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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ii. were kept since birth or for the 6 months prior to shipment in a rabies free country. N.B. This is equivalent to the Code recommendations made in Article 8.10.3. 2. Animals from countries in which rabies occurs could be imported provided that they: i. showed no clinical sign of rabies on the day of shipment; and ii. were kept for the 6 months prior to shipment in an establishment where separation from wild and feral animals was maintained and where no case of rabies was reported for at least 12 months prior to shipment. N.B. This is equivalent to Code Article 8.10.6. 3. In addition to measures equivalent to Code Article 8.10.6. as in option 2 above, the animals could be vaccinated with an inactivated rabies vaccine at least 6 months prior to shipment. References CDC (1990). Rabies in a llama - Oklahoma. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 39(12), 203-4. Fooks AR, Brookes SM, Johnson N, McElhinney LM, Hutson AM (2003). European bat lyssaviruses: an emerging zoonosis. Epidemiology and Infection, 131(3), 1029-39. Fowler ME (1992). Infectious diseases. In: Medicine and Surgery of South American Camelids. Second edition. Blackwell Publishing, USA, Pp. 102-32. Hubschle OJ (1988). Rabies in kudu antelope. Reviews of Infectious Diseases, 19 (Supplement 4), S629-33. MAF (2009). Unwanted Organisms Register. http://mafuwsp6.maf.govt.nz/uor/searchframe.htm, downloaded 11/1/2009. Radostits O, Gay CC, Hinchcliff KW, Constable PD (2007). Rabies. In: Veterinary Medicine. A Textbook of the Diseases of Cattle, Horses, Sheep, Pigs, and Goats. Saunders Elsevier, Edinburgh, Pp. 1384-94. Swanepoel R (2004). Rabies. In: Coetzer JAW, Tustin RC (eds), Infectious Diseases of Livestock, Vol. 2, Oxford University Press, Cape Town, Pp. 1123-82. Thompson GK (1999). Veterinary surgeon's guide to Australian bat lyssavirus. Australian Veterinary Journal, 77(11), 710-2. Tordo N, Benmansour A, Calisher C, Dietzgen RG, Fang R-X, Jackson AO, Kurath G, Nadin-Davis S, Tesh RB, Walker PJ (2005). Genus Lyssavirus. In: Fauquet CM, Mayo MA, Maniloff J, Desselberger U, Ball LA (eds), Eighth Report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam, Pp. 630-3. Wernery U, Kaaden O-R (2002). Rabies. In: Infectious Diseases in Camelids. Second edition, Blackwell Science, Berlin-Vienna, Pp. 168-74. 56 ● Import risk analysis: Llamas and alpacas from specified countries MAF Biosecurity New Zealand
17. Vesicular stomatitis virus 17.1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION 17.1.1. Aetiological agent Family: Rhabdoviridae; Genus: Vesiculovirus; Species: Vesicular stomatitis virus (Tordo et al 2005). There are two main types; Indiana and New Jersey. Indiana has three sub-types and New Jersey contains only a single sub-type. 17.1.2. OIE list Listed as a disease of multiple species. 17.1.3. New Zealand status An exotic, notifiable disease. 17.1.4. Epidemiology The disease occurs in horses, cattle and pigs and, more rarely, in sheep and goats (Swenson 2008; CFSPH 2009). Naturally occurring infections in South American camelids are rare (APHIS 2007; Bridges et al 1995; Schmidtmann et al 1999). Gomez (1964) infected camelids by injection into the dorsum of the tongue (Fowler 1992). In addition to being a virus of vertebrates, the virus has also been shown to multiply in insects such as blackflies (Simulium spp.), sandflies (Lutzomyia spp.), mosquitoes (Aedes aegypti) and leafhoppers (Peregrinus maidis) (Mare & Mead 2004). Vesicular stomatitis (VS) is important mainly because it is clinically indistinguishable from foot and mouth disease (Sellers & Daggupaty 1990; Rodriguez 2002; Mare & Mead 2004). Therefore, initial diagnosis of the disease before laboratory confirmation of the viral aetiology may trigger the massive initial response usually reserved for foot and mouth disease. Alternatively, if an outbreak of foot and mouth disease is incorrectly assumed to be VS, as occurred in Saskatchewan in 1951, the response to the foot and mouth disease outbreak can be delayed (Sellers & Daggupaty 1990). The disease is endemic in Central and South America and thousands of outbreaks occur each year from southern Mexico to northern South America (Rodriguez 2002). In the USA the disease occurs sporadically in some southern states but is endemic in at least one location in Georgia (Stallknecht 2000). During 2009, 5 outbreaks occurred affecting horses resident in New Mexico and Texas (OIE 2009). In some seasons the disease spreads northward along riverbeds into northern locations in the USA (Schmidtmann et al 1999) and even as far as Canada (Wilks 1994). Despite the large numbers of livestock exported from North America, the disease has only been reported outside the Americas on one occasion and this was in a large consignment of horses exported from North America to France during the First World War. The disease failed to establish in Europe (Mare & Mead 2004). The most commonly held view is that the virus is transmitted by an insect vector. Virus has been isolated from the sand fly Lutzomyia shannoni, which is the most likely vector (Braverman 1994; Comer et al 1994; Rodriguez et al 1996; Schmidtmann et al 1999; MAF Biosecurity New Zealand Import risk analysis: Llamas and alpacas from specified countries ● 57
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: � Rabies is a serious zoonotic di
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 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?