Import risk analysis: Llamas (Lama glama) and alpacas (Vicugna ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Vesicular stomatitis virus Bacillus anthracis Brucella spp. Chlamydophila abortus Coxiella burnetii Leptospira serovars Mycobacterium bovis Mycoplasma haemolamae Salmonella spp. Trypanosoma spp. Echinococcus granulosus Other internal parasites (trematodes and nematodes) External parasites (mites, fleas, lice and ticks) Screwworm and other myiasis infestations Hitch-hiker weeds and seeds 2 ● Import risk analysis: Llamas and alpacas from specified countries MAF Biosecurity New Zealand
1. Introduction The importation of alpacas and llamas is increasing each year, from around 50 animals several years ago to more than 550 during 2008 and 2009. This increase in the number of animals moving internationally is expected to continue, along with an increase in the number of countries from which alpacas and llamas are sourced. Conditions have been developed in the past to allow importations from Chile and Argentina. However, importations only ever occurred from Chile and the conditions were not based on a risk analysis, but rather detailed bilateral negotiation between MAF and the Chilean Authority. The last consignment from Chile (1992-1993) had problems when seropositive animals to foot and mouth disease were detected in post-arrival quarantine (false-positive test results). Australia and Canada also experienced similar problems with foot and mouth disease seropositive animals being detected in post-arrival quarantine. In those cases, it was thought that vaccinated animals had been inadvertently included in the consignments. These episodes raised serious concerns regarding the ability of Chile to provide the necessary pre-export assurances required. Because of this history when importing from Chile, New Zealand put in place a moratorium on the issuing of import health permits for llamas and alpacas from all of South America. Alpacas and llamas are presently imported under the following Import Health Standards (IHSs): Alpacas and Llamas from United States of America (July 2005) Alpacas and Llamas from Australia (May 2006) The measures in these IHSs are based on the MAF document "Disease Risk Analysis for the Importation of Llamas (Lama glama) and Alpacas (Lama pacos) into New Zealand" that was finalised in 1997 and up-dated in 1998. That risk analysis examined the risks involved with the importation of animals from the USA, Canada and Australia. The 1997 risk analysis specifically excluded South American countries from consideration. The 1998 risk analysis was produced using procedures and policies that have meanwhile changed. The analysis identified potential hazards and provided a short discussion, including some recommendations from the Terrestrial Animal Health Code. The measures that were presented were based on other animal species, not specifically camelids. For the identified agents of concern, no risk assessment step was undertaken. A new risk analysis is therefore required because of the changes in the risk analyses process, technical advances over the last 12 years and the increased number of countries requiring assessment. Note that an importing country is entitled to expect validity in the veterinary certification of export. However, it must be made clear that an evaluation of an exporting country’s standards and performance is not made in this risk analysis. MAF may conduct an evaluation of veterinary services when drafting IHSs developed from this import risk analysis, particularly for countries with which there is no existing trade. MAF Biosecurity New Zealand Import risk analysis: Llamas and alpacas from specified countries ● 3
Page 1 and 2: Import risk analysis: Llamas (Lama
Page 3 and 4: MAF Biosecurity New Zealand Pastora
Page 5 and 6: CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 1. Int
Page 7 and 8: Acronyms CDC United States Centers
Page 9: Executive Summary This risk analysi
Page 13 and 14: Figure 1. The risk analysis process
Page 15 and 16: Following public consultation on th
Page 17 and 18: Disease agent Foot and mouth diseas
Page 19 and 20: Disease agent PROTOZOA Eimeria alpa
Page 21 and 22: Bacteria, rickettsias and spirochae
Page 23 and 24: McKenna PB (2009). An updated check
Page 25 and 26: 6. African horse sickness virus 6.1
Page 27 and 28: 7. Bluetongue virus 7.1. HAZARD IDE
Page 29 and 30: 8. Borna virus 8.1. HAZARD IDENTIFI
Page 31 and 32: 8.2.2. Risk estimation Since entry
Page 33 and 34: It has been suggested that as many
Page 35 and 36: Therefore, since the the consequenc
Page 37 and 38: Givens MD, Heath AM, Brock KV, Brod
Page 39 and 40: 10. Bovine herpesvirus type 1 10.1.
Page 41 and 42: 10.2.2. Exposure assessment Importe
Page 43 and 44: Bartha A, Haidu G, Aldassy P, Paczo
Page 45 and 46: 11. Epizootic haemorrhagic disease
Page 47 and 48: 12. Eastern equine encephalitis vir
Page 49 and 50: 13. Equine herpesvirus type 1 13.1.
Page 51 and 52: 13.2.2. Exposure assessment Assumin
Page 53 and 54: Davison AJ, Erberle R, Hayward GS,
Page 55 and 56: 1993). According to Fowler (1992),
Page 57 and 58: Veterinary Authorities should requi
Page 59 and 60: 15. Louping-ill virus 15.1. HAZARD
Page 61 and 62:
16. Rabies virus 16.1. HAZARD IDENT
Page 63 and 64:
� Rabies is a serious zoonotic di
Page 65 and 66:
17. Vesicular stomatitis virus 17.1
Page 67 and 68:
incubation period of the disease. T
Page 69 and 70:
quarantined with protection from in
Page 71 and 72:
Pharo HJ (1999). Vesicular stomatit
Page 73 and 74:
18.1.5. Hazard identification concl
Page 75 and 76:
necessarily be competent vectors, a
Page 77 and 78:
20. Bacillus anthracis 20.1. HAZARD
Page 79 and 80:
20.3. RISK MANAGEMENT 20.3.1. Optio
Page 81 and 82:
21. Brucella spp. 21.1. HAZARD IDEN
Page 83 and 84:
21.2.4. Risk estimation Since entry
Page 85 and 86:
Gilsdorf MJ, Thoen CO, Temple RM, G
Page 87 and 88:
References References marked * were
Page 89 and 90:
Serological tests include the compl
Page 91 and 92:
with negative results using the com
Page 93 and 94:
24. Coxiella burnetii 24.1. HAZARD
Page 95 and 96:
� Although quarantine is not suit
Page 97 and 98:
25. Leptospira serovars 25.1. HAZAR
Page 99 and 100:
immune response is a low titre that
Page 101 and 102:
Retention of this empty Chapter, wi
Page 103 and 104:
26. Mycobacterium bovis 26.1. HAZAR
Page 105 and 106:
26.3. RISK MANAGEMENT 26.3.1. Optio
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
without any measures for detecting
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Animals become septicaemic a few ho
Page 115 and 116:
29. Salmonella spp. 29.1. HAZARD ID
Page 117 and 118:
animals and sporadic cases of salmo
Page 119 and 120:
Hansen KR, Nielsen LR, Lind P (2006
Page 121 and 122:
Camelidae diseases, or as transmitt
Page 123 and 124:
32. Trypanosoma spp. 32.1. HAZARD I
Page 125 and 126:
T. evansi and T. vivax occur in Sou
Page 127 and 128:
5. Animals to be imported could be
Page 129 and 130:
(Kittelberger et al 2002) and is th
Page 131 and 132:
� The role of an IHS is to specif
Page 133 and 134:
34. Internal parasites 34.1. HAZARD
Page 135 and 136:
34.1.4.2. Trematodes The following
Page 137 and 138:
34.2.4. Risk estimation Since entry
Page 139 and 140:
35. Mites, lice and fleas 35.1. HAZ
Page 141 and 142:
35.2. RISK ASSESSMENT 35.2.1. Entry
Page 143 and 144:
N.B. This measure reflects the curr
Page 145 and 146:
Hard ticks (Ixodidae) have a lifecy
Page 147 and 148:
1. Camelids could be treated with p
Page 149 and 150:
the Eastern Cape and North-West Pro
Page 151 and 152:
The larvae reach maturity about 4-8
Page 153 and 154:
exploration, debriding and flushing
Page 155 and 156:
a. all animals have been re-examine
Page 157 and 158:
38. Weeds and seeds 38.1. HAZARD ID
Page 159 and 160:
edding materials include wood shavi
show all

Import risk analysis: Llamas (Lama glama) and alpacas (Vicugna ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?