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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Gerritsen MJ, Koopmans MJ, Dekker TC, De Jong MC, Moerman A, Olyhoek T (1994). Effective treatment with dihydrostreptomycin of naturally infected cows shedding Leptospira interrogans serovar hardjo subtype hardjobovis. American Journal of Veterinary Research, 55(3), 339-43. Gerritsen MJ, Koopmans MJ, Olyhoek T (1993). Effect of streptomycin treatment on the shedding of and the serologic responses to Leptospira interrogans serovar hardjo subtype hardjobovis in experimentally infected cows. Veterinary Microbiology, 38(1-2), 129-35. Hill FI, Wyeth TK (1991). Serological reactions against Leptospira interrogans serovars in alpacas after vaccination. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 39, 32-3. Horsch F (1989). Leptospirosis. In: Blaha T (ed), Applied Veterinary Epidemiology, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, Pp. 95-102. Hunter P (2004). Leptospirosis. In: Coetzer JAW, Tustin RC (eds) Infectious Diseases of Livestock, Vol. 3, Oxford University Press, Cape Town, Pp. 1445-6. Liorente P, Leoni L, Martinez Vivot M (2002). Leptospirosis in South American camelids. A study on the serological prevalence in different regions of Argentina. Archivos de Medicina Veterinaria, 34(1) 59-68. Marin RE, Brihuega B, Romero G (2008). Seroprevalence of infectious diseases in llamas from Jujuy province, Argentina. Veterinaria Argentina, 25(244), 281-7. Midwinter A (1999). Spirochaetes in New Zealand. Surveillance, 26(3), 10-2. Murray CK, Hospenthal DR (2004). Determination of susceptibilities of 26 Leptospira sp. serovars to 24 antimicrobial agents by a broth microdilution technique. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 48(10), 4002-5. OIE (2007). Report of the meeting of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission, September 2007, OIE, Paris. Available at: http://www.oie.int/downld/SC/2007/A_TAHSC_September%202007_introduction.pdf, downloaded 24/6/2009. Oie S, Hironaga K, Koshiro A, Konishi H, Yoshii Z (1983). In vitro susceptibilities of five Leptospira strains to 16 antimicrobial agents. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 24(6), 905-8. Thompson A (1980). The first New Zealand isolation of Leptospira interrogans serovar australis. New Zealand Medical Journal, 91(651), 28. Thornley CN, Baker MG, Weinstein P, Maas EW (2002). Changing epidemiology of human leptospirosis in New Zealand. Epidemiology and Infection, 128(1), 29-36. Tibary A, Fite C, Anouassi A, Sghiri A (2006). Infectious causes of reproductive loss in camelids. Theriogenology, 66, 633-647. Wernery U, Kaaden O-R (2002). Pneumonia. In: Infectious Diseases in Camelids. Second edition, Blackwell Science, Berlin-Vienna, Pp. 97-104. 94 ● Import risk analysis: Llamas and alpacas from specified countries MAF Biosecurity New Zealand
26. Mycobacterium bovis 26.1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION 26.1.1. Aetiological agent Mycobacterium bovis, an intracellular bacterium that causes bovine tuberculosis in several species of mammal, including humans. 26.1.2. OIE list Listed. 26.1.3. New Zealand status Mycobacterium bovis, is an endemic organism that is subject to an official control programme in New Zealand, in the form of a National Pest Management Strategy (NPMS) under the Biosecurity Act, 1993. 26.1.4. Epidemiology Tuberculosis in camelids has been reviewed by Wernery & Kaaden (2002). It is primarily caused by M. bovis (Thoen et al 1977; Barlow et al 1999; Wernery & Kaaden 2002; Ryan et al 2008), and there are rare reports of M. tuberculosis (Wernery & Kaaden 2002) and very rare reports of M. microti (Oevermann et al 2004; Emmanuel et al 2007; Lyashchenko et al 2007; Zanolari et al 2009). Camelids generally become infected with M. bovis by contact with other infected animal species (Twomey et al 2007). While there has been anecdotal evidence suggesting that camelids are not very susceptible to tuberculois and that transmission between camelids or to other animals from camelids is limited (Fowler 1992), in recent years tuberculosis in camelids has been recognised as a problem in a number of herds of farmed camelids in the UK, where there has been an increase in vector-related M. bovis infection in cattle herds (Defra 2008). Tests available for international trade purposes are described in the Manual. The prescribed test is the delayed hypersensitivity (tuberculin) skin test. There are a number of blood-based tests, including interferon-gamma and ELISA. Isolation of organisms or demonstration of DNA by PCR are reliable diagnostic tests but are not generally suitable for use in live animals for export testing. Several reports indicate that the tuberculin test is unreliable, with problems associated with both specificity and sensitivity (Fowler 1992; Stevens et al 1998; Everett et al 1999; Wernery & Kaaden 2002; Lyashchenko et al 2007; Twomey et al 2007; Connolly et al 2008; Ryan et al 2008). Although serological tests show some promise (Stevens et al 1998; Lyashchenko et al 2007), only limited information is available on their use. The best approach seems to be to use a combination of tuberculin testing and serological testing. 26.1.5. Hazard identification conclusion M. bovis can infect camelids. It is an endemic organism that is the subject of an official eradication programme (a National Pest Management Strategy under the Biosecurity Act MAF Biosecurity New Zealand Import risk analysis: Llamas and alpacas from specified countries ● 95
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 and 10:
Executive Summary This risk analysi
Page 11 and 12:
1. Introduction The importation of
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: Retention of this empty Chapter, wi
Page 105 and 106: 26.3. RISK MANAGEMENT 26.3.1. Optio
Page 109 and 110: without any measures for detecting
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?