Exhibit 8, 100416 Brazil FMD Risk Evaluation - R-Calf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In addition to responding to reportable disease suspicions, official veterinary services staff also conduct inspections during routine surveillance activities (while updating inventory numbers provided by the farmer to the local veterinary unit) and certification of holdings as part of specific sanitary programs. None of these visits detected any clinical signs compatible with vesicular or notifiable disease [4]. Information on the number of rural holdings inspected by the official veterinary service in 2005 and 2006 is provided in Table 9. Table 9. Inspections carried out on rural holdings with FMD-susceptible animals, Santa Catarina, 2005 and 2006 [4] Year Inspected Existing susceptible animals Holdings Swine Bovine Sheep Goats 2005 11,445 1,539,937 160,907 23,002 122 2006 13,489 1,626,798 145,991 22,104 142 Total 25,034 3,166,735 306,898 45,106 264 To ensure that members of the public that have contact with animals know the signs of the diseases under evaluation as well as their obligation to report any suspicion of such diseases, the official veterinary service held 323 lectures and technical meetings, reaching 42,223 people in 2005, and 325 lectures, involving 44,258 community participants, in 2006. In addition, the official veterinary service is implementing several educational projects, including plans to create and maintain community support resources by fostering municipal commissions of animal health, training and maintaining health technicians, and creating a health education plan in schools [4]. Santa Catarina operates a 24-hour hotline for reporting suspicions of notifiable animal diseases (particularly for the notification of suspect FMD cases). This service began in May 2001, and from that time until November 2006 community members made 116 reports. All reported incidents have been recorded, including the date and time of the report, history of the report, and actions taken regarding the event [4]. CSF Brazil carries out passive surveillance for CSF, particularly at the border between the CSF-free zone and the infected region (see Figure 6). The border of the CSF-free zone corresponds to that of the FMD-free zone; therefore, sanitary defense staff and programs can control of the entry of susceptible animals and products for both diseases [3]. MAPA coordinated serologic surveys in 2000 and 2003 to delineate and maintain the free zone. The surveys were conducted in accordance with the OIE’s statistical parameters. These include a confidence level of 95 percent, specificity of 100 percent, and sensitivity of 95 percent at a prevalence of 1 percent among farms. The target population included the entire hog and wild boar population within the free area, except for those in GRSC farms, which are officially and individually certified as free from diseases. The number of samples collected in each investigation was approximately 28,000 (Table 10) [3]. APHIS Evaluation of the Status of the Brazilian State of Santa Catarina 52
Table 10. Samples collected in 2000 and 2003 for CSF Type of farm Technologically advanced farms* 2000 2003 Other Wild Technologically farms boar advanced farms Other farms farms 1,241 640 182 1,243 1,600 150 Wild boar farms Number of farms sampled Number of 53 28 2 9 13 3 farms with reactors Percentage 4.27 4.37 1.1 0.72 0.81 2.0 Number of 24,100 3,190 909 19,246 6,514 1,781 Samples Number of 216 59 2 16 15 4 reactors Percentage 0.9 1.85 0.22 0.08 0.23 0.22 * Includes large integrated farms with the exception of GRSCs. Source: Correspondence with MAPA officials, January 16, 2009 Diagnostic tests are conducted at official public service laboratories. Screening tests are performed using an ELISA for the detection of antibodies to the CSF virus (IDEXX). Any reactive or suspicious samples are submitted for differential diagnosis using virus-neutralization tests in cell cultures for bovine viral diarrhea and CSF. Additionally, if the screening test returns a suspicious result, a confirmatory test will be performed. The farm that provided the sample will undergo serologic evaluation of additional susceptible animals. The laboratory will also attempt to isolate the virus [3]. Pursuant to Decree No. 24.548, and as with FMD and other vesicular diseases, every citizen must report the suspicion of CSF to the nearest LVU. If the owner of the animals fails to report the suspicion of disease, he or she will lose a claim to indemnity if the herd must be destroyed to control the disease. Veterinarians and other field professionals may be subject to legal action before their respective trade guilds [3]. If a sanitary emergency or documented disease event occurs, blood samples are collected from all animals on the farm, both sick and healthy exposed animals, to allow for a comparison of antibody titers. Samples are frozen and sent to the Laboratório Nacional Agropecuário in Recife, in Pernambuco, outside the CSF-free zone. Sick animals are killed and tonsils, spleen, lymph nodes, kidneys, and the distal portion of the ileum are collected and submitted for virus isolation [3]. As with FMD, all suspicious cases of CSF or other diseases with similar clinical signs must be investigated by the official veterinarian. The investigation must be initiated within 12 hours of the report and must be conducted using appropriate biosecurity. If the responding official cannot APHIS Evaluation of the Status of the Brazilian State of Santa Catarina 53
Page 1 and 2: APHIS Evaluation of the Status of t
Page 3 and 4: LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Map of Br
Page 5 and 6: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ASF: APHIS: B
Page 7 and 8: USDA: VIAA: VS: United States Depar
Page 9 and 10: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The U.S. Departme
Page 11 and 12: managers that will allow APHIS to d
Page 13 and 14: Legal authority for animal disease
Page 15 and 16: and implement animal health activit
Page 17 and 18: Table 2. Structure and human resour
Page 19 and 20: kept, with the documentation being
Page 21 and 22: Figure 5: FMD status zones, Brazil,
Page 23 and 24: FMD Brazil currently has several di
Page 25 and 26: higher risk. In addition, the local
Page 27 and 28: officials, the private sector’s p
Page 29 and 30: Immediate assistance to States for
Page 31 and 32: 7. Movement control, biosecurity, a
Page 33 and 34: In 2005, Santa Catarina’s officia
Page 35 and 36: products, such as offal for human c
Page 37 and 38: Brazilian law prohibits all transpo
Page 39 and 40: corridor inspection posts that were
Page 41 and 42: Table 7. Livestock farms in Santa C
Page 43 and 44: Figure 10: Bovine density and distr
Page 45 and 46: The cooperative farm producers kept
Page 47 and 48: Animal gathering points In Santa Ca
Page 49 and 50: Three geographical sampling strata
Page 51: follow on notification of vesicular
Page 55 and 56: 10. Diagnostic laboratory capacity
Page 57 and 58: provide CSFV-FMDV diagnostics. Thes
Page 59 and 60: holding and begin tracing animal mo
Page 61 and 62: Likelihood of the introduction of n
Page 63 and 64: Exposure Assessment An exposure ass
Page 65 and 66: apparent [28]. Survival of both SVD
Page 67 and 68: eradication strategies to control t
Page 69 and 70: partners’ restrictions on animals
Page 71 and 72: ANNEXES Annex 1. Hazard Identificat
Page 73 and 74: assay test. Other diagnostic tests
Page 75 and 76: Annex 3. Hazard Identification: Swi
Page 77 and 78: Annex 5. Epidemiologic Characterist
Page 79 and 80: REFERENCES 1. Office International
Page 81 and 82: 43. Green, J.W. and Grannis, J.L. E
Page 83 and 84: 2. Title 9, Code of Federal Regulat
Page 85 and 86: 45. Kitching, R., et al. Developmen

Exhibit 8, 100416 Brazil FMD Risk Evaluation - R-Calf

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?