Blog Sanidade Animal atinge 80 mil acessos!!!!!

Visite o Blog Sanidade Animal em http://www.sanidaderural.blogspot.com/

Neste Blog fazemos: 1- Atualização sobre a ocorrência de doenças de importância em Veterinária e em Saúde Pública em todo o mundo. 2- Troca de informações sobre: Doenças Infecciosas, Zoonoses, Saneamento Ambiental, Defesa Sanitária Animal (Legislação e Programas Sanitários do Ministério da Agricultura) e demais assuntos relacionados à sanidade e Saúde Pública. Este blog se destina a discutir a saúde animal dentro dos seus mais variados aspectos.

Opine, critique ou elogie!!!!

Sua Opinião é muito importante!!!!!

Saudações

Prof. Clayton Gitti

Prof. Doenças Infecciosas
Departamento de Epidemiologia e Saúde Pública
Instituto de Veterinária
Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro
Km 07 da BR 465, Seropédica/RJ CEP 23890-000
www.ufrrj.br

Demorou, mas Influenza Aviária chegou à Austrália

Campinas, 30 de Janeiro de 2012 - Desde que, há pouco mais de 9 anos, começaram a ser registrados os primeiros casos do atual surto de Influenza Aviária do tipo H5N1, a Austrália, país próximo dos grandes focos da doença no sudeste asiático, conseguiu permanecer livre do vírus.
Naturalmente, o grande determinante da manutenção desse status sanitário foi a prevenção, levada às últimas consequências pelas autoridades de saúde animal e pela avicultura australiana. Mas não se pode descartar também o fator sorte, pois a Austrália está a menos de 5 mil quilômetros de distância da Indonésia, provavelmente o país mais afetado e com o maior número de casos humanos da H5N1. E, como se sabe, os vírus e suas principais portadoras, as aves migratórias, não respeitam fronteiras.
Não respeitaram, mesmo, como se deduz de notificação transmitida no final da semana passada pelo órgão responsável do Ministério da Agricultura da Austrália à Organização Mundial de Saúde Animal (OIE). De acordo com a notificação, pela primeira vez na história do país, foi detectado um foco de Influenza Aviária do tipo H5 em território australiano.
O problema atingiu uma granja de engorda de patos localizada na área de Melbourne, capital do estado de Vitoria, sudeste continental do país. Envolve plantel em torno de 25 mil aves, todas imediatamente sacrificadas. A tipificação do vírus causador responsável pelo foco ainda não foi totalmente concluída, mas já se descartou a hipótese de vir a ser um H5N1. Daí o foco ter sido caracterizado como de baixa patogenicidade.
Detalhe: esta é uma das raras vezes em que um vírus do tipo H5 da Influenza Aviária é detectado bem abaixo da linha do Equador. A Austrália, é oportuno recordar, está localizada no Hemisfério Sul e é cortada pelo Trópico de Capricórnio, o mesmo que, no Brasil, pelos estados de São Paulo, Paraná e Mato Grosso do Sul.
Vem daí uma indagação: como andam nossos programas de prevenção?
(AviSite) (Redação)

http://www.avisite.com.br/noticias/default.asp?codnoticia=12875

Exportação de produtos de origem animal exóticos

O Brasil faturou mais de US$ 400 milhões em 2011 com a exportação de produtos de origem animal que geralmente são descartados por aqui. É o caso dos miúdos de bovinos, suínos e aves. O faturamento deve crescer, pois os frigoríficos brasileiros que ainda não exportam, já estão de olho no mercado internacional. 24/01/12 - TV NBR - 2:12

http://www.agrosoft.org.br/agropag/220575.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+agrosoft+%28Jornal+Agrosoft%29

Novo Zoneamento de Pastagens

O sistema de consulta de zoneamento agroclimático de pastagens é uma maneira de facilitar a visualização, entender a situação em que se encontra a propriedade e quais os melhores períodos para o plantio. Com esse instrumento o interessado recorre aos mapas onde são apontadas as áreas favoráveis para plantio. Pecuaristas e técnicos de extensão rural podem saber quais as regiões aptas e, nessas áreas, quais as melhores épocas para o plantio de capins. Nos estados de São Paulo e Minas Gerais, essa tecnologia já vem sendo aplicada para o plantio da braquiária Marandu consorciada com milho e sorgo. 24/01/12 - Dia de Campo na TV - 10:49

http://www.agrosoft.org.br/agropag/220580.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+agrosoft+%28Jornal+Agrosoft%29

Ministério da Agricultura abate gado levado do Paraguai para o MS

26/01
Animais eram transportados clandestinamente. Comércio de gado entre Brasil e Paraguai está proibido.

Do Globo Rural

Os técnicos do Ministério da Agricultura acompanharam o abate dos animais na terça-feira (24) no frigorífico em Ponta Porã, em Mato Grosso do Sul. O comércio de animais entre os dois países está proibido desde que o governo paraguaio identificou focos de febre aftosa, no início do mês.

Segundo os fiscais sanitários, o gado não apresentou sinais de contaminação da doença. Os animais foram apreendidos pelo DOF, Departamento de Operações de Fronteira, na manhã de segunda-feira (23), quando eram transportados clandestinamente do departamento de Amambay, no Paraguai, para a cidade de Coronel Sapucaia, em Mato Grosso do Sul.

Em depoimento à polícia, o motorista contou que levaria os animais contrabandeados para uma propriedade rural no município de Coronel Sapucaia. A polícia já sabe que quem comprou o gado foi um fazendeiro que não teve a identidade revelada. Ainda esta semana ele deve ser chamado para prestar esclarecimentos na delegacia.

Desde o início do ano, quando as autoridades paraguaias confirmaram o foco de febre aftosa no departamento de San Pedro, as polícias e as Forças Armadas brasileiras reforçam a fiscalização da vigilância sanitária animal em toda a faixa de fronteira. Nessas três semanas, foram feitos dois flagrantes de transporte clandestino de gado entre o Paraguai e o Brasil.

O motorista do caminhão, que é brasileiro, responderá pelo crime de contrabando e também será multado pela Agência de Defesa Animal de Mato Grosso do Sul.

Postado por http://inovadefesa.ning.com/group/defesasanitriaanimal?commentId=2874953%3AComment%3A246621&xg_source=msg_com_group

Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control, 2011

Fonte: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6006a1.htm

National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians, Inc. (NASPHV)

Recommendations and Reports - November 4, 2011 / 60(RR06);1-14

Corresponding preparer: Catherine M. Brown, DVM, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Hinton State Laboratory Institute, 305 South St., Jamaica Plain, MA 02130. Telephone: 617-983-6800; Fax: 617-983-6840; E-mail: Catherine.Brown@state.ma.us.

Summary
Rabies has one of the highest case-fatality ratios of any infectious disease. This report provides recommendations for public health officials, veterinarians, animal control officials, and other parties engaged in rabies prevention and control activities and should serve as the basis for standardizing procedures among jurisdictions. The recommendations regarding domestic animal vaccination, management of animals exposed to rabies, and management of animals that bite humans are the core elements of animal rabies control and human rabies prevention. These updated 2011 guidelines include the national case definition for animal rabies and clarify the role of the CDC rabies laboratory in providing confirmatory testing of suspect animals. The table of rabies vaccines licensed and marketed in the United States has been updated, and additional references have been included to provide scientific support for information in this report.

Introduction
Rabies is a fatal viral zoonosis and a serious public health problem (1). All mammals (referred to as animals in this report) are believed to be susceptible to the disease. Rabies is an acute, progressive encephalitis caused by a lyssavirus. Worldwide, rabies virus is the most important lyssavirus. In the United States, multiple rabies virus variants are maintained in wild mammalian reservoir populations such as raccoons, skunks, foxes, and bats. Although the United States has been declared free of canine rabies virus variant transmission, reintroduction of this variant is always a risk (2--6).

Rabies virus usually is transmitted from animal to animal through bites. The incubation period is highly variable. In domestic animals, the incubation period is generally 3--12 weeks but can range from several days to months, rarely exceeding 6 months (7). Rabies is communicable during the period of salivary shedding of rabies virus. Experimental and historic evidence indicates that dogs, cats, and ferrets shed virus a few days before clinical onset and during illness. Clinical signs of rabies and include inappetance, dysphagia, cranial nerve deficits, abnormal behavior, ataxia, paralysis, altered vocalization, and seizures. Progression to death is rapid. There are currently no known effective rabies antiviral drugs.

The recommendations in this compendium serve as a basis for animal rabies prevention and control programs throughout the United States and facilitate standardization of procedures among jurisdictions, thereby contributing to an effective national rabies control program.* The most current version replaces all previous versions. These recommendations do not supersede state and local laws or requirements. Principles of rabies prevention and control are detailed in Part I; recommendations for parenteral vaccination procedures are presented in Part II; and all animal rabies vaccines licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and marketed in the United States are listed and described in Part III.

Methods
NASPHV periodically updates the recommendations to prevent and control animal rabies. The revision includes reviewing recent literature, updating licensed vaccine product information as provided by the manufacturers, and soliciting input from NASPHV members and stakeholder groups. During July 15--16, 2010, NASPHV members and external expert consultants met in Atlanta, Georgia. A committee consensus was required to add or modify existing language or recommendations. After the meeting, the updated draft was circulated via e-mail for final review by all voting committee members.

The 2011 guidelines include several updates. First, the national case definition for animal rabies was added to clarify how rabies cases are defined for public health surveillance purposes. Second, the diagnostics section was expanded to 1) clarify that the CDC rabies laboratory is available for confirmatory testing and on an emergency basis to expedite exposure management decisions, 2) include information on testing methodology appropriate for field testing of surveillance specimens, and 3) clarify that no reliable antemortem rabies tests are available for use in animals. Third, the research section was expanded to include additional topics that warrant further study. Finally, the table of rabies vaccines licensed and marketed in the United States was updated, and additional references were included to provide scientific support for information provided in the recommendations.


Part I. Rabies Prevention and Control

A. Principles of Rabies Prevention and Control

Case Definition. An animal is determined to be rabid after diagnosis by a qualified laboratory as specified in Part I.A.9. The national case definition for animal rabies requires laboratory confirmation by either
-a positive direct fluorescent antibody (DFA) test (preferably performed on central nervous system tissue); or
-isolation of rabies virus (in cell culture or in a laboratory animal) (8).

Rabies Virus Exposure. Rabies virus is transmitted when the virus is introduced into bite wounds, into open cuts in skin, or onto mucous membranes from saliva or other potentially infectious material such as neural tissue (9 ). Questions regarding possible exposures should be directed promptly to state or local public health authorities.

Public Health Education. Essential components of rabies prevention and control include ongoing public education, responsible pet ownership, routine veterinary care and vaccination, and professional continuing education. The majority of animal and human exposures to rabies virus can be prevented by raising awareness concerning rabies virus transmission routes, avoiding contact with wildlife, and following appropriate veterinary care. Prompt recognition of possible exposure and prompt reporting to medical professionals and local public health authorities is critical.

Human Rabies Prevention. Rabies in humans can be prevented either by eliminating exposures to rabid animals or by providing persons who have been exposed with prompt local treatment of wounds combined with the appropriate administration of human rabies immune globulin and vaccine. Exposure assessment should occur before rabies postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) is initiated and should include discussions between medical providers and public health officials. The rationale for recommending preexposure prophylaxis and details of both preexposure and postexposureprophylaxis administration are available in the current recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) (9 ,10). These recommendations, in addition to information concerning the current local and regional epidemiology of animal rabies and the availability of human rabies biologics, are available from state health departments.

Domestic Animal Vaccination. Multiple vaccines are licensed for use in domestic animal species. Vaccines available include inactivated or modified live-virus vectored products, products for intramuscular and subcutaneous administration, products with durations of immunity from 1 to 4 years, and products with varying minimum age of vaccination. The recommended vaccination procedures and the licensed animal vaccines are specified in Parts II and III of this compendium, respectively. Local governments should initiate and maintain effective programs to ensure vaccination of all dogs, cats, and ferrets and to remove stray and unwanted animals. Such procedures in the United States have reduced laboratory-confirmed cases of rabies in dogs from 6,949 in 1947 to 93 in 2009 and are responsible for the elimination of the canine rabies virus variant (2). Because more rabies cases involving cats are reported annually (274 in 2009) than dogs, vaccination of cats should be required (2). Animal shelters and animal control authorities should establish policies to ensure that adopted animals are vaccinated against rabies.

Rabies in Vaccinated Animals. Rabies is rare in vaccinated animals (11--13). If suspected, the case should be reported to public health officials, the vaccine manufacturer, and the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Center for Veterinary Biologics (website: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/vet_biologics/vb_adverse_event.shtml; telephone: 800-752-6255). The laboratory diagnosis should be confirmed and the virus variant characterized by the CDC rabies reference laboratory. A thorough epidemiologic investigation should be conducted, including documentation of the animal's vaccination history and a description of potential rabies exposures.

Rabies in Wildlife. Controlling rabies in wildlife reservoirs is difficult (14). Vaccination of free-ranging wildlife or selective population reduction is useful in some situations (15); however, the success of these procedures depends on the circumstances surrounding each rabies outbreak (see Part I. C.). Because of the risk for rabies in wild animals (especially raccoons, skunks, coyotes, foxes, and bats), the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, the National Animal Control Association, and the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians (NASPHV) strongly recommend the enactment and enforcement of state laws prohibiting the importation, distribution, translocation, and private ownership of these animals.
Rabies Surveillance.nhanced laboratory-based rabies surveillance and variant typing are essential components of rabies prevention and control programs. Accurate and timely information and reporting is necessary to guide human PEP decisions, determine the management of potentially exposed animals, aid in discovery of emerging pathogens, describe the epidemiology of the disease, and assess the need for and effectiveness of vaccination programs for domestic animals and wildlife. Every animal submitted for rabies testing should be reported to CDC to evaluate surveillance trends. Electronic laboratory reporting and notification of animal rabies surveillance data should be implemented (16). Optimal information on animals submitted for rabies testing should include species, point location, vaccination history, rabies virus variant (if rabid), and human or domestic animal exposures. A case of rabies in an animal with a history of importation into the United States within 60 days is immediately notifiable by state health departments to CDC; reporting of indigenous cases should follow standard notification protocols (17). Integration with standard public health reporting and notification systems should facilitate the transmission of the data discussed in this paragraph.

Rabies Diagnosis

-DFA. The DFA test is the gold standard for rabies diagnosis. The test should be performed in accordance with the established national standardized protocol (available at http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/pdf/RabiesDFASPv2.pdf ) by a qualified laboratory that has been designated by the local or state health department (18,19). Animals submitted for rabies testing should be euthanized (20,21) in a way that maintains the integrity of the brain and allows the laboratory to recognize the anatomical parts. Except for very small animals, such as bats, only the head or brain (including the brain stem) should be submitted to the laboratory. To facilitate prompt laboratory testing, submitted specimens should be stored and shipped under refrigeration (rather than frozen) without delay. Thawing frozen specimens will delay testing. Chemical fixation of tissues should be avoided because it can cause substantial testing delays and might preclude reliable testing. Questions about testing fixed tissues should be directed to the local rabies laboratory or public health department.

-Emergency Rabies Testing. Emergency rabies testing should be available to expedite exposure management decisions (18). When state health departments need confirmatory testing (e.g., for inconclusive results, unusual species, or mass exposures), the CDC rabies laboratory can provide results within 24 hours of submission (22).

-Direct Rapid Immunohistochemical Test (DRIT). DRITs are being used by trained field personnel in surveillance programs for specimens not involved in human or domestic animal exposures (23--26). All positive DRIT results need to be confirmed by DFA testing at a qualified laboratory.

-Unlicensed Test Kits. No USDA-licensed rapid test kits are commercially available for rabies diagnosis. Unlicensed tests should not be used for several reasons: the sensitivity and specificity are not known; the tests have not been validated against current standard methods; the excretion of virus in the saliva is intermittent and the amount varies over time; any test result would need to be confirmed by more reliable methods such as DFA testing on brain tissue; and the interpretation of results might place exposed animals and persons at risk.

Rabies Serology. Certain jurisdictions require evidence of vaccination and rabies virus antibodies for animal importation. Rabies virus antibody titers are indicative of a response to vaccine or infection. Titers do not directly correlate with protection because other immunologic factors also play a role in preventing rabies, and the ability to measure and interpret those other factors is not well-developed. Therefore, evidence of circulating rabies virus antibodies in animals should not be used as a substitute for current vaccination in managing rabies exposures or determining the need for booster vaccinations (27--30).

Rabies Research. Information derived from well-designed studies is essential for the development of science-based recommendations. Data are needed in several areas, including viral shedding periods for domestic livestock and lagomorphs, potential shedding of virus in milk, earliest age at which rabies vaccination is effective and the protective effects of maternal antibodies, duration of immunity, PEP protocols for domestic animals, models for treatment of clinical rabies, extra label vaccine use in domestic animals and wildlife rabies reservoirs, host-pathogen adaptations and dynamics, and the ecology of wildlife rabies reservoir species, especially in relation to the use of oral rabies vaccines.

B. Prevention and Control Methods in Domestic and Confined Animals

Preexposure Vaccination and Management. Parenteral animal rabies vaccines should be administered only by or under the direct supervision of a licensed veterinarian on the premises. Rabies vaccinations may also be administered under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian to animals being held in animal control shelters before release. The veterinarian who signs the rabies vaccination certificate must ensure that the person administering vaccine is identified on the certificate and is appropriately trained in vaccine storage, handling, administration, and in the management of adverse events. This practice ensures that a qualified and responsible person is held accountable for properly vaccinating the animal. Within 28 days after initial vaccination, a peak rabies virus antibody titer is reached, and the animal can be considered immunized (29,31--33). An animal is currently vaccinated and is considered immunized if the initial vaccination was administered at least 28 days previously or booster vaccinations have been administered in accordance with this compendium.

Regardless of the age of the animal at initial vaccination, a booster vaccination should be administered 1 year later (see Parts II and III for vaccines and procedures). No laboratory or epidemiologic data exist to support the annual or biennial administration of 3- or 4-year vaccines after the initial series. Because a rapid anamnestic response is expected, an animal is considered currently vaccinated immediately after a booster vaccination (34).

-Dogs, Cats, and Ferrets. All dogs, cats, and ferrets should be vaccinated against rabies and revaccinated in accordance with Part III of this compendium. If a previously vaccinated animal is overdue for a booster, the animal should be revaccinated. Immediately after the booster, the animal is considered currently vaccinated and should be placed on a booster schedule, depending on the labeled duration of the vaccine used.

-Livestock. All horses should be vaccinated against rabies (35). Livestock, including species for which licensed vaccines are not available, that have frequent contact with humans (e.g., in petting zoos, fairs, and other public exhibitions) should be vaccinated against rabies (36 ,37). Consideration also should be given to vaccinating particularly valuable livestock.

-Captive Wild Animals and Hybrids
Wild animals or hybrids (the offspring of wild animals crossbred to domestic animals) should not be kept as pets (38--40). No parenteral rabies vaccines are licensed for use in wild animals or hybrids (41).

Animals that live in exhibits and in zoological parks and are not completely excluded from all contact with rabies vectors can become infected. Moreover, wild animals might be incubating rabies when initially captured. Therefore, wild-caught animals susceptible to rabies should be quarantined for a minimum of 6 months. Employees who work with animals at such facilities should receive preexposure rabies vaccine. The use of preexposure or postexposure rabies vaccinations for handlers who work with animals at such facilities might reduce the need for euthanasia of captive animals that expose handlers. Carnivores and bats should be housed in a manner that precludes direct contact with the public (36 ,37).

-Stray Animals. Stray dogs, cats, and ferrets should be removed from the community. Local health departments and animal control officials can enforce the removal of strays more effectively if owned animals are required to have identification and are confined or kept on leash. Stray animals should be impounded for at least 3 business days to determine whether human exposure has occurred and to give owners sufficient time to reclaim animals.

Importation and Interstate Movement of Animals

International. CDC regulates the importation of dogs and cats into the United States (5). Importers of dogs must comply with rabies vaccination requirements (42 CFR, Part 71.51[c] [http://www.cdc.gov/animalimportation/dogs.html]) and complete CDC form 75.37 (http://www.cdc.gov/animalimportation/pdf/dog-import.pdf ). These regulations require dogs imported from rabies-endemic countries to be vaccinated for rabies and confined for varying periods depending on age and prior vaccination status. The appropriate health official of the state of destination should be notified within 72 hours of the arrival of any imported dog required to be placed in confinement under these regulations. Failure of the owner to comply with these confinement requirements should be reported promptly to the CDC Division of Global Migration and Quarantine (telephone: 404-639-4528 or 404-639-4537). For emergencies or after-hours calls, contact the CDC Emergency Operations Center (telephone: 770-488-7100).

Federal regulations alone will not prevent the introduction of rabid animals into the United States (3,4,42,43). All imported dogs and cats are subject to state and local laws governing rabies and should be currently vaccinated against rabies in accordance with this compendium. Failure of an owner to comply with state or local requirements should be referred to the appropriate state or local official.

Areas with Dog-to-Dog Rabies Transmission. Canine rabies virus variants have been eliminated in the United States (2,6). Rabid dogs have been introduced into the continental United States from areas with dog-to-dog rabies transmission (3,4,42,43,). The movement of dogs for the purposes of adoption or sale from areas with dog-to-dog rabies transmission increases the risk for introducing canine-transmitted rabies to areas where the disease does not exist and should be prohibited.

Interstate. Before interstate (including commonwealths and territories) movement, dogs, cats, ferrets, and horses should be currently vaccinated against rabies in accordance with the recommendations in this compendium (see Part I.B.1.). Animals in transit should be accompanied by a currently valid NASPHV Form 51 (Rabies Vaccination Certificate) (http://www.nasphv.org/Documents/RabiesVacCert.pdf ). When an interstate health certificate or certificate of veterinary inspection is required, the inspection should contain the same rabies vaccination information as Form 51.

Adjunct Procedures. Methods or procedures that enhance rabies control include the following (http://www.rabiesblueprint.com/spip.php?article119):
Identification. Dogs, cats, and ferrets should be identified (e.g., metal or plastic tags or microchips) to allow for verification of rabies vaccination status.
Licensure. Registration or licensure of all dogs, cats, and ferrets is an integral component of an effective rabies control program. A fee frequently is charged for such licensure, and revenues collected are used to maintain rabies or animal control activities. Evidence of current vaccination should be an essential prerequisite to licensure.
Canvassing. House-to-house canvassing by animal control officials facilitates enforcement of vaccination and licensure requirements.
Citations. Citations are legal summonses issued to owners for violations, including the failure to vaccinate or license their animals. The authority for officers to issue citations should be an integral part of each animal control program.
Animal Control. All local jurisdictions should incorporate stray animal control, leash laws, animal-bite prevention, and training of personnel in their programs.
Public Education. All local jurisdictions should incorporate education covering responsible pet ownership, bite prevention, and appropriate veterinary care in their programs.

Postexposure Management. This section refers to any animal exposed (see Part I.A.2.) to a confirmed or suspected rabid animal. Wild mammalian carnivores or bats that are not available or suitable for testing should be considered rabid.

Dogs, Cats, and Ferrets. Any illness in an animal that has been exposed to rabies should be reported immediately to the local health department. If signs suggestive of rabies develop (e.g., paralysis or seizures), the animal should be euthanized and the head shipped for testing as described in Part I.A.9.
-Dogs, cats, and ferrets that have never been vaccinated and are exposed to a rabid animal should be euthanized immediately. If the owner is unwilling to euthanize, the animal should be placed in strict isolation for 6 months. Isolation in this context refers to confinement in an enclosure that precludes direct contact with people and other animals. Rabies vaccine should be administered after entry into isolation or up to 28 days before release to comply with preexposure vaccination recommendations (see Part I.B.1.a.). No USDA-licensed biologics for postexposure prophylaxis of previously unvaccinated domestic animals exist, and evidence indicates that the use of vaccine alone does not reliably prevent the disease in these animals(44).
-Animals overdue for a booster vaccination should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on severity of exposure, time elapsed since last vaccination, number of previous vaccinations, current health status, and local rabies epidemiologic factors to determine need for euthanasia or immediate revaccination and observation with isolation.
-Dogs, cats, and ferrets that are currently vaccinated should be revaccinated immediately, kept under the owner's control, and observed for 45 days. The rationale for an observation period is based in part on the potential for overwhelming viral challenge, incomplete vaccine efficacy, improper vaccine administration, variable host immunocompetence, and immune-mediated fatality (i.e., early death phenomenon) (12,45--47).
Livestock. All species of livestock are susceptible to rabies; cattle and horses are the most frequently reported infected species (2). Any illness in an animal exposed to rabies should be reported immediately to the local health and agriculture officials. If signs suggestive of rabies develop, the animal should be euthanized and the head shipped for testing as described in Part I.A.9.
-Unvaccinated livestock should be euthanized immediately. For animals that are not euthanized, on a case-by-case basis, they should be observed and confined for 6 months.
-Livestock exposed to a rabid animal and currently vaccinated with a vaccine approved by USDA for that species should be revaccinated immediately and observed for 45 days.
-Multiple rabid animals in a herd or herbivore-to-herbivore transmission are uncommon (48); therefore, restricting the rest of the herd if a single animal has been exposed to or infected by rabies is usually not necessary.
-Handling and consumption of tissues from animals exposed to rabies might carry a risk for rabies virus transmission. Risk factors depend in part on the sites of exposure, the amount of virus present, the severity of the wounds, and whether sufficient contaminated tissue has been excised. If an exposed animal is to be custom- or home-slaughtered for consumption, the slaughter should occur immediately after the exposure, and all tissues should be cooked thoroughly. Persons handling animals, carcasses, and tissues that have been exposed should use barrier precautions (49,50). Historically, federal guidelines for meat inspectors required that any animal known to have been exposed to rabies within 8 months be rejected for slaughter (51). The USDA Food and Inspection Service (FSIS) and state meat inspectors should be notified when such exposures occur in food animals before slaughter.

Rabies virus is widely distributed in tissues of rabid animals (52--54). Tissues and products from a rabid animal should not be used for human or animal consumption (55,56) or transplantation (57). Pasteurization and cooking inactivate rabies virus (58); therefore, inadvertently drinking pasteurized milk or eating thoroughly cooked animal products does not constitute a rabies exposure.

Other Animals. Other mammals exposed to a rabid animal should be euthanized immediately. Animals maintained in USDA-licensed research facilities or accredited zoological parks should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in consultation with public health authorities. Options might include isolation, observation, or administration of rabies biologics (i.e., immune globulin or vaccine or both).

Management of Animals that Bite Humans

Dogs, Cats, and Ferrets. Rabies virus is excreted in the saliva of infected dogs, cats, and ferrets during illness and/or for only a few days before illness or death (59--61). Regardless of rabies vaccination status, a healthy dog, cat, or ferret that potentially exposes a person through a bite should be confined and observed daily for 10 days from the time of the exposure (62); administration of rabies vaccine to the animal is not recommended during the observation period to prevent confusion between signs of rabies and rare adverse reactions (13). Any illness in the animal should be reported immediately to the local health department. Animals should be evaluated by a veterinarian at the first sign of illness during confinement. If signs suggestive of rabies develop, the animal should be euthanized and the head submitted for testing as described in Part I.A.9. Any stray or unwanted dog, cat, or ferret that potentially exposes a person to rabies may be euthanized immediately and the head submitted for rabies examination.

Other Animals. Other animals that might have exposed a person to rabies should be reported immediately to the local health department. Management of animals other than dogs, cats, and ferrets depends on the species, the circumstances of the exposure, the epidemiology of rabies in the area, and the animals' history, current health status, and the potential for exposure to rabies. The shedding period for rabies virus is undetermined for most species. Previous vaccination of these animals might not preclude the necessity for euthanasia and testing.

Outbreak Prevention and Control. The emergence of new rabies virus variants or the introduction of nonindigenous viruses poses a significant risk to humans, domestic animals, and wildlife (63--70). A rapid and comprehensive response includes the following measures (71):
Characterize Virus. Characterize the virus at the national reference laboratory.
Identify and Control Source. Identify and control the source of the virus introduction.
Enhance Surveillance. Enhance laboratory-based surveillance in wild and domestic animals.
Increase Vaccination. Increase animal rabies vaccination rates.
Restrict Animals. Restrict the movement of animals.
Evaluate Need to Reduce Vector Population. Evaluate the need for vector population reduction.
Coordinate Response. Coordinate a multiagency response.
Provide Outreach. Provide public and professional outreach and education.

Disaster Response. Animals might be displaced during and after man-made or natural disasters and need emergency sheltering (http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/petshelters.asp and http://www.avma.org/disaster/default.asp) (72). Animal rabies vaccination and exposure histories often are not available for displaced animals. Disaster response creates situations in which animal caretakers might lack appropriate training and preexposure vaccination. In such situations, implementing and coordinating rabies prevention and control measures is critical to reduce the risk for rabies transmission and the need for human PEP. Such measures include the following:
Coordinate Relief. Coordinate relief efforts of individuals and organizations with the local emergency operations center before deployment.
Examine Animals. Examine each animal at a triage site for possible bite injuries or signs of rabies.
Isolate Animals. Isolate animals exhibiting signs of rabies, pending evaluation by a veterinarian.
Check Animal Identifiers. Ensure that all animals have a unique identifier.
Vaccinate. Administer a rabies vaccination to all dogs, cats, and ferrets unless reliable proof of vaccination exists.
Adopt Caretaker Standards. Adopt minimum standards for animal caretakers as feasible, including personal protective equipment, preexposure rabies vaccination, and appropriate training in animal handling (73).
Maintain Documentation. Maintain documentation of animal disposition and location (e.g., returned to owner, died or euthanized, adopted, relocated to another shelter, and address of new location).
Provide Facilities for Animals that Have Been Exposed. Provide facilities to confine and observe animals involved in exposures (see Part I.B.6.).
Report Human Exposures. Report human exposures to rabies to appropriate public health authorities (see Part I.A.3.).

C. Prevention and Control Methods Related to Wildlife. The public should be warned not to handle or feed wild animals. Wild animals and hybrids that expose persons, pets, or livestock to rabies should be considered for euthanasia and rabies diagnosis. A person exposed by any wild animal should immediately report the incident to a health-care provider who, in consultation with public health authorities, can evaluate the need for PEP (9 ,10).

Translocation of infected wildlife has contributed to the spread of rabies (63--68,74); therefore, the translocation of known terrestrial rabies reservoir species should be prohibited. Whereas state-regulated wildlife rehabilitators and nuisance wildlife control operators might play a role in a comprehensive rabies control program, minimum standards for persons who handle wild animals should include rabies vaccination, appropriate training, and continuing education.

Carnivores. The use of oral rabies vaccines (ORV) for the mass vaccination of free-ranging wildlife should be considered in selected situations with the approval of the appropriate state agencies (14,75). Success has been documented using ORV to control rabies in wildlife in North America (75--78). The currently licensed vaccinia-vectored ORV is labeled for use in raccoons and coyotes. The distribution of ORV should be based on scientific assessments of the target species and followed by timely and appropriate analysis of surveillance data; such results should be provided to all stakeholders. In addition, parenteral vaccination (trap--vaccinate--release) of wildlife rabies reservoirs may be integrated into coordinated ORV programs to enhance their effectiveness. Continuous and persistent programs for trapping or poisoning wildlife do not reduce wildlife rabies reservoirs statewide. However, limited population control in high-contact areas (e.g., picnic grounds, camps, and suburban areas) might be indicated for the removal of selected species of wildlife at high risk for having rabies. State agriculture, public health, and wildlife agencies should be consulted for planning, coordination, and evaluation of vaccination or population reduction programs (14).

Bats. From the 1950s through 2011, indigenous rabid bats have been reported from every state except Hawaii and have caused rabies in at least 43 humans in the United States (79--92). Bats should be excluded appropriately from houses, public buildings, and adjacent structures to prevent direct association with humans (93,94). Such structures should then be made bat-proof by sealing entrances used by bats. Controlling rabies in bats through programs designed to reduce bat populations is neither feasible nor desirable.

Part II. Recommendations for Parenteral Rabies Vaccination Procedures

A. Vaccine Administration. All animal rabies vaccines should be restricted to use by or under the direct supervision of a veterinarian (95), except as recommended in Part I.B.1.

B. Vaccine Selection. Part III lists all vaccines licensed by USDA and marketed in the United States at the time of publication. New vaccine approvals or changes in label specifications made after publication of this report should be considered a part of this list. Any of the listed vaccines can be used for revaccination, even if the product is not the same as previously administered. Vaccines used in state and local rabies control programs should have at least a 3-year duration of immunity. This constitutes the most effective method of increasing the proportion of immunized dogs and cats in any population (96). No laboratory or epidemiologic data exist to support the annual or biennial administration of 3- or 4-year vaccines following the initial series.

C. Adverse Events. No epidemiologic association exists between a particular licensed vaccine product and specific adverse events (13,97--99); although rare, adverse events including vomiting, swelling at the injection site, lethargy, hypersensitivity, and rabies in a previously vaccinated animal have been reported. Adverse events should be reported to the vaccine manufacturer and to USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Center for Veterinary Biologics (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/vet_biologics/vb_adverse_event.shtml; telephone: 800-752-6255). No contraindication to rabies vaccination exists. Animals with a previous history of anaphylaxis can be medically managed and observed after vaccination (46).

D. Wildlife and Hybrid Animal Vaccination. The safety and efficacy of parenteral rabies vaccination of wildlife and hybrids have not been established, and no rabies vaccines are licensed for these animals. Zoos or research institutions may establish vaccination programs to attempt to protect valuable animals; however, these programs should not replace appropriate public health activities that protect humans (see Part I.B.1.c.2).

E. Accidental Human Exposure to Vaccine. Human exposure to parenteral animal rabies vaccines listed in Part III does not constitute a risk for rabies virus infection. Human exposure to vaccinia-vectored ORVs should be reported to state health officials (100,101).

F. Rabies Certificate. All agencies and veterinarians should use NASPHV Form 51 (revised 2007), Rabies Vaccination Certificate, or an equivalent. This form can be obtained from vaccine manufacturers, NASPHV (available at http://www.nasphv.org/Documents/RabiesVacCert.pdf ), or CDC (available at http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/pdf/nasphv_form51.pdf ). The form must be completed in full and signed by the administering or supervising veterinarian. Computer-generated forms containing the same information also are acceptable.


Part III: Rabies Vaccines Licensed and Marketed in the United States and Rabies Vaccine Manufacturer Contact Information

Adverse events after receipt of vaccine should be reported to the vaccine manufacturer (Tables 1 and 2) and to USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Center for Veterinary Biologics (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/vet_biologics/vb_adverse_event.shtml; telephone: 800-752-6255).

References
American Public Health Association. Rabies. In: Heymann D, ed. Control of communicable diseases manual. 19th ed. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2008:498--508.
Blanton JD, Palmer D, Christian KA, Rupprecht CE. Rabies surveillance in the United States during 2009. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2010;237:646--57.
Castrodale L, Walker V, Baldwin J, Hofmann J, Hanlon C. Rabies in a puppy imported from India to the USA, March 2007. Zoonoses Public Health 2008;55:427--30.
CDC. Rabies in a dog imported from Iraq---New Jersey, June 2008. MMWR 2008;57:1076--8.
McQuiston JH, Wilson T, Harris S, et al. Importation of dogs into the United States: risks from rabies and other zoonotic diseases. Zoonoses Public Health 2008;55:421--6.
Velasco-Villa A, Reeder SA, Orciari LA, et al. Enzootic rabies elimination from dogs and reemergence in wild terrestrial carnivores, United States. Emerg Infect Dis 2008;14:1849--54.
Beran GW. Rabies and infections by rabies-related viruses. In: Beran GW, ed. Handbook of zoonoses section B: Viral, 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1994:307--57.
Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. Public health reporting and national notification for animal rabies. Infectious disease positions statements, June 2009. Atlanta, GA: Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. Available at http://www.cste.org/ps2009/09-ID-12.pdf . Accessed September 1, 2011.
CDC. Human rabies prevention---United States, 2008. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR 2008;57(No. RR-3) .
CDC. Use of reduced (4-dose) vaccine schedule for postexposure prophylaxis to prevent human rabies. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR 2010;59(No. RR-2).
McQuiston J, Yager PA, Smith JS, Rupprecht CE. Epidemiologic characteristics of rabies virus variants in dogs and cats in the United States, 1999. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2001;218:1939--42.
Murray KO, Holmes KC, Hanlon CA. Rabies in vaccinated dogs and cats in the United States, 1997--2001. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2009;235:691--5.
Frana TS, Clough NE, Gatewood DM, Rupprecht CE. Postmarketing surveillance of rabies vaccines for dogs to evaluate safety and efficacy. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008;232:1000--2.
Hanlon CA, Childs JE, Nettles VF, et al. Recommendations of the Working Group on Rabies. Article III: rabies in wildlife. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1999;215:1612--8.
Slate D, Algeo TD, Nelson KM, et al. Oral rabies vaccination in North America: opportunities, complexities, and challenges. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2009;3:1--9
Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. Electronic laboratory reporting in the US: underfunded and under potential, or, recommendations for the implementation of ELR in the US. Policy Positions Statements. Atlanta, GA: Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists; 2009. Available at http://www.cste.org/ps2009/09-SI-03.pdf . Accessed September 1, 2011.
Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. Process statement for immediately nationally notifiable conditions. Policy Positions Statements, Atlanta, GA: Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists; 2009. Available at http://www.cste.org/ps2009/09-SI-04.pdf . Accessed September 1, 2011.
Hanlon CA, Smith JS, Anderson GR, et al. Recommendations of the Working Group on Rabies. Article II: laboratory diagnosis of rabies. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1999;215:1444--6.
Rudd RJ, Smith JS, Yager PA, et al. A need for standardized rabies-virus diagnostic procedures: effect of cover-glass mountant on the reliability of antigen detection by the fluorescent antibody test. Virus Res 2005;111:83--8.
American Veterinary Medical Association. AVMA guidelines on euthanasia. Schaumburg, IL: American Veterinary Medical Association; 2007. Available at http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2011.
Michigan Rabies Working Group. Humane euthanasia of bats for public health rabies testing. Lansing, MI: Michigan Rabies Working Group; 2008. Available at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/emergingdiseases/Humane_Euthanasia_of_Bats-Final_244979_7.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2011.
CDC. Public health response to a potentially rabid bear cub---Iowa, 1999. MMWR 1999;48:971--3.
Niezgoda M, Rupprecht CE. Standard operating procedure for the direct rapid immunohistochemistry test for the detection of rabies virus antigen. National Laboratory Training Network Course. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2006:1--16. Available at http://www.rabiesblueprint.com/IMG/pdf/DRIT_SOP.pdf . Accessed September 1, 2011.
Lembo T, Niezgoda M, Velasco-Villa A, Cleaveland S, Ernest E, Rupprecht CE. Evaluation of a direct, rapid immunohistochemical test for rabies diagnosis. Emerg Infect Dis 2006;12:310--3.
Dürr S, Naïssengar S, Mindekem R, et al. Rabies diagnosis for developing countries. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2008;26:e206.
Saturday GA, King R, Fuhrmann L. Validation and operational application of a rapid method for rabies antigen detection. US Army Med Dep J 2009;Jan--Mar:42--5.
Tizard I, Ni Y. Use of serologic testing to assess immune status of companion animals. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1998;213:54--60.
Greene CE, ed. Rabies and other lyssavirus infections. In: Infectious diseases of the dog and cat. 3rd ed. London, England: Saunders Elsevier; 2006:167--83.
Rupprecht CE, Gilbert J, Pitts R, Marshall K, Koprowski H. Evaluation of an inactivated rabies virus vaccine in domestic ferrets. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1990;196:1614--6.
Moore SM, Hanlon CA. Rabies-specific antibodies: measuring surrogates of protection against a fatal disease. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2010;4:e595.
Aubert MF. Practical significance of rabies antibodies in cats and dogs. Rev Sci Tech 1992;11:735--60.
Muirhead TL, McClure JT, Wichtel JJ, et al. The effect of age on serum antibody titers after rabies and influenza vaccination in healthy horses. J Vet Intern Med 2008;22:654--61.
Shimazaki Y, Inoue S, Takahashi C, et al. Immune response to Japanese rabies vaccine in domestic dogs. J Vet Med B 2003;50:95--8.
Cliquet F, Verdier Y, Sagné L, et al. Neutralising antibody titration in 25,000 sera of dogs and cats vaccinated against rabies in France, in the framework of the new regulations that offer an alternative to quarantine. Rev Sci Tech 2003;22:857--66.
Rabies. In: Guidelines for the vaccination of horses. Lexington, KY: American Association of Equine Practitioners; 2009. Available at http://www.aaep.org/rabies.htm. Accessed September 1, 2011.
CDC. Compendium of measures to prevent disease and injury associated with animals in public settings, 2007. MMWR 2007;56(No. RR-5) .
Bender J, Schulman S. Reports of zoonotic disease outbreaks associated with animal exhibits and availability of recommendations for preventing zoonotic disease transmission from animals to people in such settings. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2004;224:1105--9.
American Veterinary Medical Association. Private ownership of wild animals. Schaumburg, IL: American Veterinary Medical Association; 2006. Available at http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/wild_animal_ownership.asp. Accessed September 1, 2011.
American Veterinary Medical Association. Position on canine hybrids. Schaumburg, IL: American Veterinary Medical Association; 2008.
Siino BS. Crossing the line: the case against hybrids. New York City, NY: American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Animal Watch; 2000:22--9. Available at http://www.petfinder.com/before-pet-adoption/case-against-hybrids.html?page-index=1&query=hybrids. Accessed September 1, 2011.
Jay MT, Reilly KF, DeBess EE, Haynes EH, Bader DR, Barrett LR. Rabies in a vaccinated wolf-dog hybrid. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1994;205:1729--32.
CDC. An imported case of rabies in an immunized dog. MMWR 1987;36:94--6.
CDC. Imported dog and cat rabies---New Hampshire, California. MMWR 1988;37:559--60.
Hanlon CA, Niezgoda MN, Rupprecht CE. Postexposure prophylaxis for prevention of rabies in dogs. Am J Vet Res 2002;63:1096--100.
Rabies vaccine, killed virus. 9 C.F.R. Sect. 113.209 (2003).
Greene CE, ed. Immunoprophylaxis. In: Infectious diseases of the dog and cat. 3rd ed. London, England: Saunders, Elsevier; 2006;1069--119.
Willoughby, RE. "Early death" and the contraindication of vaccine during rabies treatment. Vaccine 2009;27:7173--7.
Mansfield K, McElhinney L, Hübschle O, et al. A molecular epidemiological study of rabies epizootics in kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros) in Namibia. BMC Vet Res 2006;2:2.
Viral agents. In: US Department of Health and Human Services. Biosafety in microbiological and biomedical laboratories. 5th ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 2007:234--5. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/biosafety/publications/bmbl5/BMBL5_sect_VIII_e.pdf . Accessed September 1, 2011.
Wertheim HFL, Nguyen TQ, Nguyen KAT, et al. Furious rabies after an atypical exposure. PLoS Med 2009;6(3):0264--8.
Ante-mortem inspection. In: US Meat and Poultry Inspection Program. Meat and poultry inspection manual. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1973:314.
Debbie JG, Trimarchi CV. Pantropism of rabies virus in free-ranging rabid red fox (Vulpes fulva). J Wildl Dis 1970;6:500--6.
Fekadu M, Shaddock JH. Peripheral distribution of virus in dogs inoculated with two strains of rabies virus. Am J Vet Res 1984;45:724--729.
Charlton, KM. The pathogenesis of rabies and other lyssaviral infections: recent studies. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 1994;187:95--119.
Afshar A. A review of non-bite transmission of rabies virus infection. Br Vet J 1979;135:142--8.
CDC. Mass treatment of humans who drank unpasteurized milk from rabid cows---Massachusetts, 1996--1998. MMWR 1999;48:228--9.
CDC. U.S. public health service guideline on infectious disease issues in xenotransplantation. MMWR 2001;50(No. RR--15).
Turner GS, Kaplan C. Some properties of fixed rabies virus. J Gen Virol 1967;1:537--51.
Vaughn JB, Gerhardt P, Paterson J. Excretion of street rabies virus in saliva of cats. J Am Med Assoc 1963;184:705.
Vaughn JB, Gerhardt P, Newell KW. Excretion of street rabies virus in saliva of dogs. J Am Med Assoc 1965;193:363--8.
Niezgoda M, Briggs DJ, Shaddock J, Rupprecht CE. Viral excretion in domestic ferrets (Mustela putorius furo) inoculated with a raccoon rabies isolate. Am J Vet Res 1998;59:1629--32.
Tepsumethanon V, Lumlertdacha B, Mitmoonpitak C, Sitprija V, Meslin FX, Wilde H. Survival of naturally infected rabid dogs and cats. Clin Infect Dis 2004;39:278--80.
Jenkins SR, Perry BD, Winkler WG. Ecology and epidemiology of raccoon rabies. Rev Infect Dis 1988;10(Suppl 4):S620--5.
CDC. Translocation of coyote rabies---Florida, 1994. MMWR 1995;44:580--7.
Rupprecht CE, Smith JS, Fekadu M, Childs JE. The ascension of wildlife rabies: a cause for public health concern or intervention? Emerg Infect Dis 1995;1:107--14.
Constantine DG. Geographic translocation of bats: known and potential problems. Emerg Infect Dis 2003;9:17--21.
Krebs JW, Strine TW, Smith JS, Rupprecht CE, Childs JE. Rabies surveillance in the United States during 1993. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1994;1695--709.
VF Nettles, JH Shaddock, RK Sikes, CR Reyes. Rabies in translocated raccoons. Am J Public Health 1979;69:601--2.
RM Engeman, KL Christensen, MJ Pipas, DL Bergman. Population monitoring in support of a rabies vaccination program for skunks in Arizona. J Wildl Dis 2003;39:746--50.
Leslie MJ, Messenger S, Rohde RE, et al. Bat-associated rabies virus in skunks. Emerg Infect Dis 2006;12:1274--7.
Rupprecht CE, Hanlon CA, Slate D. Control and prevention of rabies in animals: paradigm shifts. Dev Biol (Basel). 2006;125:103--11.
Pets Evacuation and Transportations Standards Act of 2006. P.L. 109-308, 109th Cong., 120 Stat. 1725 (2006).
National Animal Control Association. National Animal Control Association guidelines. Kansas City, MO: National Animal Control Association. Available at http://www.nacanet.org/guidelines.html. Accessed September 1, 2011.
Chipman R, Slate D, Rupprecht C, Mendoza M. Downside risk of translocation. In: Dodet B, Fooks AR, Muller T, Tordo N; Scientific & Technical Department of the OIE, eds: Towards the elimination of rabies in Eurasia. Dev Biol 2008;131:223--32.
Slate D, Rupprecht CE, Rooney JA, Donovan D, Lein DH, Chipman RB. Status of oral rabies vaccination in wild carnivores in the United States. Virus Res 2005;111:68--76.
Sidwa TJ, Wilson PJ, Moore GM, et al. Evaluation of oral rabies vaccination programs for control of rabies epizootics in coyotes and gray foxes: 1995--2003. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005;227:785--92.
MacInnes CD, Smith SM, Tinline RR, et al. Elimination of rabies from red foxes in eastern Ontario. J Wildl Dis 2001;37:119--32.
Rosatte RC, Power MJ, Donovan D, et al. Elimination of arctic variant of rabies in red foxes, metropolitan Toronto. Emerg Infect Dis 2007;1325--27.
Messenger SL, Smith JS, Rupprecht CE. Emerging epidemiology of bat-associated cryptic cases of rabies in humans in the United States. Clin Infect Dis 2002;35:738--47.
CDC. Human rabies---California, 2002. MMWR 2002;51:686--8.
CDC. Human rabies---Tennessee, 2002. MMWR 2002;51:828--9.
CDC. Human rabies---Iowa, 2002. MMWR 2003;52:47--8.
CDC. Human death associated with bat rabies---California, 2003. MMWR 2004;53:33--5.
CDC. Recovery of a patient from clinical rabies, Wisconsin, 2004. MMWR 2004;53:1171--3.
CDC. Human rabies---Mississippi, 2005. MMWR 2006;55:207--8.
CDC. Human rabies---Indiana and California, 2006. MMWR 2007;56:361--5.
CDC. Human rabies---Minnesota, 2007. MMWR 2008;57:460--2.
CDC. Human rabies---Missouri, 2008. MMWR 2009;58:1207--9.
CDC. Human rabies---Kentucky/Indiana, 2009. MMWR 2010;59:393--6.
CDC. Human rabies---Virginia, 2009. MMWR 2010;591236--8.
CDC. Presumptive abortive human rabies---Texas, 2009. MMWR 2010;59:185--90.
CDC. Human rabies---Michigan, 2009. MMWR 2011;60:437--40.
Greenhall AM. House bat management. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 143;1982. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online; 1982. Available at http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/mammals/housebat/index.htm. Accessed September 1, 2011.
Greenhall AM, Frantz SC. Bats. In: Hygnstrom SE, Timm RM, Larson GE, eds. Prevention and control of wildlife damage. Cooperative Extension Division Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of Nebraska---Lincoln; United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Animal Damage Control; Great Plains Agricultural Council Wildlife Committee; 1994. Available at http://icwdm.org/handbook/mammals/bats.asp. Accessed September 1, 2011.
American Veterinary Medical Association. Model rabies control ordinance. Schaumburg, IL: American Veterinary Medical Association; 2008. Available at http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/AVMA-Model-Rabies-Ordinance.pdf . Accessed September 1, 2011.
Bunn TO. Canine and feline vaccines, past and present. In Baer GM, ed. The natural history of rabies. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1991:415--25.
Macy DW, Hendrick MJ. The potential role of inflammation in the development of postvaccinal sarcomas in cats. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1996;26:103--9.
Gobar GM, Kass PH. World wide web-based survey of vaccination practices, postvaccinal reactions, and vaccine site-associated sarcomas in cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002;220:1477--82.
Kass PH, Spangler WL, Hendrick MJ, et al. Multicenter case-control study of risk factors associated with development of vaccine-associated sarcomas in cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003;223:1283--92.
Rupprecht CE, Blass L, Smith K, et al. Human infection due to recombinant vaccinia-rabies glycoprotein virus. N Engl J Med 2001;345:582--6.
CDC. Human vaccinia infection after contact with a raccoon rabies vaccine bait---Pennsylvania, 2009. MMWR 2009;58:1204--7.

*This compendium has been endorsed by the American Public Health Association, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Association of Public Health Laboratories, CDC, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, and the National Animal Control Association.


National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians

Committee Members

Catherine M. Brown, DVM, Chair, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts; Lisa Conti, DVM, Florida Department of Health, Tallahassee, Florida; Paul Ettestad, DVM, New Mexico Department of Health, Sante Fe, New Mexico; Mira J. Leslie, DVM, Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, Abbotsford, British Columbia; Faye E. Sorhage, VMD, New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, Trenton, New Jersey; Ben Sun, DVM, Nevada Department of Health and Human Services, Carson City, Nevada.

Committee Consultants

Donald Hoenig, VMD, American Veterinary Medical Association, Augusta, Maine; Donna M. Gatewood, DVM, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Ames, Iowa; Lorraine Moule, National Animal Control Association, Windsor, Connecticut; Barbara Nay, Animal Health Institute, Millsboro, Delaware; Raoult Ratard, MD, Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, Metarie, Louisiana; Charles E. Rupprecht, VMD, PhD, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia; Dennis Slate, PhD, U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services, Concord, New Hampshire; James Powell, MS, Association of Public Health Laboratories, Madison, Wisconsin; Burton Wilcke, Jr., PhD, American Public Health Association, Burlington, Vermont.

Paraná confirma surto de raiva bovina

Vinte e dois animais já foram sacrificados no Estado por causa da doença

Foto: Duda Pinto / Agência RBS
Mordida de morcegos podem transmitir raiva para o gado

A Secretaria de Agricultura do Paraná confirmou um surto de raiva bovina na cidade de Bela Vista do Paraíso, no norte do Estado. Pelo menos 22 animais já foram sacrificados por causa da doença, entre eles 18 bovinos, dois equinos e uma mula. A secretaria também confirmou casos nas cidades de Primeiro de Maio, Sertanópolis e Florestópolis.

Os focos estão concentrados na zona rural, mas por medida de precaução os morcegos encontrados na área urbana estão sendo capturados pela Vigilância Sanitária.

Segundo a médica veterinária Elzira Jorge Pierre, responsável pela área de raiva do Departamento de Fiscalização e Defesa Agropecuária (Defis), O importante é que produtores adotem medidas preventivas para o combate e acompanhamento dos focos.

Entre as medidas preventivas está a notificação dos casos junto aos Núcleos Regionais da secretaria e às Unidades Locais de Sanidade Animal e Vegetal (ULSAV) para que se possa acompanhar a evolução da doença nos animais. E em caso de morte, realizar a coleta do material para diagnóstico.

Os proprietários dos animais também devem informar sobre a existência de abrigos de morcegos hematófagos, que podem ser bueiros, casas abandonadas, ocos de árvores, cavernas e outros locais. Paralelo a isso, o produtor deve vacinar seu rebanho contra a raiva bovina. A doença não tem cura, e uma vez contaminado o animal morre. E pode passar dos animais para os homens, levando-os à morte.

Nos animais de criação, a vacinação é feita a partir dos três meses de idade, com reforço após 30 dias, e depois uma vez por ano. Proprietários das áreas próximas onde tenham sido identificados os casos de raiva bovina devem vacinar seus rebanhos e também animais domésticos.

CANAL RURAL E GOVERNO DO PARANÁ
http://pecuaria.ruralbr.com.br/noticia/2012/01/parana-confirma-surto-de-raiva-bovina-3640416.html

Vigilância em MS é reforçada com o deslocamento de fiscais

Estado também promoverá seleção para a contratação emergencial de veterinários que vão atuar a partir de fevereiro

As atividades de fiscalização que vêm sendo promovidas pelo Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (Mapa) na fronteira de Mato Grosso do Sul com o Paraguai receberam o reforço de fiscais agropecuários de todo o país nos últimos dias. O objetivo da mobilização é evitar a entrada do vírus de febre aftosa proveniente do Paraguai.
Entre fiscais federais agropecuários e médicos veterinários dos serviços veterinários estaduais, 13 técnicos foram deslocados de Goiás, Rondônia, Rio Grande do Norte, Rio Grande do Sul e do Pará para apoiar os trabalhos de fiscalização em 14 postos fixos, nove barreiras volantes e, principalmente, na vigilância em propriedades de maior risco. Os postos do Sistema de Vigilância Agropecuária (Vigiagro) espalhados pela fronteira também foram reforçados com fiscais federais do Serviço de Inspeção Federal (SIF) do próprio Estado.

Paralelamente, o governo estadual está organizando uma seleção para a contratação emergencial de mais 35 médicos veterinários. Os novos funcionários atuarão, prioritariamente, na zona da fronteira. Os contratos terão duração de um ano, com possibilidade de renovação por igual período. Os profissionais deverão iniciar os trabalhos já no início do próximo mês.
Em seis pontos considerados críticos, as ações de prevenção estão ocorrendo com o suporte das Forças Armadas. Ao todo, 100 militares – distribuídos em grupos de 10 e em sistema de revezamento – auxiliam nas rotinas de fiscalização.
No Paraná, além da presença de 16 militares na Ponte da Amizade (divisa de Foz do Iguaçu com Ciudad Del Este), as medidas de segurança foram ampliadas com a participação da Polícia Rodoviária Federal. Uma reunião entre o serviço veterinário paranaense e o catarinense, nos dias 18 e 19 de janeiro, deverá definir uma série de medidas conjuntas a serem implementadas na fronteira para também impedir a entrada da doença no país.
A missão promovida pelo Ministério da Agricultura ao Paraguai para inspecionar os frigoríficos habilitados a exportar carne para o Brasil segue até o dia 20. No próximo domingo, 15 de janeiro, um grupo de veterinários do Comitê Veterinário Permanente do Mercosul (CVP) também deverá visitar o país vizinho. O objetivo é ajudar o Paraguai a identificar as causas do foco e implementar estratégias para erradicar a febre aftosa no seu território.
Mais informações para a imprensa:
Assessoria de Comunicação Social
(61) 3218-2184/ 2203
Marcos Giesteira
marcos.giesteira@agricultura.gov.br

Cientistas suspendem por 60 dias pesquisas com vírus da gripe aviária

Governo dos EUA receia que cepa seja usada por terroristas em arma biológica letal
Segunda, 20 de Janeiro de 2012, 22h56

Alexandre Gonçalves, de O Estado de S. Paulo

SÃO PAULO - Cientistas que pesquisam uma versão geneticamente alterada - e potencialmente transmissível entre humanos - do vírus da gripe aviária H5N1 decidiram interromper as pesquisas por 60 dias. Em um artigo publicado nas revistas Nature e Science, os pesquisadores afirmam que querem dar tempo “a governos e organizações para discutir esse tipo de pesquisa”.

O grupo, que representa 39 instituições de pesquisa de todo o mundo, propõe a realização de um fórum científico internacional sobre o tema, mas defende a continuação dos estudos e a publicação dos resultados.

Em dezembro, um conselho de biossegurança ligado ao governo dos Estados Unidos solicitou aos pesquisadores que alterassem seus trabalhos científicos originais antes da publicação, de modo a omitir pontos-chave da pesquisa que descreveriam as alterações do genoma do vírus responsáveis pelo aumento na capacidade de contágio.

O conselho teme a utilização do estudo por terroristas dispostos a criar uma arma biológica.

Os pesquisadores aceitaram a contragosto a solicitação. Mas, agora, defendem um amplo diálogo para mostrar que suas pesquisas são importantes para o combate a futuras pandemias e todos os cuidados são tomados para evitar acidentes ou ações terroristas.

Eles admitem que a preocupação das autoridades governamentais e da população tem fundamento. “Reconhecemos que a comunidade científica deve esclarecer os benefícios dessa importante pesquisa e as medidas adotadas para diminuir possíveis riscos”, afirma o artigo publicado ontem, que reúne pesquisadores de oito países.

Dois grupos de cientistas conseguiram produzir em laboratório um vírus da gripe aviária que pode ser transmitido pelo ar entre furões, uma espécie de mamífero. O microrganismo não foi testado em pessoas, mas há uma boa probabilidade de que ele também seja altamente contagioso para humanos.

Furões são considerados os modelos mais próximos dos homens em testes clínicos do aparelho respiratório.

O virologista Ron Fouchier, que coordena um dos grupos, no Centro Médico Erasmus, na Holanda, afirmou que o vírus é “provavelmente um dos mais perigosos que podem ser feitos em laboratório”.

O vírus da gripe H5N1 tem uma taxa de letalidade superior a 50%. Até agora, no entanto, não surgiu na natureza uma cepa capaz de ser transmitida de forma eficiente entre humanos.

Os casos estão sempre relacionados a zoonoses - contágio de um homem por um animal infectado - em porcos ou aves.

Um bom exemplo do impacto de uma cepa altamente contagiosa e letal é a gripe espanhola H1N1, no início do século 20. Ela causou cerca de 50 milhões de mortes e infectou entre 20% e 40% da população mundial.

Benefícios. Fouchier recorda, no entanto, que sua pesquisa poderá auxiliar a produção de medicamentos e vacinas, além de mecanismos mais eficazes para identificar cepas perigosas na natureza antes que elas iniciem uma pandemia. Ele enviou seu trabalho para publicação na revista Science.

Outro grupo, liderado pelo virologista Yoshihiro Kawaoka, da Universidade de Wisconsin em Madison, obteve resultados semelhantes e enviou o artigo para a Nature. Diante do tema controverso, ambas as revistas decidiram consultar o governo americano. Os dois estudos foram financiados pelo NIH, agência pública de pesquisa em saúde nos Estados Unidos.

Opiniões. O virologista Ésper Kallás, da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (FM-USP), defende que as pesquisas com o vírus H5N1 não devem sofrer restrições governamentais. “Seria absurdo por dois motivos”, afirma. “Em primeiro lugar, é um trabalho importante, que pode salvar milhares de vidas. Em segundo, nenhum país seria tolo de usar uma arma assim, porque é impossível controlá-la. Ela se voltaria contra o próprio grupo que a utilizou.”

O infectologista Eduardo Medeiros, da Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp), concorda: “Qualquer conhecimento pode ser bem ou mal utilizado. Seria preciso proibir pesquisas em muitas outras áreas segundo esse critério”, defende.

http://inovadefesa.ning.com/group/defesasanitriaanimal/forum/topic/show?id=2874953%3ATopic%3A245105&xg_source=msg

Fonte: http://m.estadao.com.br/noticias/vidae,cientistas-suspendem-por-60-dias-pesquisas-com-virus-da-gripe-aviaria-,825248.htm

A guide to living with bats

Veja em http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=6226312026408858435

Bats offer valuable pest control and pollination services
© Dina Dechmann

Bats are proof that ecosystem services can be delivered in strange forms - even by animals that some people see as unwholesome neighbours. This is the message from a team of experts assembled by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to address the risk posed by bats as vectors of emerging disease. Theirs is a blueprint for meeting this risk without disrupting the vital roles of bats in protecting, pollinating, dispersing and fertilising plants.
The manual, Investigating the role of bats in emerging zoonoses: Balancing ecology, conservation and public health interest, is unusual subject matter for FAO. Its authors are wildlife biologists and disease researchers, who are attempting to bring scientific perspective to a subject of growing alarm: diseases carried by bats that can spread to livestock and ultimately people. But the manual has become more than just a guide to bat diseases because the experts know that bats play other roles, says editor Scott Newman.
Ecosystem services from above
One instance is that insect-eating bats regulate entire ecosystems and can save crops from disaster. "Insectivorous bats are estimated to consume 25 per cent of their body mass in insects each night," Newman says, citing a study published this year in the journal Science. "A colony of one million Brazilian free-tailed bats weighing twelve grams each could consume 8.4 metric tons of insects in a single night. Bats therefore offer valuable pest control services, and it is estimated that they save American farmers alone between US$3.7 billion and US$54 billion a year."

Human distrust of bats has recently been rekindled by concerns over disease-spread
© FAO/Giulio Napolitano
Bats are not a small subject: over 1,240 known species account for an astonishing 20 per cent of all mammal biodiversity. While insectivorous species keep bugs in check, fruit bats provide important services as pollinators and seed dispersers, spreading the seeds of their own habitats widely on their nocturnal journeys. Bats also pollinate agriculturally important tree and shrub species, including baobab, durian and coconut palms. And farmers prize bat droppings (guano) as rich natural fertiliser.
Wild disease
On the other hand, human distrust of bats has recently been rekindled by focus on wild animals as disease vectors. "Due to increased surveillance efforts and better diagnostic technology, the scientific community is finding more viruses or potential pathogens in bats, and some of the potential zoonoses harboured by bats - including Nipah Virus, Ebola, SARS and rabies - are life threatening," says Newman.
"Often the bats are vilified, when in most cases it is likely that bats have harboured these pathogens for thousands of years without becoming sick. It is only in the recent past that increased bat-human or bat-livestock-human contact has resulted in these pathogens making the jump to people." These closer contacts are largely a result of human activities: deforestation, expanding urbanisation and farming.
One Health for bats, livestock and people
FAO's new manual looks at these concerns within a One Health approach, a framework that addresses zoonotic diseases by understanding and monitoring the connections between different species with the aim of protecting the health of all. The idea of bringing veterinary and human health together was first explored in the 1960s, but it was the recent threat of H5N1 avian influenza, and a series of Ministerial conferences addressing the disease, that really brought focus to the animal-human-ecosystem interface.
The One Health approach requires the integration of many fields, and the manual provides some of the ways and means. "The manual was created for capacity development in countries interested in creating bat ecology, monitoring or disease surveillance programmes," says Newman. "It is intended for colleagues who have minimal knowledge about these topics and may be from public health, biology, wildlife, forestry, laboratory diagnostic, veterinary or agricultural professions."
A game of balance

The Philippines is home to some notable bat-maintained ecosystems
© Thomas Hawk/flickr
The Philippines is one country with a particular interest in the strategy. The archipelago nation is home to some notable bat-maintained ecosystems, such as the Subic Bay Forest Watershed Reserve. The trees of this forest are propagated by over 10,000 fruit bats, and the watershed in turn provides freshwater for the country's fastest growing industrial port.
"In the Philippines, to address Ebola reston virus detection in pigs, a One Health approach was used to evaluate the situation by collaboration among the Ministries responsible for Health, Agriculture, and Wildlife," Newman reports. This has ensured that bat habitats are monitored and protected while pigs and humans are buffered from the deadly virus.
"We do not know which other countries have accessed the manual on-line, but FAO has started using it to support One Health capacity development, specifically in the Field Epidemiology Training Programme for Veterinarians (FEPTV). We envision distributing this manual to most member countries in Eurasia, Africa and the Americas." Most immediately, the manual will now serve as the backbone of a project being implemented by FAO and partners in Thailand and Vietnam.
"We have seen more progress at the Ministry level demonstrating cross sectoral collaboration, but we still have a long way to go," says Newman. "For One Health to succeed, collaboration must occur at all levels ranging from international organizations, to national authorities, down to the implementation of activities in the field at a local community level."
Written by: T. Paul Cox

FAO Publishes a New Field Manual on Bats

Veja em http://www.fao.org/AG/AGAInfo/programmes/en/empres/news_101111.html


10 November 2011 - FAO has published a forward-thinking manual on bats and their role in emerging infectious diseases in animals and humans, while underlining their important role in maintaining the delicate balance in ecosystems that support human, plant and animal life.

“Investigating the Role of Bats in Emerging Zoonoses: Balancing Ecology, Conservation and Public Health Interest” is a manual meant to be used by epidemiologists, wildlife officials, farmers, livestock veterinarians, zoologists, and any number of different professionals who might be coming into increased contact with bats. It is a hands-on reference to their history, biology, monitoring and handling them, especially amid growing evidence they can be a route for introduction of emerging diseases in livestock and humans.

“Bats are much maligned in many cultures,” said Scott Newman, Wildlife Coordinator of the FAO’s EMPRES Animal Health programme and one of the manual’s co-authors. “While it’s true they can be reservoirs for disease – carrying them while remaining unaffected themselves – they also support our ecosystems as pollinators and natural pest controllers. Essentially they help agriculture and save farmers millions of dollars in pesticides,” he said.

But as livestock and human populations expand and encroach on wildlife habitat, their increasing closeness has also given rise to increased risks.

For example, the Nipah virus, which emerged from bats, began sickening large numbers of pigs in Malaysia in 1998. Humans who had had close contact with pigs, mostly farmers, were also sickened. The virus, which killed 105 people, had a 40 percent mortality rate in humans.

The virus devastated Malaysia’s multi-billion dollar pork industry. Of a total pig population of some 2.4 million animals, about 1.1 million pigs had to be culled to bring the disease outbreak under control.

Leading up to the outbreak, pig production had been intensifying, with resulting regional deforestation and lost habitat. As a result, bats and pigs came into greater contact, with bats feeding from fruit trees overhanging pig’s feeding troughs, and contaminating them with saliva and excrement.

"We have an agreement with the Zoological Society of London, with specialists who have been hired to create a database of Old World fruit bat populations and their roosts especially in Africa and Southeast Asia,” Newman said. “Old World fruit bats pollinate bananas, for example, which are of global importance, but it’s especially local varieties of banana that can provide people with up to about a quarter of their daily calorie intake, in countries such as Gabon, Cameroon, Uganda and Rwanda.”

The “bat manual” is a concrete example of tackling complex animal and human diseases through a “One Health” approach, taking into account the interconnectedness of the world’s health across the animal-human-ecosystems interfaces.

“Investigating the Role of Bats in Emerging Zoonoses: Balancing Ecology, Conservation and Public Health Interest” benefited from the financial support of the Australian Government’s Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the FAO’s Animal Production and Health Commission for Asia and the Pacific. See the right-hand links to partners who contributed in-kind knowledge and expertise.

Mapa suspende etapa de vacinação contra aftosa no MT

O Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento, atendendo a uma solicitação do Indea (Instituto de Defesa Agropecuária do Estado de Mato Grosso), suspendeu a etapa de vacinação contra a febre aftosa para bovinos de até 12 meses, que seria realizada em fevereiro, na região de fronteira do estado com a Bolívia. Com isso, esses pecuaristas passam a cumprir o mesmo calendário imposto para o restante do Mato Grosso, com duas etapas anuais, em maio e novembro.

A autorização do Mapa foi baseada em estudos de imunidade indicando que essa suspensão não reduziria o grau de proteção do rebanho. E o Ministério ainda considerou que a medida, além de reduzir gastos dos produtores rurais, também permite redirecionar o pessoal, antes envolvido na vacinação, para outras atividades, como fiscalização na faixa de fronteira e vigilância ativa nas propriedades.

A Acrimat (Associação dos Criadores de Mato Grosso) ressalta que, embora o estado esteja há 16 anos sem focos da doença e os índices de vacinação tenham ficado próximos de 100%, é importante que o Governo exerça forte fiscalização durante as etapas de maio e novembro.

O Departamento de Saúde Animal do Mapa também recomendou, em nota, que o serviço veterinário oficial do Mato Grosso mantenha e amplie seus mecanismos e estruturas de vigilância para prevenir a reintrodução do vírus, considerando os riscos ainda existentes na Bolívia.


20/01/2012 11:17

Saúde animal é uma das principais exigências dos EUA, diz associação de exportadores de carne suína

20/01/2012 - 11h02
Da Agência Brasil
Brasília - O presidente da Associação Brasileira da Indústria e Exportadora de Carne Suína, Paulo Camargo, comemorou a aprovação das norte-americanas para a aquisição dos produtos brasileiros, abrindo o mercado para o setor nacional. Em entrevista ao programa Revista Brasil, da Rádio Nacional, ele disse que o primeiro obstáculo a ser superado pelos brasileiros é obter a aprovação da “sanidade” pelos estrangeiros.
A decisão dos norte-americanos foi anunciada há dez dias pelo Departamento de Agricultura dos Estados Unidos (Usda, na sigla em inglês), que reconheceu a equivalência do serviço brasileiro de inspeção de carne suína e autorizou a habilitação de matadouros-frigoríficos de Santa Catarina para exportação de carne suína in natura para o país.
Camargo disse ontem (19) que as exigências feitas pelos estrangeiros são muitas, principalmente no que se refere à saúde animal. Segundo ele, os norte-americanos têm dificuldade de entender o processo de vacinação contra a febre aftosa feito no Brasil. A vacina é vista por eles como um risco e não como uma segurança. A doença é rara em suínos.
“Quando vacinamos, eles [os norte-americanos] falam que estamos com medo da aftosa, então já não [querem mais] comprar [a carne brasileira]. Eles dizem assim: 'Aqui [nos EUA] nós não vacinamos, não tem o vírus da aftosa estamos tranquilos há muitos anos'”, explicou Camargo. “Eles [os norte-americanos] só aprovaram [a carne] de Santa Catarina que não é vacinada.”
Apesar das dificuldades, Camargo está otimista. De acordo com ele, a tendência é aumentar a exportação da carne suína brasileira. “O mercado tem muito a crescer. As exportações são pequenas e concentradas em poucos países. Nosso objetivo é exportar para outros países, como o Japão, que é o maior importador mundial, com 1,2 milhão de toneladas”, disse.
Em defesa à qualidade da carne suína nacional, Camargo disse que foram feitas três pesquisas de opinião para verificar o que pensa o consumidor brasileiro. Segundo ele, o resultado mostra que a carne suína é a “mais saborosa”.
“Antes, havia um preconceito de que a carne era suja e gordurosa e aumentava o colesterol. Na última pesquisa, a população percebeu que é uma carne de granja [tratada com qualidade]”, disse Camargo.
Edição: Talita Cavalcante

http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/noticia/2012-01-20/saude-animal-e-uma-das-principais-exigencias-dos-eua-diz-associacao-de-exportadores-de-carne-suina

Minas Gerais é reconhecido como livre de Newcastle pelo Chile

Estabelecimentos mineiros ainda dependem de habilitação para começar a exportar carnes e material genético para o país sul-americano

O estado de Minas Gerais conquistou o reconhecimento de livre da doença de Newcastle (DNC) pelo Chile. A decisão foi comunicada ao Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (Mapa) pelo Serviço Agrícola e Pecuário (SAG, sigla em espanhol) depois de uma missão realizada na região em maio de 2011.
Com o reconhecimento, o estado poderá exportar carne e material genético – como ovos férteis e pintos de um dia – para aquele país. O início das comercializações ainda depende de uma nova missão chilena para a habilitação de plantas frigoríficas, granjas e incubatórios de Minas Gerais.


Com o reconhecimento, o estado poderá exportar carne e material genético – como ovos férteis e pintos de um dia – para o Chile (Foto: Silvio Ávila)
Outros três estados já haviam sido autorizados a enviar produtos do gênero para o Chile: São Paulo, Paraná e Santa Catarina. No final deste mês, técnicos do SAG devem inspecionar estabelecimentos paulistas para habilitar novas unidades para exportar.
Nos dois últimos anos, o Chile foi o quinto maior importador de pintos de um dia do Brasil em valores, com US$ 4,3 milhões. Segundo a União Brasileira de Avicultura (Ubabef), as exportações de material genético (matrizes) em 2011 totalizaram US$ 38 milhões, com um crescimento de 11,3% em comparação a 2010. O volume foi de 1,2 mil toneladas (+9,2%). Já as vendas internacionais de ovos férteis somaram US$ 81,9 milhões, com aumento de 11%, com embarques de 14,2 mil toneladas (+1,6%). Atualmente, o Brasil tem permissão para exportar material genético para 58 países. Entre os maiores mercados de destino estão Venezuela, Paraguai e Emirados Árabes.
A doença de Newcastle é classificada como emergencial e representa potencial de provocar grandes impactos econômicos (restrições comerciais) e sociais, além de comprometer a saúde das aves. A enfermidade não ocorre há mais de 10 anos em plantéis comerciais do país.
Mais informações para a imprensa:
Assessoria de Comunicação Social
(61) 3218-2184/ 2203
Marcos Giesteira
marcos.giesteira@agricultura.gov.br

http://www.agricultura.gov.br/animal/noticias/2012/01/minas-gerais-e-reconhecido-como-livre-de-newcastle-pelo-chile

Workshop em CG discutirá possíveis ameaças sanitárias

A comercialização e o uso na alimentação humana da carne representam dois contextos de grande relevância para o Brasil. De um lado está o perfil e prática de uma complexa cadeia produtiva que tem pela frente a difícil tarefa de atender a crescente demanda mundial pelo produto. Do outro, a necessidade básica, o alimento diário, que não deixa de representar um indicativo de melhora na condição econômica da população.

Mas, para que cadeia produtiva da carne venda e o consumidor compre, é fundamental que haja preocupação com a Defesa Sanitária. Pensando nisso, o Projeto de Inovação Tecnológica para Defesa Agropecuária (InovaDefesa) em conjunto com a Universidade Federal de Viçosa e a Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa), vinculada ao Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (MAPA) realizam nos dias 1 e 2 de março de 2012, em Campo Grande (MS), na sede da Embrapa Gado de Corte, o Workshop de Ameaças Sanitárias para a Cadeias Produtivas de Carnes.

Conforme o banco de dados da Organização Internacional de Epizootias (OIE), foram identificados cerca de 30 agentes patogênicos de notificação obrigatória em países da América do Sul e que não foram notificados no Brasil nos últimos três anos. Como exemplos, podem ser citadas a febre aftosa, paratuberculose, surra, tripanossomose, tricomonose, síndrome reprodutiva e respiratória dos suínos, febre-do-nilo-ocidental e doença de Newcastle. Vale lembrar que deve ser considerado também o potencial impacto, em saúde pública, quando o agente patogênico apresenta comportamento zoonótico.

Segundo o coordenador do projeto, Evaldo Vilela, o principal objetivo do workshop é identificar quais são os agentes patogênicos animais com maior probabilidade de ingresso no Brasil a partir dos países da América do Sul e Caribe. A base do evento parte de uma preocupação estratégica com o sistema de vigilância de fronteiras internacionais que apresenta fragilidades. O trânsito de animais, pessoas e produtos de forma ilegal é o maior problema.

“A extensão territorial do Brasil é um grande desafio. Somos um país continental. Com áreas muito remotas e fronteiras muito grandes. Desse modo, precisamos nos preparar para enfrentar as ameaças externas. A análise que será elaborada a partir do workshop tem esse papel. Ela servirá como um instrumento que pautará a pesquisa, a produção tecnológica e a fiscalização no âmbito da Defesa Agropecuária. A maior meta desse trabalho é o aperfeiçoamento, por meio da Ciência e Tecnologia, dos mecanismos de fiscalização para que o País tenha um sistema de vigilância mais moderno, capaz de responder com rapidez e eficiência; assegurando assim o crescimento do agropecuária”, explicou Vilela.

No ritmo do crescimento brasileiro reside, portanto, o risco da entrada de agentes patogênicos. Boa parte desses agentes é regulamentada por países com os quais o Brasil possui relação comercial. Na hipótese de ingresso, esse incidente pode resultar perdas expressivas na produtividade, custo do desenvolvimento de tecnologias de controle, bem como a perda de mercado. Para o chefe geral da Embrapa Gado de Corte, Cleber de Oliveira Soares, é fundamental que o país se antecipe e faça uso da pesquisa nesse contexto. “Temos que lembrar que as cadeias produtivas de carnes representam um dos mais importantes nichos econômicos do país. Quem não se lembra do que ocorreu em 2005 com a febre aftosa?! As perdas foram enormes. Por isso é urgente realizar uma análise como essa para evitar novos problemas”, alertou Cleber.

O Workshop de Ameaças Sanitárias para o Brasil é destinado a gestores de órgãos oficiais de Defesa Agropecuária, ao setor privado (produtores, indústrias de insumos agrícolas e veterinários e associações que os representam), pesquisadores e interessados em geral. Para mais informações acesse: www.inovadefesa.ning.com.

INOVADEFESA

O projeto InovaDefesa foi uma demanda induzida pelo Fundo Setorial para o Agronegócio que, por meio do Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), concedeu recursos financeiros a um conjunto de instituições sob a coordenação da Universidade Federal de Viçosa. O Projeto tem por objetivo aproximar a academia e os centros de pesquisa do tema, setor empresarial e órgãos de governo das esferas estadual e federal envolvidos com o tema. As ações são focadas em: (1) indução de cursos de Mestrado Profissional e de curta duração; (2) facilitação da transferência de tecnologias para o setor privado ou órgãos regulatórios; (3) indução de uma visão estratégica sobre o sistema de Defesa Agropecuária e (4) criação de espaços presenciais e virtuais de interlocução.

No que se refere à indução de visão estratégica, o Projeto InovaDefesa vem realizando desde 2009 estudos e levantamentos sobre pragas agrícolas e sobre agentes patogênicos de animais que ocorrem nos países da América do Sul e Caribe, mas que não tenham sido relatados no Brasil ou que não tenham sido registrados nos últimos anos. O fato que motivou o início desta linha de pesquisa foi a informação de que o Governo Federal está realizando um conjunto de obras de infraestrutura viária, as quais levarão a um incremento no trânsito nacional e internacional de pessoas e mercadorias.


Para mais informações e inscrições: www.inovadefesa.ning.com

http://www.aquidauananews.com/0,0,00,9465-189640-WORKSHOP+EM+CG+DISCUTIRA+POSSIVEIS+AMEACAS+SANITARIAS.htm

MS: IAGRO RESTRINGE TRÂNSITO DE ANIMAIS NA FRONTEIRA E SUSPENDE FEIRAS

Publicação: 17/01/2012 19:57

A Iagro (Agência de Defesa Sanitária Animal e Vegetal - MS) baixou portaria que restringe o tráfego de bovinos de fronteira, como parte das ações para evitar a entrada no Brasil do vírus da febre aftosa, após o surgimento do segundo foco da doença no Paraguai em apenas três meses. A portaria suspende a realização de exposições agropecuárias na região, medida que já havia sido anunciada.

Os eventos com aglomeração de bovinos e bubalinos estão suspensos, conforme a portaria, em 11 municípios da faixa de fronteira: Antônio João, Aral Moreira, Bela Vista, Caracol, Coronel Sapucaia, Japorã, Mundo Novo, Paranhos, Ponta Porã, Porto Murtinho e Sete Quedas.

Conforme a medida, também fica suspensa a emissão de e-GTA (Guia de Trânsito Animal Eletrônica) paras produtores rurais cujos estabelecimentos de origem e/ou destino estiverem localizados nos municípios de fronteira com o Paraguai.

Nesse caso, a GTA deverá ser emitida, obrigatoriamente, nas unidades da Iagro. Em todo documento deverá constar a rota de trânsito dos animais incluindo, quando determinado pela autoridade sanitária, a passagem por postos fixos de fiscalização da Iagro.

Outra determinação da portaria é que o ingresso de animais destinados a estabelecimentos localizados nos municípios de fronteira com o Paraguai, tendo como origem estabelecimentos localizados em outros municípios do Estado ou em outras Unidades Federativas fica obrigatoriamente, independente da finalidade, condicionado à passagem por posto fixo de fiscalização da Iagro. A carga deve ser lacrada.

Na saída de bovinos e bubalinos, com origem em estabelecimentos localizados nos municípios de fronteira com o Paraguai, também deve haver a passagem pelos postos de fiscalização da iagro e a carga igualmente deve ser lacrada.

Fonte: Campo Grande News

http://www.zoonews.com.br/editorial.php?a=view&idnoticia=202009&tipo=1

RÚSSIA REGISTRA NOVOS CASOS DE PESTE SUÍNA AFRICANA JÁ EM 2012

Publicação: 18/01/2012 20:04

Com casos contínuos registrados há mais de um ano, a Rússia ainda sofre para combater a Peste Suína Africana (PSA). De acordo com o Serviço Federal de Inspeção Veterinária e Fitossanitária da Rússia (Rosselkhoznadzor), pelo menos três surtos

já foram confirmados em 2012. O representante do Rosselkhoznadzor Nikolai Vlasov, explicou que o país entrou em nova fase de surtos [a terceira] desta doença. As autoridades já previam esta piora no quadro neste primeiro mês de 2012.

Especialistas acreditam que esta nova fase de surtos poderá ser bem mais destrutiva que a anterior e tem potencial para atingir não apenas a Rússia ocidental, como também países vizinhos. "Os países com maior chance de contaminação, a

princípio, são Ucrânia, Cazaquistão, Azerbaijão, Armênia e Bielorússia", afirmam. Esta nova onda de surtos deve durar a maior parte do ano, prevê o Rosselkhoznadzor. As informações são do site Pig Progress.

http://www.zoonews.com.br/editorial.php?a=view&idnoticia=202032&tipo=1

BRASIL SOBRE AMEAÇA

Publicação: 17/01/2012 19:39

A comercialização e o uso na alimentação humana da carne representam dois contextos de grande relevância para o Brasil. De um lado está o perfil e prática de uma complexa cadeia produtiva que tem pela frente a difícil tarefa de atender a crescente demanda mundial pelo produto. Do outro, a necessidade básica, o alimento diário, que não deixa de representar um indicativo de melhora na condição econômica da população.

Mas, para que cadeia produtiva da carne venda e o consumidor compre, é fundamental que haja preocupação com a Defesa Sanitária. Pensando nisso, o Projeto de Inovação Tecnológica para Defesa Agropecuária (InovaDefesa) em conjunto com a Universidade Federal de Viçosa e a Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa), vinculada ao Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (MAPA) realizam nos dias 1 e 2 de março de 2012, em Campo Grande (MS), na sede da Embrapa Gado de Corte, o Workshop de Ameaças Sanitárias para a Cadeias Produtivas de Carnes.

Conforme o banco de dados da Organização Internacional de Epizootias (OIE), foram identificados cerca de 30 agentes patogênicos de notificação obrigatória em países da América do Sul e que não foram notificados no Brasil nos últimos três anos. Como exemplos, podem ser citadas a febre aftosa, paratuberculose, surra, tripanossomose, tricomonose, síndrome reprodutiva e respiratória dos suínos, febre-do-nilo-ocidental e doença de Newcastle. Vale lembrar que deve ser considerado também o potencial impacto, em saúde pública, quando o agente patogênico apresenta comportamento zoonótico.

Segundo o coordenador do projeto, Evaldo Vilela, o principal objetivo do workshop é identificar quais são os agentes patogênicos animais com maior probabilidade de ingresso no Brasil a partir dos países da América do Sul e Caribe. A base do evento parte de uma preocupação estratégica com o sistema de vigilância de fronteiras internacionais que apresenta fragilidades. O trânsito de animais, pessoas e produtos de forma ilegal é o maior problema.

“A extensão territorial do Brasil é um grande desafio. Somos um país continental. Com áreas muito remotas e fronteiras muito grandes. Desse modo, precisamos nos preparar para enfrentar as ameaças externas. A análise que será elaborada a partir do workshop tem esse papel. Ela servirá como um instrumento que pautará a pesquisa, a produção tecnológica e a fiscalização no âmbito da Defesa Agropecuária. A maior meta desse trabalho é o aperfeiçoamento, por meio da Ciência e Tecnologia, dos mecanismos de fiscalização para que o País tenha um sistema de vigilância mais moderno, capaz de responder com rapidez e eficiência; assegurando assim o crescimento do agropecuária”, explicou Vilela.

No ritmo do crescimento brasileiro reside, portanto, o risco da entrada de agentes patogênicos. Boa parte desses agentes é regulamentada por países com os quais o Brasil possui relação comercial. Na hipótese de ingresso, esse incidente pode resultar perdas expressivas na produtividade, custo do desenvolvimento de tecnologias de controle, bem como a perda de mercado. Para o chefe geral da Embrapa Gado de Corte, Cleber de Oliveira Soares, é fundamental que o país se antecipe e faça uso da pesquisa nesse contexto. “Temos que lembrar que as cadeias produtivas de carnes representam um dos mais importantes nichos econômicos do país. Quem não se lembra do que ocorreu em 2005 com a febre aftosa?! As perdas foram enormes. Por isso é urgente realizar uma análise como essa para evitar novos problemas”, alertou Cleber.

O Workshop de Ameaças Sanitárias para o Brasil é destinado a gestores de órgãos oficiais de Defesa Agropecuária, ao setor privado (produtores, indústrias de insumos agrícolas e veterinários e associações que os representam), pesquisadores e interessados em geral. Para mais informações acesse: www.inovadefesa.ning.com.

INOVADEFESA

O projeto InovaDefesa foi uma demanda induzida pelo Fundo Setorial para o Agronegócio que, por meio do Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), concedeu recursos financeiros a um conjunto de instituições sob a coordenação da Universidade Federal de Viçosa. O Projeto tem por objetivo aproximar a academia e os centros de pesquisa do tema, setor empresarial e órgãos de governo das esferas estadual e federal envolvidos com o tema. As ações são focadas em: (1) indução de cursos de Mestrado Profissional e de curta duração; (2) facilitação da transferência de tecnologias para o setor privado ou órgãos regulatórios; (3) indução de uma visão estratégica sobre o sistema de Defesa Agropecuária e (4) criação de espaços presenciais e virtuais de interlocução.

No que se refere à indução de visão estratégica, o Projeto InovaDefesa vem realizando desde 2009 estudos e levantamentos sobre pragas agrícolas e sobre agentes patogênicos de animais que ocorrem nos países da América do Sul e Caribe, mas que não tenham sido relatados no Brasil ou que não tenham sido registrados nos últimos anos. O fato que motivou o início desta linha de pesquisa foi a informação de que o Governo Federal está realizando um conjunto de obras de infraestrutura viária, as quais levarão a um incremento no trânsito nacional e internacional de pessoas e mercadorias.


Para maiores informações e inscrições: www.inovadefesa.ning.com

http://www.zoonews.com.br/editorial.php?a=view&idnoticia=201999&tipo=1