Abstract
The campaign for the development of virgin lands in Kazakhstan (1955–1970) was one of the most ambitious programs implemented by the Soviet government, which, arguably, resulted in both positive and negative consequences for the country. The campaign brought, at the same time, development, environmental degradation, and a dramatic cultural change to Kazakhstan. A barely explored aspect of the virgin lands campaign is related to its impact on the epidemiology of animal diseases. This paper describes, for the first time, the changes experienced by Kazakhstan during the implementation of the virgin lands campaign, offering a perspective on how those changes may have affected the occurrence of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) and anthrax. Newly organized livestock premises and processing plants were created, which increased the concentration and intensification of animal production, in the absence of effective disease control plans. The initial increase in FMD prevalence may have been explained by the concentration of susceptible animals in the absence of appropriate control measures, followed by a decrease in disease incidence, probably explained by the enhancement of control measures associated with the formalization of livestock production, including improvements in vaccine quality. In contrast, soil degradation and the increase in the number of livestock, which resulted in a large number of animals buried in inappropriate conditions, may explain the sustained increase in the incidence of anthrax. The results presented here help to document the history of animal diseases in the country and ultimately contribute to the design of holistic strategies to support Kazakhstan’s development.
1 Introduction
The virgin lands campaign marked a significant turning point in the agricultural landscape of the Soviet Union. Launched in 1954 under the leadership of Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, this ambitious program aimed to boost grain production and address food shortages by cultivating unproductive lands, predominantly in the vast steppes of Kazakhstan and parts of Siberia. The campaign was characterized by the mobilization of a massive workforce with the objective of converting the virgin soil into productive agricultural land (1, 2).
The motivation behind the virgin lands campaign was twofold, namely, to enhance national food security, and to assert Soviet dominance in agricultural production during the Cold War. By transforming the untouched steppe into cropland, the Soviet government sought not only to increase wheat yields but also to promote the ideological tenets of communism through the collectivization of agriculture (3, 4). For this purpose, approximately 25 million hectares of Kazakh steppe lands in Kokchetau (5 million hectares), Akmola (>4 million hectares), Kostanay (6 million hectares), Pavlodar (>2 million hectares), North Kazakhstan (~3 million hectares), and Turgay (>2 million hectares) were plowed up to turn them into fertile agricultural land (5) (Figure 1). This undertaking came with significant investments in infrastructure and technology, aiming to integrate Kazakhstan into the broader economic framework of the Soviet Union (6, 7).
Figure 1
Geographical extension of the virgin lands campaign and distribution of foot-and-mouth disease and anthrax cases reported in the Republic of Kazakhstan during that period (1955–1970).
Despite initial successes in terms of production output, the long-term impact of the virgin lands campaign on Kazakhstan’s agricultural sector was complex and often contradictory. Evaluation of the impact (positive or negative) was certainly influenced by political views (pro- or anti-communism) and such evaluation is out of the scope of this manuscript (1, 6, 8). It is generally accepted, however, that early reports heralded an increase in grain production, leading to improvements in food availability and development (1, 4, 8). However, these gains were often overshadowed by ecological, economic, and sociopolitical changes and challenges. The extensive land cultivation resulted in soil degradation, loss of biodiversity, and challenges related to water management and climate variability (3, 5, 9, 10).
One aspect relatively underexplored of this significant change is the impact of the virgin lands campaign on the occurrence of two diseases relevant to food animal production in Kazakhstan, namely, foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) and anthrax. This study, based on the analysis of archival records, seeks to provide insights into the long-lasting legacy of the virgin lands campaign on animal health and its relevance to current agricultural strategies in Kazakhstan. Understanding these dynamics is crucial not only for re-assessing the historical narrative of Soviet agricultural policies, but also for informing present-day approaches to sustainable land management and food security in the region.
2 Collectivization of food animal production in the Soviet Union
Collectivization of food animal production was implemented in the Soviet Union through the creation of two main types of farms, referred to as kolkhozes (or collective farms) and sovkhozes (or State farms), which operated under distinct organizational models, reflecting different approaches to organizing agriculture (11).
Sovkhozes were enterprises wholly owned and operated by the State and managed by appointed government agencies, which ensured centralized planning and control. State farm workers were government employees, which received a regular salary and with no sharing in production profits. State farms focused on the mass production of grain, meat, milk, and other agricultural products, which the state purchased at set prices. Sovkhozes were provided with machinery, fertilizers, and seeds from the state budget, which allowed them to operate at a higher level compared to small farms. In turn, they were expected to meet certain production volumes to supply the society (12, 13).
Conversely, Kolkhozes were associations of peasants who worked together on common land and shared the results of their labor. Managers were elected by the community, which implied a high degree of self-government, although they were still under government supervision. Kolkhoz members worked on their plots and in communal fields, and the results of their labor were distributed among the members of the collective farm depending on their contribution. Kolkhozes often grew a variety of crops and raised animals and, although production plans were still set up by the central government, their main objective was to ensure food security for their members and local markets (13, 14).
Although collectivization practices were launched in the late 1920s in the Soviet Union, policy was not intensively implemented in Central Asia until the virgin lands campaign incepted in 1955 (10, 15).
3 The virgin lands campaign
Before the virgin lands campaign, Kazakh steppes were a relatively untouched ecosystem. These vast areas were covered by natural vegetation such as feather grass and wormwood. Numerous species of wild animals and birds lived here, including saigas, bustards, marmots, and other species adapted to life in the open steppes. Soil erosion and depletion of water resources were minimal, because vegetation cover was sufficient (7, 11). Kazakhs were traditionally pastoral nomads that followed annual migration routes in search of pastures and lived in yurts. Sedentary food animal production at the beginning of the 20th century was dominated by traditional households and small farms focused on livestock raising and small-scale agriculture. Before 1954, the region contained ~1.1 million head of cattle, ~800 thousand sheep and goats, and ~80 thousand horses (5).
During the virgin lands campaign, 337 sovkhozes were created in the Kazakh regions of Kokchetau (n ~ 90), Akmola (n ~ 80), Kostanay (n ~ 90), Pavlodar (n ~ 40), North Kazakhstan (n ~ 30), and Turgay (n ~ 10). Because of the incorporation of intensive management practices and financing, the number and density of farm animals increased substantially. By the beginning of the 1960s, Kazakhstani sovkhozes engaged in virgin lands contained ~1.8 million head of cattle, ~1.5 million sheep and goats, and ~100 thousand horses. Perhaps more important than the increase in the number of food animals in the region was the changes in their density and housing practices (1, 8).
On the sovkhozes, farm animals were kept in conditions designed for mass production of by-products such as meat, milk, and wool. Conditions varied depending on the type of state farm and its specialization, but in general terms, production became much more intensive than in the past. New practices included stall housing (with animals kept indoors in winter), access to artificial pastures in summer, use of concentrated/balanced feed (including feed mills in certain farms), and veterinary care provided by the government. Genetically improved breeds were used and farm records (including production and health records, production plans, and record of management practices) were maintained (7, 13).
Intensification of food animal practices required of massive plowing of the steppes, which resulted in substantial environmental changes. On plowed lands deprived of natural vegetation, wind and water erosion increased (2, 3). The topsoil was destroyed, which led to a decrease in its fertility. As the soil degraded, crop yields decreased, which required increased costs for fertilizers and irrigation. The virgin lands campaign also led to a decrease in the populations of many species, as their natural habitat was destroyed (1, 9). For example, saigas, which migrated across the steppes, were forced out of these areas and their numbers significantly decreased. Some species of birds and small animals also disappeared. Intensive farming without proper irrigation and water management led to a decrease in groundwater levels. The aridity of the territories increased, especially in those areas where water was required for growing grain crops. After repeated use of land for grain crops without the introduction of crop rotation practices and measures to preserve soil fertility, productivity gradually decreased. In some regions, additional measures were required to restore the soil. Finally, mass plowing of the steppes led to a change in the landscape structure, which affected local climatic conditions such as wind speed and temperature (5, 10).
4 Impact on occurrence of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) and anthrax
Between 1955 and 1991, FMD was reportable in the Soviet Union, and laboratory confirmation and serotype characterization were regularly conducted (16). Three main periods may be distinguished in the evolution of the disease in the country, of which the first period roughly matches the implementation of the virgin land campaign descried in this study (1955–1968). The period was characterized by an increase in the number of FMD-affected areas in the country. The virgin lands campaign was sustained by a massive migration (>2 million) of people from other regions of the Soviet Union, as well as a concomitant increase in the number of farm animals. The migration of the population was accompanied by migration of livestock, including virus carriers, which resulted in the increased probability of contact of susceptible animals with carriers of the virus. Also, an increase in the number of farm animals contributed to the expansion of pasture lands by covering the habitat of wild ruminants (potential carriers of the foot-and-mouth disease virus) (5). This contributed to direct and indirect contacts between domestic and wild ruminants, which consequently led to new outbreaks of infection. In addition, with the intensive development of the agro-industrial complex at that time, the transport infrastructure was actively developing. Therefore, the close economic and economic relations between farms provided by transport links also contributed to the manifestation of new outbreaks and the spread of infection to other territories. Another possible reason of the FMD incidence rise in this period was the epidemic caused by the introduction of the A22 virus from Iran. This new strain found a fertile landscape for spread through the newly created settlements, influenced in part by the high density and confinement of susceptible livestock, which favored disease spread (17). This 13-year period accounted for 80.5% of the outbreaks officially registered over 30 years in the country. Most (64%, n = 3,097) of the 4,835 FMD outbreaks reported in Kazakhstan occurred in areas of implementation of the virgin lands campaign (Figure 1). In the early 1960s, however, improvements in the development of FMD vaccines resulted in a sustained decline of disease incidence (18, 19). Overall, the initial increase in the number of outbreaks was followed by a significant (p < 0.01) linear decreasing trend in FMD incidence (Figure 2).
Figure 2
Annual number of cases (solid line) and linear trend (dashed line) of foot-and-mouth disease (orange lines) and anthrax (blue lines).
In turn, since 1955, a significant (p < 0.01) increase in the trend of annual incidence of anthrax was reported (Figure 2). In general, the period from 1954 to 1968 saw the highest rate of anthrax outbreaks registered in Kazakhstan. During this period, a total of 1,850 outbreaks of the disease were recorded, with an average of 123 outbreaks per year and a maximum peak of 221 outbreaks reported in 1967 (20, 21). One of the most likely reasons for this increase in the number of anthrax outbreaks was the extensive campaign for the development of virgin lands that began in 1954. Given the biology of the anthrax pathogen and its ability to persist for a long time in the soil at sites of unaccounted-for anthrax burials or animal deaths, especially in fertile soils rich in humus, large-scale arable work on virgin lands, large-scale construction, hydraulic engineering work undoubtedly influenced the dynamics of the epizootic process of the disease. The removal of the pathogen to the soil surface, contamination of environmental objects (soil, feed, water, machinery, etc.) by the pathogen, and wind dispersal of anthrax spores along with the soil over considerable distances undoubtedly increased the risk of infection of susceptible animals with anthrax spores. Along with the increase in population in virgin regions, new settlements (state farms and collective farms) were organized, where the number and density of susceptible animals increased accordingly. This situation led to an increase in the possibility of contact of susceptible animals with the source of infection, which consequently contributed to the emergence of new outbreaks of infection (22, 23). At the same time, although farm animals were vaccinated against anthrax since the early 1950s, vaccine coverage was insufficient. Reasons for the insufficient coverage of the vaccine included the intensive growth in the number of animals, insufficient provision of vaccines in the field, lack of personnel, and poor accounting and planning of veterinary measures (24). For those reasons, mass vaccination of all susceptible livestock against anthrax did not start until the 1960s. Consequently, most (52%, n = 1,061) of the 2,052 anthrax outbreaks reported during this period occurred in the areas of implementation of the virgin lands campaign.
5 Discussion
The virgin lands campaign was a major breakthrough in the history of the Soviet Union that changed the landscape of agricultural production in Kazakhstan. The intensification of food animal production resulted in an increase in the number and densities of livestock in vast areas of the country (1, 3). While increase of agricultural productivity is still nowadays an objective of many Central Asian countries, including Kazakhstan, the impact on animal diseases observed during the implementation of the virgin lands campaign demonstrate the need for considering ecological and environmental impacts when planning for such changes.
At the initial phase of the virgin land campaigns, FMD incidence was relatively high, whereas anthrax was relatively infrequent (Figure 1). Those figures may be explained by the increase in animal densities with no control on the status of animals at movement, which resulted in conditions that were favorable for the spread of airborne diseases, such as FMD (22, 25, 26). The gradual increase in intensification of the industry and increase of veterinary support, resulted in an enhancement of control and prevention practices, including the development of effective vaccines and improvement on biosecurity practices (27, 28). As a result of those improvements, FMD gradually decreased in the region. FMD control activities in Kazakhstan continued to be increasingly implemented in Kazakhstan and, 50 years after the end of the virgin lands campaign, the country is the only one in Central Asia that has reached FMD-free status (29, 30).
While much effort was put at the time on improving the intensification of livestock production, little attention was paid to the potential environmental impact of those changes. Animals were buried without sufficient planning, which resulted in the contamination of soil, favoring the survival and spread of diseases like anthrax (31–33).
In addition to the development of the virgin lands campaign, there were other factors impacting on the ecology and the environment during this period, which may have indirectly impact on the status of the diseases assessed here. In total, there were 8 large military test sites on the Kazakh territory, occupying more than 7 percent of its territory (34). The Semipalatinsk nuclear test site alone, located in the northeastern part of Kazakhstan, in a steppe and semi-desert zone, with a total area of 18,500 km2, caused an irreparable damage to environmental, public, and animal health. Over 40 years of nuclear testing (1949–1989), the Soviet military and scientists on the territory of the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site produced over 460 explosions of nuclear, thermonuclear and hydrogen weapons and thus, 2 million hectares of agricultural land were exposed to radioactive contamination (35, 36).
Also, the development of the mining and metallurgical industry in the Soviet period, together with the growth of economic indicators, led to environmental degradation and major environmental problems. Thus, a number of deposits of polymetals, rare earths and phosphorites in Kazakhstan contain uranium mineralization, which is extracted together with the main ore during mining. Some of the radioactive mineralization goes into dumps and tailings, some remains in the main products (especially in phosphorus fertilizers). In some coal deposits, the upper oxidized parts of coal seams are also accompanied by uranium mineralization. This coal is to be stored as radioactive waste. Today, as a result of the activities of enterprises of the mining and metallurgical complex, more than 20 billion tons of industrial waste have accumulated on the territory of Kazakhstan (36).
The development of agriculture is one of the important factors of economic growth in rural areas and has auxiliary and concomitant effects in the country. Kazakhstan has an important potential for the development of agriculture: the country ranks fifth in the world in terms of agricultural land area - almost 25 million hectares of arable land and more than 70 million hectares of pasture land (of which only 30% is currently used). The country has sufficient water resources, a relatively clean natural production base, opening up the opportunity for the production of high-quality products, proximity to large markets and significant growing investments in transport and trade corridors. The Government intends to use the significant untapped potential of agriculture (including animal husbandry) to create added value, develop exports, create jobs, and achieve inclusive and sustainable growth (37). The State actively supports this sector by providing concessional financing, subsidies and other measures to increase the competitiveness of agro-industrial products in domestic and foreign markets. The gross agricultural output of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the first half of 2024 reached 1.6 trillion tenge (approx. $3 billion). This growth is due to an increase in livestock production by 3.5% and in crop production by 3% (38).
At the same time, for the development of competitive, sustainable livestock export, the country needs important investments and reforms, both in the public and private sectors. A considerable growth of the number of publications devoted to the development of both large-scale and smallholder livestock breeding can be observed in the recent years (39–41).
Kazakhstan and other Central Asian countries is making very active efforts within the framework of the One Health concept aimed at improving the health of people, the environment, and animals. In 2022, Kazakhstan, together with the Kyrgyz Republic, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, signed a joint protocol for the “Protection of food systems and prevention of pandemics in Central Asia,” giving an official start to the development of the One Health Action Framework in Central Asia. This program involves the development of investment principles aimed at achieving three priorities for Central Asian countries: preventing pandemics, strengthening the sustainability of food systems and agriculture, as well as developing regional trade and increasing competitiveness (42). Kazakhstan, like other Central Asian countries, faces significant regional challenges such as preventing and preparing for future pandemics, increasing the sustainability of food systems and preparing to take advantage of new opportunities, as well as addressing threats associated with the expansion of livestock production and the intensification of cross-border movement of animals and animal products. These common challenges are high on the agenda of Governments and require regional cooperation to develop prevention and control systems on a scale that cannot be implemented within a single country strategy. Toward that goal, it is essential to consider the lessons learned during the implementation of the virgin land campaign and implement an holistic approach that protects environmental, animal, and public health while promoting development.
Statements
Data availability statement
The datasets used in the study may be obtained from the corresponding author upon a reasonable request. Requests to access these datasets should be directed to Sarsenbay K. Abdrakhmanov, s_abdrakhmanov@mail.ru.
Author contributions
YM: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Methodology. AbK: Data curation, Software, Writing – review & editing. MB: Investigation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. AM: Data curation, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. AlK: Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing. AZ: Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing. FK: Visualization, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. AP: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – original draft. SA: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Writing – original draft.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This research was funded by the Science Committee of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Grant No. AP19678128). “Development of measures to reduce the epidemiological risks of the spread of zooanthroponoses in Kazakhstan”.
Conflict of interest
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.
Generative AI statement
The authors declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1.
Akhat K . (2019). The virgin lands campaign. Success and failure. Available online at: https://world-nan.kz/en/blogs/osvoenie-tseliny-uspekhi-i-provaly. [Accessed December 03, 2024].
2.
World of NAN . (2021). Pros and cons of developing virgin lands. Available online at: https://world-nan.kz/en/blogs/plyusy-i-minusy-osvoeniya-tseliny. [Accessed December 03, 2024].
3.
Rowe WC . Turning the Soviet Union into Iowa: the virgin lands program in the Soviet Union In: BrunnS, editor. Engineering earth. Dordrecht: Springer (2011). 237–56.
4.
Soshneva YB . Economics as an instrument of the policy of the soviet state (the "virgin land" project). Bull Novgorod State Univ Yaroslav Wise. (2014) 83:53–7.
5.
Abdirayimova AS . Economic, demographic, and ecological consequences of the development of rural and rural lands in Kazakhstan (1950-1990-yegg XX century) [abstract of the dissertation of the candidate of historical sciences: 07.00.02]. Almaty: Republic of Kazakhstan. (2007). 24 p.
6.
McCauley M . Khrushchev and the development of soviet agriculture. The virgin land Programme 1953–1964. New York: Holmes and Meier (1976). 232 p.
7.
Alpyspaeva GA Sayakhimova SN . The concept of "virgin land – a political project of the soviet state". Bull Sci Kazakh Agrotechn Univ S Seifullin. (2018) 1:128–41.
8.
McCauley M . The virgin lands: promise and performance In: MeehlGACoveyC, editors. Khrushchev and the development of Soviet Agriculture Studies in Russian and East European history. London: Palgrave Macmillan (1976)
9.
World of NAN (2021). Environmental consequences of the development of virgin lands. Available online at: https://world-nan.kz/en/blogs/ekologicheskie-posledstviya-osvoeniya-tseliny (Accessed November 29, 2024).
10.
Mazhitova ZS Isakhan GT Bektursyn AS . Environmental consequences of virgin land development in Kazakhstan (based on Nur-Sultan City archive). Bull Karaganda Univ: Hist Philos Ser. (2021) 3:55–64. doi: 10.31489/2021hph3/55-64
11.
World of NAN . (2019). The consequences of collectivization in Kazakh land. Available online at: https://world-nan.kz/en/blogs/qazaqstan-zherindegi-uzhymdastyrudyn-saldary (Accessed November 29, 2024).
12.
Soviet Agriculture . (2022). Sovkhoz. Available online at: https://znanierussia.ru/articles/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B7#:~:text (Accessed December 03, 2024).
13.
Qazaqstan Tarihy . (2023). Sovkhozes and kolkhozes of Kazakhstan in the 1970s. Available online at: https://e-history.kz/ru/news/show/339627 (Accessed December 03, 2024).
14.
Great Russian Encyclopedia . (2022). Kolkhozes. Available online at: https://bigenc.ru/c/kolkhozy-a6edd9 (Accessed December 03, 2024).
15.
Akhat K . (2019). Attraction of labor resources during the virgin land campaign. Available online at: https://world-nan.kz/en/blogs/privlechenie-trudovykh-resursov-vo-vremya-tseliny (Accessed December 03, 2024).
16.
Zakharov VM . The formation of a system of measures to combat and prevent foot-and-mouth disease in the country. Modern aspects of vet. Pathology of animals: Materials of the conference dedicated to the 40th VNIIZH; Vladimir, Russia. (1998). p. 3–6.
17.
Boyko AA Boyko FS . Shulyak Foot-and-mouth disease: the biological and ecological aspect of the problem. Wilmington, DE: Generis Publishing (1971). 352 p.
18.
Onufriyev VP Rakhmanin PP . The system of preventive measures to ensure the well-being of the USSR on foot-and-mouth disease. XXI World Vet Congr. (1979) 3:48.
19.
Gusev AA Zakharov VM Rakhmanov AM Yaremenko NA . Prevention of foot-and-mouth disease in the Russian Federation. Veterinary. (2001) 6:3–6.
20.
Abdrakhmanov SK Mukhanbetkaliyev YY Korennoy FI Sultanov AA Kadyrov AS Kushubaev DB et al . Maximum entropy modeling risk of anthrax in the Republic of Kazakhstan. Prev Vet Med. (2017) 144:149–57. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2017.06.003
21.
Aikembayev AM Lukhnova L Temiraliyeva G Meka-Mechenko T Pazylov Y Zakaryan S et al . Historical distribution and molecular diversity of Bacillus anthracis Kazakhstan. Emerg Infect Dis. (2010) 16:789–96. doi: 10.3201/eid1605.091427
22.
Abdrakhmanov SK Mukhanbetkaliyev YY Korennoy FI Karatayev BS Mukhanbetkaliyeva AA Abdrakhmanova AS . Spatio-temporal analysis and visualisation of the anthrax epidemic situation in livestock in Kazakhstan over the period 1933-2016. Geospat Health. (2017) 12:2. doi: 10.4081/gh.2017.589
23.
Adamovich VL Nikonov NN . The importance of landscape ecological factors in the epizootology of anthrax. Message 2: comparative method of assessment of epizootic tension of a territory. J Microbiol. (1970) 8:113–7.
24.
Cherkassky BL . Epidemiology and prevention of Anthrax. Moscow: INTERSEN (2002). 384 p.
25.
Khukhorov VM . Epizootology and prevention of foot-and-mouth disease. Actual Prob Vet Virol. (1977) 3:171–3.
26.
Abdrakhmanov SK Tyulegenov SB Korennoy FI Sultanov AA Sytnik II Beisembaev KK et al . Spatiotemporal analysis of foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks in the Republic of Kazakhstan, 1955–2013. Transbound Emerg Dis. (2018) 65:1235–45. doi: 10.1111/tbed.12864
27.
Rachmanin PP . Specific prevention of foot-and-mouth disease. Veterinary. (1976) 5:59–61.
28.
Tyulegenov SB Zhakupbayev A Berdikulov M Karibayev T Yessembekova GN Sultanov AA et al . Foot-and-mouth disease in Kazakhstan. Transbound Emerg Dis. (2022) 69:1712–4. doi: 10.1111/tbed.14607
29.
FAO . (2018). The progressive control pathway for foot and mouth disease control (PCP-FMD): principles, stage descriptions and standards. Available online at: https://www.fao.org/3/CA1331EN/ca1331en.pdf (Accessed March 13, 2023).
30.
Sultanov AA Tyulegenov S Yessembekova GN Berdikulov MA Mukhanbetkaliyev Y Akhmetzhanova A et al . The progressive control of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in the Republic of Kazakhstan: successes and challenges. Front Vet Sci. (2023) 10:1036121. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1036121
31.
Lukhnova LY Ajkimbaev AM Pazylov EK . Epidemic process of Anthrax in Kazakhstan. Bull Agric Sci Kazakhstan Bastau. (2004) 7:44.
32.
Antyuganov SN Ryazanova AG Eremenko EI . Anthrax in the Russian Federation and abroad. Epidemiol Infect Dis. (2012) 5:4–8.
33.
Kanankege KST Abdrakhmanov SK Alvarez J Glaser L Bender JB Mukhanbetkaliyev YY et al . Comparison of spatiotemporal patterns of historic natural Anthrax outbreaks in Minnesota and Kazakhstan. PLoS One. (2019) 17, 14:e0217144. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217144
34.
Kazakhstan Military Site (2015). The history of the military-industrial complex of Kazakhstan: Kazakh military website. Available online at: https://military-kz.ucoz.org/index/istorija_vpk_kazakhstana/0-44 (Accessed December 02, 2024).
35.
Ismailova AE . Environmental problems of Kazakhstan. Semipalatinsk nuclear test site. Technosph Manag Electron J. (2020) 3:437–46. doi: 10.34828/UdSU.2020.79.60.010
36.
United Nations Digital Library System . (2016). Information on risk management of natural and man-made/anthropogenic hazards in the Republic of Kazakhstan. Review of the environmental performance of Kazakhstan. Almaty: Republic of Kazakhstan. Available online at: https://cesdrr.org/uploads/projects/2.42.%20%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%85%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%20-%20%D0%A3%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%20%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8%20%20%D0%B8%20%D0%9E%D0%B1%D0%B7%D0%BE%D1%80.pdf (Accessed December 03, 2024).
37.
World Bank Group . (2021). Kazakhstan sustainable livestock development program for results: frequently asked questions. Available online at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/factsheet/2021/05/14/faqs-kazakhstan-sustainable-livestock-development-program (Accessed November 30, 2024).
38.
UKIMET . (2024). Half-year results: key indicators in agriculture and measures of state support for farmers. Available online at: https://www.gov.kz/memleket/entities/moa/press/news/details/819628?lang=ru (Accessed November 30, 2024).
39.
Bayantassova S Kushaliyev K Zhubantayev I Zhanabayev A Kenzhegaliyev Z Ussenbayev A et al . Knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) of smallholder farmers on foot-and-mouth disease in cattle in West Kazakhstan. Vet Med Sci. (2023) 9:1417–25. doi: 10.1002/vms3.1097
40.
Kulpiisova A Aitpayeva Z Maimatayeva A Ussenova L Paritova A Zhanabayev A et al . Knowledge, attitude and practice related to anthrax among livestock farmers in West Kazakhstan. Vet Med Sci. (2024) 10:e1553. doi: 10.1002/vms3.1553
41.
Kenzheali Y Makhmetova A . Analysis of sustainable agricultural development in Kazakhstan: key economic and climatic indicators. Eurasian J Econ Bus Stud. (2024) 68:47–60. doi: 10.47703/ejebs.v68i4.440
42.
World Bank Group . (2023). Protecting food systems, preventing future pandemics. Analytical note on the "one health" program in Central Asia. Available online at: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099752009202324268/pdf/IDU0680d37eb0dbe304be1083d101f9b4d91f05b.pdf (Accessed December 02, 2024).
Summary
Keywords
foot-and-mouth disease, anthrax, epidemiology, virgin lands campaign, Kazakhstan
Citation
Mukhanbetkaliyev YY, Kadyrov AS, Berdikulov MA, Mukhanbetkaliyeva AA, Kadyrov AS, Zhanabayev AA, Korennoy FI, Perez AM and Abdrakhmanov SK (2025) The virgin lands campaign and the occurrence of foot-and-mouth disease and anthrax in the Republic of Kazakhstan (1955–1970). Front. Vet. Sci. 12:1549307. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1549307
Received
20 December 2024
Accepted
16 May 2025
Published
02 June 2025
Volume
12 - 2025
Edited by
Maurice Pitesky, University of California, Davis, United States
Reviewed by
Arman Issimov, Aktobe Regional State University named after K. Zhubanov, Kazakhstan
Updates
Copyright
© 2025 Mukhanbetkaliyev, Kadyrov, Berdikulov, Mukhanbetkaliyeva, Kadyrov, Zhanabayev, Korennoy, Perez and Abdrakhmanov.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Sarsenbay K. Abdrakhmanov, s_abdrakhmanov@mail.ru
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.