H5N1 Hits Dairy Cow Population in Europe: Understanding the Friesland (Netherlands) Farm Case

Abstract

In January 2026, the European veterinary community confronted a pivotal shift in the epidemiological landscape of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI). The Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA) reported the detection of antibodies against the H5N1 virus in a dairy cow in the province of Friesland. This event, confirmed through rigorous serological testing by Wageningen Bioveterinary Research (WBVR), represents the first documented evidence of H5N1 infection in a dairy cow on the European continent. Unlike the explosive bovine outbreaks observed in the United States beginning in 2024, the Dutch case presented as a retrospective finding—a serological footprint of a past infection in a single animal, devoid of active viral shedding at the time of detection. This report provides an exhaustive examination of the Friesland event, situating it within the broader context of the global clade 2.3.4.4b panzootic. We analyze the clinical timeline, the sentinel role of farm cats, the comparative virology between the B3.13 genotype circulating in American herds and the wild bird lineages of Europe, and the profound implications for biosecurity, public health, and international trade policy. The analysis suggests that while the Dutch case likely constitutes a "dead-end" spillover event driven by high environmental viral loads rather than sustained cattle-to-cattle transmission, it necessitates a fundamental recalibration of surveillance strategies across the European dairy sector.

1. Introduction: The Shattering of a Paradigm

For decades, the biological dogma surrounding Influenza A viruses (IAV) maintained a relatively rigid demarcation of host ranges. Avian influenza viruses were the scourge of poultry and wild waterfowl; swine influenza viruses affected pigs; and human influenza viruses circulated in the general population. Cattle, distinct in their physiology and receptor distribution, were historically considered largely refractory to significant natural infection with avian influenza subtypes. This biological assumption provided a sense of security to the dairy industries of Europe and the Americas, suggesting that the "bird flu" sweeping across the globe was a problem for poultry farmers, not dairy producers.

That paradigm began to fracture in March 2024, when the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) confirmed that HPAI H5N1 was the causative agent behind a mysterious syndrome affecting dairy herds in Texas and Kansas. The emergence of the B3.13 genotype—a reassortant virus that adapted to replicate efficiently in the bovine mammary gland—demonstrated that the species barrier protecting cattle was far more porous than previously believed.¹

For nearly two years following the US emergence, Europe remained in a state of watchful apprehension. The Atlantic Ocean served as a geographical buffer, and European surveillance systems were tuned to detect any ingress of the cattle-adapted virus. However, the detection on January 23, 2026, in Noardeast-Fryslân, Netherlands, confirmed that European cattle are not impermeable to the virus.³ While distinct in scale and virology from the American crisis, the Dutch case serves as a critical proof of concept: under specific environmental conditions, the H5N1 virus circulating in European wild birds can breach the bovine defenses.

1.1 The Significance of the Friesland Detection

The province of Friesland, characterized by its extensive waterways, high density of dairy operations, and position along the East Atlantic Flyway, creates a potent interface for interspecies transmission. The detection of H5N1 antibodies in a single cow, following the death of farm cats, highlights the "One Health" reality of modern agriculture, where wildlife health, domestic animal health, and environmental contamination are inextricably linked.³

Crucially, this detection was serological. Authorities did not find the virus itself; they found the immune system's memory of it. This distinction is paramount for risk assessment. It implies that the animal was infected, mounted an immune response, and successfully cleared the pathogen.³ It suggests that for every case detected by the presence of active virus (PCR positive), there may be other "silent" cases detectable only through the retrospective lens of serology. This report aims to dissect this single data point to understand the broader vulnerability of the European dairy herd.

2. Anatomy of the Spillover: The Friesland Case Study

To understand the implications of the January 2026 announcement, we must reconstruct the chronological and biological narrative of the event. The detection was not the result of random screening but the culmination of a targeted investigation triggered by sentinel events on the farm.

2.1 The Timeline of Discovery

The sequence of events in Noardeast-Fryslân follows a classic epidemiological pattern of zoonotic spillover, where highly susceptible indicator species serve as the initial alarm.

Phase 1: The Sentinel Event (Late December 2025) The first indicators of trouble were not observed in the cattle but in the farm's feline population. In late December, the dairy farmer noticed severe illness in two farm cats. Cats are known to be highly susceptible to HPAI H5N1, often contracting the virus through predation on infected wild birds or the consumption of contaminated raw milk.³ One of the cats deteriorated rapidly and died. On December 24, 2025, post-mortem analysis confirmed that the cat was positive for HPAI H5N1.⁴ This finding activated the NVWA's protocols, as feline infections on farms are frequently linked to high environmental viral loads or infected livestock.

Phase 2: The Investigation (January 2026) Following the confirmation in the cat, the NVWA initiated a "source and contact" investigation to determine the origin of the infection. The primary hypothesis was twofold: either the cat contracted the virus directly from wild birds (common in outdoor farm cats), or it contracted it from the dairy cattle via raw milk consumption, as seen in the US outbreaks.⁴

• January 15, 2026: Veterinary officials collected samples from the dairy herd. At this time, the herd appeared clinically healthy, with no signs of the acute respiratory distress or drastic milk drop characteristic of the active phase of the disease.⁴

• Initial Results: PCR tests on milk and nasal swabs returned negative results. This indicated that there was no active viral shedding occurring at the time of sampling. The virus was not present in the milk or the respiratory tracts of the animals.³

Phase 3: The Serological Breakthrough (January 23, 2026) While the PCR results were negative, the serological analysis provided a different story. Blood samples were screened for antibodies against Influenza A. One cow—a single animal in the herd—tested positive for antibodies specific to the H5N1 subtype.³ This result was validated by Wageningen Bioveterinary Research (WBVR), confirming that the cow had, at some point in the recent past, been infected with the virus.⁴

2.2 Retrospective Clinical Analysis

Upon identifying the seropositive cow, veterinarians and the farmer reviewed the animal's health history. It was noted that during the period when the cats were ill (late December), this specific cow had also exhibited clinical signs.

• Mastitis: The cow had suffered from udder inflammation. In the context of standard dairy management, this would likely have been treated as a routine bacterial infection. However, in hindsight, it aligns with the pathology observed in H5N1 infections in the US, where the mammary gland is a primary site of viral replication.⁴

• Respiratory and Systemic Signs: The cow also reportedly showed signs of respiratory distress and general malaise, symptoms consistent with influenza infection.⁴

The animal recovered from these symptoms, and by the time of sampling in mid-January, the clinical picture had resolved. This recovery trajectory—illness followed by viral clearance and seroconversion—is a crucial data point, suggesting that European cattle can survive infection with the local wild bird strains without the high mortality seen in poultry.⁴

2.3 The "Dead-End" Hypothesis

The fact that only one cow in the herd tested positive for antibodies is significant. In the US outbreaks involving the B3.13 genotype, the virus is highly transmissible between cows via milking equipment, often leading to herd attack rates of 10-20% or higher.⁹ The isolation of a single seropositive animal in Friesland supports the hypothesis of a "dead-end" spillover. In this scenario, the cow was likely infected via a point source of environmental contamination—such as drinking water soiled by wild bird feces or consuming feed contaminated by a bird carcass. The virus infected the cow and elicited an immune response, but it lacked the specific adaptations necessary to spread efficiently to other cows in the herd. This contrasts sharply with the US scenario, where the virus adapted to become a cattle-to-cattle pathogen.

3. The US Precedent: A Comparative Epidemiological Baseline

To fully appreciate the nuance of the Dutch case, it is essential to establish the baseline of the H5N1 phenomenon in dairy cattle as defined by the American panzootic. The US experience provides the reference library for clinical signs, transmission dynamics, and viral behavior against which the European case must be measured.

3.1 The Emergence of Genotype B3.13

The US outbreak, first detected in March 2024, was driven by a specific viral genotype designated as B3.13. This virus is a reassortant, possessing a backbone from the Eurasian clade 2.3.4.4b (carried across the Atlantic by migratory birds) and gene segments from North American wild bird lineages.¹

• Adaptation: The B3.13 genotype acquired specific traits that allowed it to exploit the bovine host. Most notably, it demonstrated a remarkable tropism for the mammary gland.

• Viral Load: Research showed that viral titers in the milk of infected US cows were exceptionally high, often exceeding the viral loads found in respiratory samples. This high viral load transformed the milk itself into a primary vector of transmission.¹¹

3.2 Transmission Mechanics: The Fomite Factor

The epidemiology of the US outbreak revealed that the spread of the virus was less about airborne transmission (typical for influenza) and more about mechanical transmission. The modern dairy milking parlor, with its shared milking clusters (cups) and high throughput, served as a dissemination engine.

• Mechanism: If a milking unit was attached to an infected cow, the cups became contaminated with high-titer milk. If not adequately disinfected, the unit would inoculate the virus directly into the teat canal of the next cow.

• Implication: This mechanical route allowed the virus to bypass the respiratory defenses and establish infection directly in the udder, leading to mastitis and viral shedding in milk.¹

3.3 Clinical Presentation Comparison

The table below contrasts the typical presentation of the H5N1 infection in US herds with the observations from the single Dutch case.

Feature	US Outbreak (Genotype B3.13)	Dutch Case (European Lineage*)
Primary Vector	Milking equipment (Cow-to-Cow)	Environmental/Wild Bird (Spillover)
Herd Prevalence	High (10-20% intra-herd attack rate)	Low (Single animal detected)
Milk Characteristics	Thick, yellow, colostrum-like consistency	Mastitis reported (nonspecific)
Systemic Signs	Fever, dehydration, rumen stasis	Respiratory distress, malaise
Mortality	Low (<2%), mostly due to culling	0% (Cow recovered)
Mammalian Spread	Frequent spread to cats, poultry, wildlife	Linked to fatal infection in farm cats
Viral Status	PCR Positive (High shedding)	PCR Negative (Cleared infection)
Serology	Widespread seroconversion in herd	Single animal seroconversion

• Note: The genotype of the Dutch virus is inferred to be a local wild bird lineage as no viral RNA was isolated for sequencing, but the lack of spread suggests a lack of cattle-adaptation.

This comparison highlights that while the agent (H5N1) is the same, the epidemiology is fundamentally different. The US deals with a cattle-adapted epidemic; the Netherlands dealt with a spillover event.

4. Virological Mechanisms of Interspecies Transmission

The biological barrier that typically prevents bird flu from infecting cows is built upon receptor specificity. Influenza viruses are highly particular about the cellular "door handles" they use to enter a host cell. Understanding this biochemistry is key to understanding why the spillover occurred.

4.1 The Receptor "Lock and Key"

Influenza A viruses initiate infection by binding their Hemagglutinin (HA) surface proteins to sialic acid (SA) receptors on the host cell surface.

• Avian Influenza Viruses preferentially bind to alpha-2,3-linked sialic acids (SAα2,3). These receptors are abundant in the intestinal tracts of waterfowl, allowing the virus to replicate there and be shed in feces.

• Mammalian Influenza Viruses (like human flu) preferentially bind to alpha-2,6-linked sialic acids (SAα2,6). These are abundant in the human upper respiratory tract.

4.2 The Bovine Susceptibility Paradox

For years, it was assumed that cattle lacked the necessary SAα2,3 receptors to host avian viruses. However, investigations triggered by the US outbreak shattered this assumption. Detailed histological studies of the bovine mammary gland revealed a critical vulnerability.

• Mammary Tissue: The alveolar epithelial cells of the bovine udder—the cells responsible for producing milk—express both SAα2,3 (avian-like) and SAα2,6 (human-like) receptors.¹³

• The Udder as a Target: This dual receptor expression means the bovine udder is biologically permissive to avian influenza viruses. If the virus can reach the mammary gland (either through systemic circulation after oral ingestion or direct ascending infection through the teat), it finds a receptor landscape perfectly suited for replication.⁸

4.3 Pathogenesis of the Dutch Case

In the Friesland case, the cow likely ingested a high load of virus from the environment (e.g., contaminated water). The virus may have established a transient systemic infection or ascended the teat canal if the cow was lying in contaminated bedding. Once in the mammary gland, the virus exploited the SAα2,3 receptors, replicating and causing the observed mastitis. However, unlike the US B3.13 strain, the virus likely lacked the polymerase mutations necessary for sustained, high-efficiency replication and transmission, allowing the cow's immune system to eventually overcome the infection.¹⁴

5. Immunological Forensics: Interpreting the Antibody Signal

The detection of the Dutch case relied entirely on serology—the study of the immune response. This diagnostic approach acts as a form of biological archaeology, allowing scientists to see what happened in the past.

5.1 The Immune Response Timeline

When a cow is exposed to H5N1, its immune system launches a coordinated defense.

1. Innate Immunity: The immediate, non-specific response. This often causes fever and inflammation (mastitis).

2. Adaptive Immunity (Humoral): The production of antibodies.

3. IgM: The first antibody isotype to appear, usually within 3-7 days of infection. It indicates acute or very recent infection.

4. IgG: The more durable antibody isotype. It appears 10-14 days post-infection and can persist for months or years. It provides long-term memory.

The positive result in the Friesland cow, combined with the negative PCR, indicates that the animal was in the convalescent phase. The virus had been cleared (hence negative PCR), but high levels of circulating antibodies (likely IgG) remained as evidence of the battle.⁹

5.2 Diagnostic Methodologies Used

To validate a finding of this magnitude, laboratories like WBVR employ a multi-tiered testing strategy.

Tier 1: Screening (ELISA)

The initial test is typically an Influenza A Nucleoprotein (NP) Blocking ELISA.

• Target: The Nucleoprotein (NP) is a structural protein found in the core of the virus. It is highly conserved across all Influenza A subtypes (H5N1, H1N1, H3N2, etc.).

• Function: This test answers the question: "Has this animal been exposed to any Influenza A virus?" It is highly sensitive but not specific to the H5 subtype. A positive result here is a red flag but not a confirmation of bird flu.¹⁵

Tier 2: Confirmation (HI Assay)

To confirm the H5N1 diagnosis, a Hemagglutination Inhibition (HI) Assay is performed.

• Target: The Hemagglutination (HA) surface protein, which is subtype-specific (H5).

• Function: This test measures the ability of the cow's serum antibodies to block the specific H5 virus from binding to red blood cells. A positive result here confirms that the antibodies were generated specifically against an H5 virus, ruling out other bovine influenza viruses or seasonal flu.¹⁵

The combination of a positive ELISA and a positive H5-specific HI test provided the definitive proof required for the NVWA to declare the first European case.

6. The Sentinel Species: Cats in the Epidemiology of H5N1

The death of the farm cats in Friesland was not incidental; it was a critical epidemiological signal. The relationship between feline and bovine H5N1 infections has emerged as a defining feature of the current panzootic.

6.1 Clinical Susceptibility of Felids

Domestic cats (Felis catus) are exceptionally vulnerable to HPAI H5N1. Unlike dogs, which appear relatively resistant, cats can develop severe, systemic disease.

• Pathology: The virus in cats is often neurotropic, causing encephalitis (inflammation of the brain), blindness, convulsions, and respiratory failure. Mortality rates in infected farm cats can be exceedingly high, approaching 50% or more in some outbreaks.⁵

• Route of Infection: Cats are predators and scavengers. They typically contract the virus by eating infected wild birds or rodents. However, the US outbreak identified a new and dangerous route: the consumption of raw milk from infected cows.

6.2 The Milk-Cat Connection

In the US, reports of "dead cats" often preceded the diagnosis of H5N1 in the dairy herd. Cats fed unpasteurized colostrum or milk from sick cows died in large numbers. The virus concentration in the milk was so high that ingestion overwhelmed the feline immune system.⁵

In the Friesland case, the timeline suggests a tight coupling between the cat and cow infections.

• Scenario A (Co-exposure): Both the cat and the cow were exposed to the same environmental source (e.g., a dead wild bird in the feed alley). The cat ate the bird; the cow ingested contaminated feed.

• Scenario B (Trophic Cascade): The cow became infected from the environment and shed virus in its milk. The farm cat, as is common practice, was fed raw milk or scavenged milk spills, leading to fatal infection.

Given the high viral loads required to infect cats via ingestion, Scenario B is biologically plausible and suggests that the Dutch cow, however briefly, may have shed significant virus in its milk during the acute phase of mastitis. This underscores the potential for raw milk to act as a vehicle for zoonotic transmission.⁵

7. European Biosecurity and Surveillance: The "One Health" Challenge

The detection in the Netherlands tests the resilience of the European Union's biosecurity framework. Unlike the US, where the response has been largely industry-driven with voluntary testing components, the EU operates under strict regulations mandated by the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) 2016/429).

7.1 The "Free From" Status and Trade

A major concern for the Dutch dairy industry is the maintenance of its "disease-free" status for trade purposes. The Netherlands is a global powerhouse in dairy exports (cheese, milk powder, butter).

• Current Regulation: Historically, "HPAI-free" status applied to poultry. The infection of a non-poultry species (cattle) creates a regulatory gray area. Currently, the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) does not mandate that a case in cattle revokes the HPAI-free status for poultry, nor does it automatically block dairy exports, provided milk is pasteurized.²¹

• Precautionary Measures: However, trading partners can impose unilateral bans. To mitigate this, the NVWA's transparency and the demonstration that the infection was "dead-end" (no active circulation) are crucial for reassuring global markets.

7.2 Surveillance Architectures

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and local agencies like the NVWA have ramped up surveillance following the US outbreaks.

• Passive Surveillance: This relies on farmers and vets reporting suspicious signs (mastitis unresponsive to treatment, sudden milk drop, dead cats). The Friesland case is a triumph of passive surveillance.¹

• Active Surveillance: This involves proactive testing, such as screening bulk tank milk samples. While not yet universal, targeted bulk tank testing in high-risk areas (like Friesland) is recommended by EFSA to detect subclinical spread.¹ The challenge is that bulk tank samples dilute the virus; a single positive cow might be missed in a tank of 1,000 animals, making individual serology and targeted investigation of "problem cows" vital.

7.3 The Biosecurity Gap: Water and Wildlife

Friesland is a water-rich landscape. Cows often have access to ditches (sloten) and pastures frequented by migratory waterfowl.

• The Risk Interface: It is practically impossible to hermetically seal a grazing dairy herd from wild birds. Biosecurity protocols focus on "bio-exclusion"—keeping birds out of feed bunks and water troughs—but the environmental load of virus during migration seasons can be overwhelming.²³

• Recommendations: The LTO (Dutch Federation of Agriculture and Horticulture) and NVWA advise bringing cows indoors or covering feed/water stations during high-risk periods, a strategy already familiar to the poultry sector.²³

8. Public Health and Food Safety: The Consumer Perspective

The presence of H5N1 in a food-producing animal inevitably raises consumer safety alarms. However, the scientific consensus regarding the safety of commercial dairy products remains robust.

8.1 Pasteurization: The Thermal Firewall

Pasteurization is the primary line of defense protecting the public from milk-borne pathogens.

• Mechanism: H5N1 is an enveloped virus. Its outer lipid layer is highly sensitive to heat. Standard pasteurization protocols (e.g., High-Temperature Short-Time: 72°C for 15 seconds) are sufficient to denature the viral proteins and destroy infectivity.²⁶

• Validation: Studies conducted by the FDA and USDA confirmed that even when raw milk contains millions of viral particles, commercial pasteurization effectively inactivates the virus. The NVWA and RIVM (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) confirmed that milk from the affected farm would have entered the pasteurization chain, posing no risk to consumers.²⁷

8.2 The Raw Milk Risk

The risks are concentrated in the consumption of raw (unpasteurized) milk and raw milk products.

• Farm Families: Farmers and their families who consume raw milk from their own bulk tanks are at the highest risk. The death of cats consuming raw milk serves as a grim bio-assay for this danger.

• Raw Milk Cheese: There is ongoing research into whether H5N1 can survive the cheese-making process (acidification and aging). Some studies suggest the virus can persist in fresh raw milk cheese for weeks. While the EU has strict hygiene criteria for raw milk cheese production, the emergence of a viral pathogen in milk adds a new dimension to these risk assessments.²⁹

8.3 Human Infection Risk

The risk to the general public is assessed as "low" by the RIVM. Human infections with H5N1 are rare and typically require direct, prolonged contact with infected animals or their environments. In the US, a few dairy workers developed mild conjunctivitis (eye infections) after direct exposure to raw milk or infected cows. The lack of active virus in the Dutch herd at the time of detection further lowers the immediate risk to farm workers, though the retrospective serology suggests a period of potential exposure did exist.⁶

9. Future Outlook: Scenarios for Europe

The Friesland detection is a warning shot. It proves that the barrier between the avian reservoir and the bovine host is not absolute.

9.1 Scenario A: Sporadic Spillover (Most Likely)

The most probable future for Europe involves sporadic, isolated spillover events similar to the Friesland case. High environmental contamination leads to individual infections that fail to establish sustained transmission. Surveillance will occasionally pick up antibodies, but mass outbreaks are avoided through standard biosecurity and the lack of a cattle-adapted viral strain.

9.2 Scenario B: Adaptation and Endemicity (The US Path)

A less likely but more dangerous scenario is that the virus circulating in Europe acquires the specific mutations (likely in the PB2 gene) that allow for efficient replication and transmission in cattle. If this occurs, Europe could face a situation mirroring the US, requiring movement restrictions, rigorous testing of lactating cows, and potentially the development of bovine influenza vaccines.³¹

9.3 The Role of Vaccination

The EU is currently evaluating vaccination strategies for poultry. The infection of cattle adds urgency to the development of "One Health" vaccination protocols. While vaccinating 100 million European cattle against bird flu is not currently feasible or justified, the existence of vaccine banks and candidate strains for mammalian H5N1 is a critical component of preparedness.³³

10. Conclusion

The serological detection of HPAI H5N1 in a dairy cow in Friesland, Netherlands, marks a significant milestone in the history of this virus in Europe. It shatters the assumption of bovine invulnerability and aligns the European experience, however faintly, with the ongoing crisis in the United States.

While the absence of active viral shedding and herd-wide transmission offers reassurance that this was a contained spillover rather than a burgeoning epidemic, the event highlights the insidious nature of the H5N1 panzootic. The virus is probing new ecological niches, testing species barriers, and exploiting the interfaces between wildlife and agriculture.

The response—characterized by transparency, rigorous testing, and cross-sector collaboration between veterinary and public health authorities—serves as a model for handling such detections. However, the event necessitates a permanent shift in surveillance posture. The dairy cow must now be viewed as a potential host for avian influenza, and the farm cat as a critical sentinel. In the battle against zoonotic disease, the Friesland case demonstrates that we must look not only for the fire (active virus) but also for the ashes (antibodies) to truly understand the scope of the threat.

Data Appendix

Table 1: Comparative Clinical & Epidemiological Features

Feature	US Outbreak (Genotype B3.13)	Netherlands Case (European Lineage)
Detection Date	March 2024 (First confirmation)	January 23, 2026 (Serology)
Primary Transmission	Mechanical (Milking equipment)	Environmental (Spillover)
Active Virus Status	High titers in milk (PCR+)	No active virus (PCR-)
Herd Attack Rate	10% - >20%	Single animal (approx. <1%)
Sentinel Species	Cats, wild birds, poultry	Cats (Fatalities observed)
Milk Impact	Thickened, yellow, severe drop	Mastitis (retrospective)
Zoonotic Transmission	Confirmed (Dairy workers/conjunctivitis)	None reported

Table 2: Diagnostic Matrix for Bovine H5N1 Investigation

Test Methodology	Target Analyte	Purpose	Result in Friesland
RT-PCR	Viral RNA (Genetic material)	Detect active infection/shedding	Negative (Virus cleared)
ELISA (Blocking)	Anti-NP Antibodies	Screen for any Influenza A exposure	Positive (Exposure confirmed)
HI Assay	Anti-H5 Antibodies	Confirm subtype specificity (H5)	Positive (H5N1 confirmed)
Genomic Sequencing	Viral Genome	Determine genotype/origin	N/A (No virus to sequence)

Table 3: Summary of EU/Dutch Response Measures

Measure	Description	Status in Friesland Case
Quarantine	Restriction of animal/product movement	Implemented immediately upon suspicion
Tracing	Identifying contact farms/animals	Completed; no spread identified
Screening	Testing all herd members	Completed; all others negative
Public Health	Monitoring farm residents	Completed; no symptoms reported
Consumer Safety	Ensuring pasteurization	Validated; milk supply safe

Works cited

1. Risk of infection of dairy cattle in the EU with highly pathogenic avian influenza virus affecting dairy cows in the United States of America (H5N1, Eurasian lineage goose/Guangdong clade 2.3.4.4b. genotype B3.13) - NIH, accessed January 23, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12712871/

2. The recent incidences of avian influenza in cattle | OSU Extension Service, accessed January 23, 2026, https://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/em-9575-recent-incidences-avian-influenza-cattle

3. Friese koe heeft antistoffen tegen vogelgriep, eerste geval in Europa, accessed January 23, 2026, https://friesland.headliner.nl/item/friese-koe-heeft-antistoffen-tegen-vogelgriep-eerste-geval-in-europa-lc-116902

4. Vogelgriep bij melkkoe in Friesland, eerste geval in Europa, accessed January 23, 2026, https://www.boerderij.nl/vogelgriep-bij-melkkoe-in-friesland-eerste-geval-in-europa

5. Analysis of cow, cat H5N1 avian flu samples raises concerns about spread to other animals, accessed January 23, 2026, https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/avian-influenza-bird-flu/analysis-cow-cat-h5n1-avian-flu-samples-raises-concerns-about-spread-other

6. Antistoffen vogelgriep aangetroffen in melkkoe, accessed January 23, 2026, https://www.pluimveeweb.nl/artikel/1447002-antistoffen-vogelgriep-aangetroffen-in-melkkoe/

7. accessed December 31, 1969, https://www.wur.nl/nl/onderzoek-resultaten/onderzoeksinstituten/bioveterinary-research/show-bvr/vogelgriep-bij-melkvee.htm

8. Viral Mastitis Associated with Influenza A in Dairy Cattle - Iowa State University Digital Repository, accessed January 23, 2026, https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/87ee19e8-52c7-4a00-97d6-ad334aa31a69/content

9. Influenza A in Bovine Species: A Narrative Literature Review - PMC - NIH, accessed January 23, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6631717/

10. Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Genotype B3.13 in Dairy Cattle: National Epidemiologic Brief - usda aphis, accessed January 23, 2026, https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/20240501-hpai-dairy-epi-brief.pdf

11. Bovine H5N1 influenza virus infection is transmitted by milk causing mortality in suckling neonates | bioRxiv, accessed January 23, 2026, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.11.15.623885v1.full-text

12. H5N1 virus invades the mammary glands of dairy cattle through 'mouth-to-teat' transmission | National Science Review | Oxford Academic, accessed January 23, 2026, https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/12/9/nwaf262/8180392

13. Sialic Acid Receptor Specificity in Mammary Gland of Dairy Cattle Infected with Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A(H5N1) Virus - PMC - NIH, accessed January 23, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11210646/

14. Influenza infection of the mammary gland | Journal of Virology, accessed January 23, 2026, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.01940-24

15. No indication of highly pathogenic avian influenza infections in Dutch cows - PubMed, accessed January 23, 2026, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40458141/

16. Class specific antibody response to influenza A H1N1 infection in swine - PubMed, accessed January 23, 2026, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7740762/

17. Dairy cattle herds mount a characteristic antibody response to highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza viruses - PMC - NIH, accessed January 23, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12455936/

18. Detection of antibodies against influenza A viruses in cattle | Journal of Virology, accessed January 23, 2026, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.02138-24

19. Adaptation and Outbreak of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in Dairy Cattle: An Emerging Threat to Humans, Pets, and Peridomestic Animals - PubMed Central, accessed January 23, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12473008/

20. Outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza a(H5N1) among house cats: A case series involving oseltamivir treatment - NIH, accessed January 23, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12478091/

21. Official Statement on High Pathogenicity Avian Influenza (HPAI) in Cattle - WOAH, accessed January 23, 2026, https://www.woah.org/en/high-pathogenicity-avian-influenza-hpai-in-cattle/

22. NVWA: Home, accessed January 23, 2026, https://www.nvwa.nl/

23. Wat moet ik als veehouder doen om mijn koeien te beschermen tegen vogelgriep?, accessed January 23, 2026, https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/vogelgriep/vraag-en-antwoord/maatregelen-rundveehouders

24. Maatregelen bij vogelgriep - NVWA, accessed January 23, 2026, https://www.nvwa.nl/onderwerpen/vogelgriep/maatregelen

25. LTO/NOP: waakzaamheid voor vogelgriep blijft nodig, accessed January 23, 2026, https://www.lto.nl/lto-nop-waakzaamheid-voor-vogelgriep-blijft-nodig/

26. Pasteurisation temperatures effectively inactivate influenza A viruses in milk - PubMed - NIH, accessed January 23, 2026, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39885133/

27. More evidence pasteurization inactivates H5N1 avian flu virus in milk - CIDRAP, accessed January 23, 2026, https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/avian-influenza-bird-flu/more-evidence-pasteurization-inactivates-h5n1-avian-flu-virus-milk

28. Letter to Dairy Processing Industry on Updates on Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) - September 30, 2024 - FDA, accessed January 23, 2026, https://www.fda.gov/media/182314/download

29. Researchers: Live H5N1 avian flu can survive in raw-milk cheese for up to 6 months, accessed January 23, 2026, https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/avian-influenza-bird-flu/researchers-live-h5n1-avian-flu-can-survive-raw-milk-cheese-6-months

30. Survival of influenza virus H1N1 and murine norovirus in raw milk cheeses - PMC - NIH, accessed January 23, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12628748/

31. Highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 in the United States: recent incursions and spillover to cattle - NIH, accessed January 23, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12228781/

32. Avian influenza A (H5N1) virus in dairy cattle: origin, evolution, and cross-species transmission | mBio - ASM Journals, accessed January 23, 2026, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mbio.02542-24

33. Avian influenza (bird flu) | European Medicines Agency (EMA), accessed January 23, 2026, https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/public-health-threats/avian-influenza-bird-flu

34. European agency recommends marketing authorization for avian flu vaccines - DVM360, accessed January 23, 2026, https://www.dvm360.com/view/european-agency-recommends-marketing-authorization-for-avian-flu-vaccines