additional incentive for farmers to join the program, but avoidance of restrictions on international trade was less important for those that do not export cattle or their food commodities.

It is logical to ask why some farms have been more successful with the CP than others. A critical analysis revealed several factors. The progress with CP depends not only on financial support for the program, which is, of course, very important, but also on education of farmers about animal health, the organization of work on the farm, the coordination of the program by the regional veterinary offices and the local level of veterinary health care for cattle. These factors vary from farm to farm and significantly influence the running of the CP.

Education about the CP for small farmers is carried out by private veterinarians who provide advice on the diagnosis and control of IBR (and other diseases), make recommendations on vaccination, and provide details on customized CP options. Farmers with medium and large holdings are better informed about the national CP by the farmer union organization and through the regional veterinary offices and by education from workshops and conferences focused on virus transmission, clinical signs, reproductive problems due to virus infection etc.

The reintroduction of infection is a big danger for recovered or IBR-free herds. The main risk factors for disease reintroduction are the purchase of animals, direct contact between different herds, especially with those of unknown status, and via contaminated semen (21–24). Reintroduction of infection has been recorded by OIE Reports in several IBR-free countries, such as Austria, Denmark, and Switzerland (5). Despite strict conditions for movement of animals for herds involved in the IBR CP in Slovakia, reinfection has been observed where more than one farm is owned by the same owner, usually co-located in a common region. The recovery process in these farms was not synchronized, including vaccination and replacement of animals, providing an opportunity for direct and indirect contacts between animals of differing health status, e.g., through animal movements or uncontrolled traffic and common personnel. In some cases, despite vaccination having been completed, the reintroduction of infection was observed in herds in several months. Similar mistakes were observed in fattening herds. Again, the reinfection occurred due to uncontrolled mixing and movement of animals between vaccinated and infected cattle.

The experiences of farmers with the IBR CP in Slovakia can provide some recommendations for farmers in other countries considering similar programs. If possible, the CP should be compulsory with significant financial support from the government or other commercial partners. Special attention should be paid not only to big farms but particularly to small farms where motivation to participate in joint programs is usually low or negative. Attention should also be paid for harmonization of work on different farms and by partners involved in the CP to ensure that best practices are followed uniformly at least at regional level but better still at national level. The control of movement of animals, especially between farms under common ownership, is essential to prevent uncontrolled mixing of herds with different health status.

The successful eradication and attainment of official IBR-free status has already been achieved in Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden), Switzerland, Germany, Province Bolzano and Valle d'Aosta in Italy and on the island of Jersey in the UK.⁴ Of countries surrounding Slovakia, Austria is already an IBR-free country. The Czech Republic obtained the status of an IBR-free country in November 2020.⁴ Hungary, Ukraine, and Poland also run IBR CPs.⁵ The IBR CP is a big challenge for the Slovakian farmers and the program runs more progressively in large farms than in small herds. The farms involved in international trade are naturally forced to have an approved eradication program or to become IBR-free to benefit from additional EU guarantees for cattle trade according to articles 9 and 10 of the EU Directive 64/432/EEC, respectively.

In conclusion, the IBR CP in Slovakia is in progress with specific problems, especially in small farms, where the program runs slowly. Despite the complicated economic situation in the country, which significantly influences the running of the program, the successful recovery of most large holdings provides encouragement that the IBR CP in Slovakia can be finished in a short time.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethical review and approval was not required for the animal study because results were taken from national IBR control program approved by The State Veterinary and Food Administration of the Slovak Republic. Written informed consent for participation was not obtained from the owners because results of this study are a part of official national IBR control program.

RM and JB collected the results of IBR CP. RM and SV wrote the manuscript. JH and LO contributed to the evaluation of results and edited the text of manuscript. All authors read and approved the submitted version.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.