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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

� Mites, fleas and lice of camelids cause skin irritation and damage to fibre but are not known to cause serious disease or act as vectors for disease agents. � Steps should be taken to ensure that camelids do not introduce mites, lice and fleas into the quarantine station in which they will be isolated. Introduction of parasites into the facility could result in re-infestation of animals after successful treatment. � There are several efficacious insecticides that can be used for the elimination of the parasites. � There is no Code chapter relating to mites, fleas and lice. One or a combination of the following measures could be considered in order to effectively manage the risks. 1. Animals to be imported could be quarantined in isolation from other animals for at least 30 days before shipment; and 2. Within the 4 days before entry into the quarantine station animals could be treated with an insecticide known to be effective against mites, fleas and lice. Animals that have not been recently shorn could be shorn before treatment; and 3. Animals could again be treated with an effective insecticide 7-10 days after entry into isolation and again 10-14 days later. Different insecticides could be used at each treatment. N.B. These measures allow for treatment with insecticides thought to be effective against mites, lice and fleas but do not provide for confirmation of the effectiveness of the treatment undertaken. 4. Animals for importation could undergo treatments as above. In addition they could be carefully inspected at the time of the second and third treatments to ensure that the previous treatments have been effective. If mites, lice or fleas are detected at the last inspection, treatments could be repeated until no parasites are found. Since populations of Psoroptes mites are known to leave residual populations in sites such as the axilla, groin, infra-orbital fossa and inner surface of the pinna and auditory canal, these areas could require special attention when inspecting the animal. N.B. These measures allows for inspection as well as treatment. 5. Treatment with 5ml of diluted ivermectin solution into each ear canal and microscopic examination of saline flushings of both ear canals with negative results for Psoroptes ovis ear mites. N.B. This measure is specific for residual populations of mites in the ear canals of animals and reflects Australia’s level of protection for mitigating the risk of introducing Psoroptes ovis when importing camelids from Chile. 6. Ten days after entering pre-export isolation saline flushings of both ear canals of each animal should be examined and found to be free of evidence of P. ovis mites. If found then the animal should be treated with an ectoparasiticide effective against ear mites and re-examined 10 days later. 134 ● Import risk analysis: Llamas and alpacas from specified countries MAF Biosecurity New Zealand
N.B. This measure reflects the current IHS conditions required when importing camelids from the USA. 7. Animals for importation could undergo all treatments and inspections as in the measure above. In addition, all hygiene measures regarding removal of bedding and cleaning of premises in the measures presented for the management of ticks could be carried out. N.B. This measure would reduce the possibility that eggs, larvae or pupae of mites, lice and fleas surviving in bedding or on fomites that could re-infest animals that are to be imported. References References marked * were sighted as abstracts in electronic data-bases. Fowler ME (1992). Chapter 8, Parasites. In: Medicine and Surgery of South American Camelids. Second edition. Blackwell Publishing, USA, pp. 132-65. González-Acuña D, Cabezas R, Moreno L, Castro D (2007). New records of Phthiraptera (Arthropoda: Insecta) in Lama pacos Linnaeus 1758, in Chile. Archivos de Medicina Veterinaria, 39(1). Available at: http://translate.google.co.nz/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php%3Fpid%DS0301- 732X2007000100011%26script%3Dsci_arttext&ei=cGRySuyyOYTKsQP79tXMCA&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum =2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmicrothoracius%2Band%2Bllamas%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D 20. MAF (2009). Unwanted Organisms Register. Available at: http://mafuwsp6.maf.govt.nz/uor/searchframe.htm, downloaded 9/9/2009. Mullen GR, Durden LA (2009). Fleas (Siphonoptera). In: Medical and Veterinary Entomology. Second edition, Pp. 115-35, Elsevier, Amsterdam. Taylor MA, Coop RL, Wall RL (2007a). Microthoracius mazzai. In: Veterinary Parasitology, 3rd edition, Pp. 588-9, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Taylor MA, Coop RL, Wall RL (2007b). Psoroptes ovis. In: Veterinary Parasitology, 3rd edition. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Pp. 232-5. Wernery U, Kaaden O-R (2002a). Infectious Diseases in Camelids. Second edition. Blackwell Science, Berlin-Vienna. Wernery U, Kaaden O-R (2002b). Infestation with Siphonapterida (Fleas). In: Infectious Diseases in Camelids. Second edition, Blackwell Science, Berlin-Vienna. Pp. 333. Zedev B (1976). Biology, occurrence and distribution of Vermipsylla spp, (Siphonaptera, Vermipsyllidae) in farm and wild animals in the Mongolian Peoples Republic. Monatshefte fur Veterinarmedizin, 31(20), 788-91.* MAF Biosecurity New Zealand Import risk analysis: Llamas and alpacas from specified countries ● 135
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 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: References References marked * were
Page 109 and 110: without any measures for detecting
Page 111 and 112: References References marked * were
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: 35.2. RISK ASSESSMENT 35.2.1. Entry
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?