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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2. Scope This qualitative risk analysis examines the risks involved with the importation of llamas (Lama glama) and alpacas (Vicugna pacos). Llamas and alpacas are hereafter referred to as “camelids”. This risk analysis is restricted to camelids imported from Australia, Canada, the United States of America (USA), Central and South America and the European Union (EU) A . Hereafter these countries are referred to as “relevant countries”. 3. Commodity Definitions The Family Camelidae contains three genera: Camelus, Lama and Vicugna. Guanacos (Lama guanicoe) are a wild species and are not traded. The genus Vicugna includes the species V. vicuna which is a wild ancestor of the alpaca and an endangered species that will not be traded. The dromedary (one-humped) and bacterian (two-humped) camel belong to the Camelus genus and are not part of the commodity definition. Llamas (Lama glama) and alpacas (Vicugna pacos) (domesticated species) that have been certified on the day of shipment to be showing no clinical signs of infectious or parasitic disease are the commodity to be traded. 4. Risk Analysis Methodology The methodology used in this risk analysis follows the 2006 MAF Biosecurity New Zealand Risk Analysis Procedures- Version 1. These procedures combine the guidelines in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code 2009 (hereafter referred to as the Code) of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and International Plant Protection Convention guidelines. The procedures provide a framework which adheres to the requirements set out under the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures, 1995 and of the Biosecurity Act, 1993. The process followed is shown in Figure 1 (overleaf). A The EU presently includes Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. 4 ● Import risk analysis: Llamas and alpacas from specified countries MAF Biosecurity New Zealand
Figure 1. The risk analysis process. 4.1. Preliminary Hazard List (Organisms of Potential Concern) From consulting authoritative texts and electronic data-bases an extensive list of organisms known to infect or infest camelids has been collated. From all the potential organisms of concern listed, preliminary hazards are identified by applying specific criteria to each organism to eliminate those that clearly do not constitute any risk. The remaining organisms are collated into a preliminary hazard list. The organisms in this list are subjected to hazard identification. 4.2. Hazard Identification Each organism in the preliminary hazard list is subjected to a hazard identification step. This includes formal identification of the organism, whether it is an OIE listed disease, its New Zealand status, and a discussion on the relevant aspects of the epidemiology and characteristics of the organism. The hazard identification section is concluded by an MAF Biosecurity New Zealand Import risk analysis: Llamas and alpacas from specified countries ● 5
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: 1. Introduction The importation of
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?