21 benv july 2015 en

BENVNational Veterinary Epidemiological Bulletin

July 2015Number 21

-

CESMENational Reference Centrefor the study and verificationof Foreign Animal Diseases

-

COVEPIOperational VeterinaryCentre for EpidemiologyProgrammingand Information

Pho

to b

y Ja

cob

Spin

ks

BENV National Veterinary Epidemiological Bulletin

2 Index

INDEX

-EDITORIAL 3

-IN THESE MONTHSAfrican Swine Fever in Sardinia: a risk-based eradication approach 4The National Register of poultry 8

-HAND ON DATANumber of outbreaks reported to SIMAN in the 1st semester 2015 11Number of outbreaks reported by Regions to SIMAN in the 1st semester 2015 12Animals involved in outbreaks reported to SIMAN in the 1st semester 2015 16

-A LOOK AT THE MAPS 17

-AROUND USThe Middle East respiratory syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV): news and updates 20Monitoring of Campylobacter in Italy and in other European countries 22

-OFFICIALLY FREE TERRITORIES 30 -CONTACTS & EDITORIAL STAFF 34

July 2015 Number 21

EDITORIALThe BENV as a tool for disseminating information

Dear readers,

we hope this new issue of the BENV will enjoy you in this hot summer with new interesting articles.

In these months, the register of Poultry farms has been revolutionized. The new web-application, available at the website of the Italian Veterinary Information Systems, can be accessed by username and password or smart card. The new register is innovative and offers new functionalities. In this issue, an article focused on the new register of Poultry farms describes the main innovations and functionalities of the new system.

In the same section, the BENV comes back to speak again about the African Swine Fever (ASF): in Italy the disease is confined only in Sardinia region, where about 2000 holdings had been affected since 1978. The spatial location of the disease has remained very stable along the years, affecting mainly the Central-Eastern part of the region, in a territory comprising the previous province of Nuoro and the bordering area of Sassari. The article shows the new approach to ASF eradication: in fact, starting from 2015, a new eradication programme has been put in place in line with the recommendations of the European Commission: this programme includes risk-based strategies for the eradication of the disease.

In the section Around us, an article provides an update of the Middle East respiratory syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) situation worldwide. MERS-CoV is a zoonotic virus that is transmitted from animals to humans. Although camels are suspected to be a major reservoir host for MERS-CoV and possible source for human infection, their role in the transmission of the virus and the route(s) of transmission are still unclear. As you certainly remember from previous BENV issues and news, the MERS-CoV occurred firstly in 2012 in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), than the disease has been reported in more than 20 countries of the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Americas and also in Europe.

Another article, in the same section, presents the plans for controlling and monitoring Campylobacter in animals and food in the European Union (EU). To date, Campylobacter still remains the most commonly reported gastrointestinal bacterial pathogen in humans in the EU, with 214,779 confirmed cases in 2013. A decrease of the incidence of human cases must go hand in hand with a resolute action of contamination reduction along the poultry production chain. Therefore, the European Commission has recommended Member states to set up national surveys to identify more specifically the risk factors influencing the carcass contamination during slaughtering and the Campylobacter colonization at primary production level. In this context, a national monitoring plan on Campylobacter spp. contamination in broiler production chain started in Italy at the beginning of 2015. The article shows in detail the objectives of the plan and the situation in other EU countries.

The Hand on data section provides you with the data on outbreaks of animal diseases, the health status of the territories and the animal species involved in the outbreaks reported to SIMAN in the first semester 2015.

The distribution of the main animal diseases occurred in Italy in the first semester 2015 is shown in the section A look to the maps.

We would like to remember you to take a look at the Events section where you can find the detailed information about national and international courses, meetings, seminars, of veterinary interest and organized during the year. Also, we have the pleasure to publish your articles: in the space Submit your article you can find the guidelines for authors and submit the article to the editorial staff.

Waiting for comments or suggestion you feel useful for improving the Benv, that you can send us by filling in the form in the space Suggestions, we wish you a happy summer and give the appointment for the next issue in October.

Simona Iannetti COVEPI

3 Editorial


4 In these months

IN THESE MONTHSThe main events of epidemiological interest in the lastmonths in Italy and in the European Union

African Swine Fever in Sardinia: a risk-based eradication approach

African swine fever (ASF) is a highly contagious and often fatal disease of domestic pigs and wild boar that causes a range of clinical syndromes varying from acute to chronic disease and apparently asymptomatic animals that are carriers of the virus. ASF was discovered in 1921 in African continent, it is generally prevalent and endemic in countries of sub-Saharan Africa. In Europe ASF remains endemic only in Mediterranean island of Sardinia (endemic for more than 37 years).

In Sardinia, by the 1978, about 2000 holdings had been affected. The presence of ASF in the island has not followed a continuous and predictable trend, presenting some periods of iper and ipo endemicity, for reasons not entirely clear. In contrast with the temporal distribution, the spatial location of the disease has remained very stable along these 35 years, mainly affecting the Central-East, in the territory comprising the previous province of Nuoro (currently Nuoro, Ogliastra and a small part of Cagliari province) and the bordering area of Sassari (current Sassari and Olbia-Tempo provinces). Indeed, the data compiled since 1978 revealed that almost 70% of the outbreaks occurred have been notified in the previous province of Nuoro (Figure 1).

Current epidemiological situation

To 2014, ASF has been notified in 26 countries in domestic and/or wild species (Figure 2); the infection is present with no clinical disease in 3 countries, while in 15 countries clinical cases have been reported; in 8 countries (including Italy) the disease is restricted to certain zone(s) / region(s). The detailed situation of PSA in Sardinian region is reported in table 1.

Table 1. ASF situation in Sardinia

2013 2014 2015 (1st semester)

Domestic outbreaks 108 40 9

Municipalities with outbreaks 21 20 8

Dead/ Culled animals 639 615 267

July 2015 Number 21

5 In these months

Figure 1.ASF outbreaks in the provinces of Sardinia (1993 – 2012 years)

Figure 2.ASF distribution (Source: OIE)


6 In these months

New eradication programme

The large amount of engaged resources to eradicate the disease seemed unable to achieve the expected results, therefore a more specific and efficient approach has been required. The persistence of infection, despite the application of severe control measures, suggested the re-evaluation of the factors linked to the risk analysis.

New 2015-2017 eradication programme, fully in line with the recommendations of the Commission (2013 FVO report) is based on main new elements: clear chain of command (Unità di Progetto), strong actions against illegal free-ranging pigs, synergy between eradication measures and the animal welfare plan under the rural development programme. Programme to be implemented in a risk-based, coordinated, gradual, progressive and centripetal way.

Geographic distribution of ASF risk in Sardinia

To achieve these objectives, the Osservatorio Epidemiologico Veterinario Regionale studied the risk categorization of ASF persistence and spreading within Sardinia Region to make available a new tool to rationalize the efforts of the Public Veterinary Service. Particularly, the study suggests concentrating the attention where the domestic as well as the wild pig population are more exposed to the viral circulation. Communal territory is the basic unit used in this risk analysis. The variables considered are:

1. presence of disease outbreak in domestic pigs (years 2011 – 2013)2. positivity at serological test in domestic pigs (years 2011 – 2013)3. positivity at virological test in domestic pigs (years 2011 – 2013)4. positivity at serological test in wild boar (years 2011 – 2014)5. positivity at virological test in wild boar (years 2011 – 2014)6. presence of domestic or feral free ranging pigs (years 2011 – 2013)7. membership to Nuoro, Ogliastra, Sassari end Olbia Tempio provinces.

For all municipalities is considered the presence or the absence of considered variables. To presence is appointed score 1 and score 0 in case of absence.

The risk level, calculated by the total score, is:

• Low risk (score 0-1) 261 municipality, • Middle-Low risk (score 2-3), 34 municipality, • Middle-High risk (score 4-5), 43 municipality, • High risk (score 6-8), 39 municipality.

The 10% of Sardinian municipality is classified, then, like PSA high risk. In figure 3 is possible to observe geographic distribution of PSA risk in Sardinia.

July 2015 Number 21

7 In these months

Figure 3.Geographical distribution of the

risk for ASF in Sardinia

References

1. Feliziani F., Cappai S., Sensi M., Coccollone A., Pettini S., Atzeni M., Rolesu S. 2014 Peste Suina Africana in Sardegna: classificazione dei Comuni in base al rischio di circolazione e persistenza del virus nel territorio. Summa – Animali da Reddito, 2014, 3, 32 – 36

2. Giammarioli M., Gallardo C., Oggiano A., Iscaro C., Nieto R., Pellegrini C., Dei Giudici S. Marisa Arias • Gian Mario De Mia 2011 Genetic characterisation of African swine fever viruses from recent and historical outbreaks in Sardinia (1978–2009) Virus Genes. 42(3):377–387

3. Mur L., Atzeni M., Martinez-Lopez B., Feliziani F., Rolesu S., Sanchez-Vizcaino J. M. 2014 Thirty-Five-Year Presence of African Swine Fever in Sardinia: History, Evolution and Risk Factors for Disease Maintenance. Transboundary and emerging diseases 2014; 10.1111

4. OIE. World Organisation for Animal Health. http://www.oie.int/wahis_2/public/wahid.php/Diseaseinformation/statuslist

5. Regione Autonoma della Sardegna. 2014. Determinazione n. 87 dell’11.2.2015. Secondo provvedimento attuativo del Programma straordinario di eradicazione della Peste Suina Africana 2015-2017, recante norme e disposizioni sul controllo della malattia nei suini domestici e lungo la filiera di produzione delle carni suine per l’anno 2015. http://www.regione.sardegna.it/documenti/1_19_20150219123458.pdf

-Edited by:Coccollone A., Cappai S., Rolesu S. Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Sardegna Centro di Sorveglianza EpidemiologicaOsservatorio Epidemiologico Veterinario Regionale


8 In these months

The National Registry of poultry

Introduction

Since 2005, the Animal Identification and Registration Database (BDN) of the Italian Ministry of Health includes information about poultry farms, whose upgrade has been under responsibility of the Veterinary Services (O.M. 26/08/2005 n.204).

The Ministerial Decree of 11.13.2013 (DM), with the annexed operating manual, completed the definition of the Registry of Poultry, as part of the feed and food traceability system.

The main elements introduced by the DM are that:

• The Food Business Operators (OSA) can insert in BDN the request for registration of new activities, after supervision of the Competent Authority;

• The recording in BDN of movements and slaughtering is responsibility of holders, traders, slaughterhouses managers, trade fairs, markets or exhibitions managers, who may choose to operate in the BDN directly or to delegate. More in depth:• Output movements must be recorded in BDN prior taking place; this registration

replace the declaration of origin and destination of the animals and the related certificate at slaughterhouse;

• input movements must be recorded in BDN within 5 days of the poultry arrival;• slaughtering must be recorded within 7 days of slaughtering.

Moreover, according to the DM, by July 27 2014, the registration of movements is mandatory only for breeding farms of Gallus gallus, Turkeys and for other species for meat production; for other farms, hatcheries, dealers, fairs, markets, exhibitions and for slaughterhouses, the notification of movements and slaughtering is required starting from 07/28/2015.

In addition, the DM states that all the official information about the number of holdings, poultry flocks and animals, are based on information recorded in BDN.

The BDN is closely integrated with other national information systems, which can be accessed from the website of the Veterinary Information Systems; in particular the national Information System for Salmonellosis (SiSalm), that collects information about samples taken in the context of the the National Salmonella control programmes, verifies that breeding farms and poultry flocks are recorded in BDN before entering other information.

The web application

From August 1 2014 the new version of the Registry of Poultry is available at the website of the Veterinary Information Systems; it includes web forms for the recording of all information required by the DM 11/13/2013 and its Annex Operating Manual.

Its design and implementation, as all the other web applications , was managed by the National Service Center (CSN) for the National livestock Registry at IZSAM of Teramo.

The new web application includes the following items:

• a public access web page, that contains a link to the web form to obtain user credentials; there is also a download section that contains user documents, manuals and FAQ related to the Registry of Poultry;

• online forms to manage requests about the opening of new holdings, which can be used both by farmers to forward requests and by the Veterinary Services to handle them;

• web services to realize IT systems application cooperation.

The access of a user is subject to verification of the account (username and password),

July 2015 Number 21

9 In these months

that the user obtains by submitting a request to the Help Desk of the National Service Center (CSN). Each user is profiled to access to the web application with the correct role, so he can view and modify only the relevant data.

For all writing operations in BDN (insert or update), the web application verifies that a digital certificate is available with the same data of the account; therefore, users shall have a Digital Certificate properly enabled.

The holders, traders, managers of markets, trade fairs and exhibitions and responsible of the slaughterhouses, can delegate other subjects to record BDN information, using a web form; for each breeding farm recorded in BDN, exists only a subject authorized to insert or update information about poultry movements.

The delegate can be one of the following:• the holder / lessee / trader / hatchery owner;• the responsible of the slaughterhouse;• a Professional Association of Poultry producers;• Veterinary Service/Competent authority;• a vet freelancer;• the owner / lessor;• a poultry industry company (such as Amadori, Gruppo Veronesi, Fileni, ecc.).

One or more account, properly configured, may operate in BDN for each delegates.

The information in BDN

According to the DM 13/11/2013, the Registry of Poultry in BDN contains the main data about all production units which hold or breed poultry for breeding purposes, for meat or eggs production or restocking of supplies of game, including weaning and hatcheries.

For each of these production units, the BDN contains the following detailed data:

• address and geographic coordinates of each farm; • the animal owner / lessor; • the species of poultry bred; • the holder; • the total area of the structure; • the maximum number of animals that can be accommodated in the structure

(capacity); • the number of warehouses; • the type of production; • the EU authorization to make exchanges; • the health status for Salmonella; • the output movements of poultry (the destination, the date of the movement, the

transporter, the duration of the trip and, for animals going to slaughterhouse, also the information on the Food Chain (ICA);

• the incoming movements of poultry, (the date of the movement, the origin, the reference to the origin certificate (Ministerial Decree 16 May 2007), or to the ‘health certificate’ (Directive 158/2009).

For breeding farms of Gallus gallus, Turkeys and other species for meat production, the registration of information about movements allow the correct identification of the poultry flocks, for which the following information are recorded and available:

• the identification code of the shed where the poultry group have been kept; • the incoming movements that have constituted the flock (restocking and subsequent

introductions), each one with origin; • the number of animals in the flock, valuable at any date between restocking and

output; • poultry sex and age at the date of restocking; • the holder; • husbandry system (eg. for layers: Organic, free_range, yarding, cage); • for breeding and layers, the production stage (pullets or laying hens); • for broilers the type of chicken (broilers, roosters, capons, etc.).


10 In these months

• the outgoing movements of the group, with destinations; • treatments and vaccines; • tests and controls for salmonella control programmes1; • slaughtering, with the indication of the slaughterhouse and the date of slaugtering.

During data collection, the information system performs data validation routines that check for correctness and meaningfulness of data recorded in the BDN.

The requirement to register the outgoing movements before the event, as required by the DM, makes recording of ingoing movements and slaughtering particularly easy, thanks to the possibility to visualize and confirm the information on the output movement registered previously.

Data stored in the BDN, thus, acquire relevance thanks to the registration timelines foreseen by the DM, that will allow to have at disposal updated data in real time and therefore to individuate and localize on the territory all the poultry flocks reared at a given time, and for each of them the origin of the animals and all the health information.

In this way the main goal of the National Livestock Registry of the Ministry of Health will be realized, that is to have in the same database, all information useful for the management of public health emergencies in the poultry sector.

--A cura di:Diana PalmaCentro Servizi Nazionale per le Anagrafi ZootecnicheIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dell’Abruzzo e del Molise “G. Caporale” Anna Sorgente Ufficio II – Sanità animale ed Anagrafi zootecnicheMinistero della Salute

1 Sampling of flocks must be registered in the web application SiSalm, available at the website of the Veterinary Information Systems; this system is closely integrated with the Registry of Poultry in BDN, where farms, hatcheries and poultry flocks are recorded.

July 2015 Number 21

11 Hand on data

HAND ON DATA Processing date: 15th July 2015Number of outbreaks reported to SIMAN in the 1st semester 2015

Disease Januray February March April May June Total

Agalassia contagiosa degli ovini e dei caprini 6 3 6 5 5 3 28

Anemia infettiva degli equini 3 3 2 1 1 10

Artrite / encefalite delle capre (CAE) 2 2 4

Brucellosi dei bovini, dei bufalini, degli ovini, dei caprini e dei suini 37 39 63 79 71 67 356

Carbonchio ematico 1 1

Clamidiosi ovina - Aborto enzootico 1 1

Febbre Catarrale degli ovini (Bluetongue) 23 29 9 20 9 3 93

Febbre Q 1 1 1 3

Influenza Aviaria -Bassa patogenicità nel pollame 1 1 1 3

Laringo-tracheite infettiva 1 1

Leptospirosi animali 3 1 4

Leucosi bovina enzootica 3 1 3 1 1 1 10

Maedi-visna 2 1 3

Mal rossino 1 2 1 4

Malattia di Newcastle 1 1

Malattia Vescicolare 1 1

Malattia virale emorragica del coniglio 1 1

Mastite catarrale contagiosa dei bovini 1 1

Mixomatosi dei conigli e delle lepri 2 2

Paratubercolosi 1 3 1 5

Pasteurellosi dei bovini, dei bufalini (barbone), dei suini e degli ovini 1 1

Peste americana 3 4 2 1 10

Peste europea 1 1 2

Peste Suina Africana 12 3 3 5 3 26

Rinopolmonite 1 1 1 3

Salmonellosi aviare non tifoidee 2 2 3 3 10

Salmonellosi delle varie specie animali 2 1 3

Salmonellosi ovina 6 1 2 1 10

Scrapie 1 2 2 2 7

Setticemia emorragica virale 1 1 2

Sindrome respiratoria riproduttiva (PRRS) 1 1

Tifosi aviare 1 1

Tubercolosi Bovina 29 29 27 29 46 47 207

West Nile Fever 1 1


12 Hand on data

Number of outbreaks reported by Regions to SIMAN in the 1st semester 2015

Region Disease Januray February March April May June Total

ABRUZZO

Bluetongue 1 1 2

Bovine leucosis 1 1

Bovine tuberculosis 2 2

Brucellosis of cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats and pigs 1 1 1 2 1 6

Equine infectious anaemia 1 1

Scrapie 1 1

APULIA

Bluetongue 13 9 1 3 26

Bovine leucosis 2 1 1 1 5

Bovine tuberculosis 2 2 1 1 3 9

Brucellosis of cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats and pigs 3 2 4 4 6 8 27


BASILICATA


Brucellosis of cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats and pigs 1 2 1 1 1 6

Scrapie 1 1

BOLZANOAmerican foulbrood of honey bees 1 1

Salmonellosis of animals 1 1

CALABRIA

Bluetongue 1 1

Bovine tuberculosis 2 3 2 4 11


Scrapie 1 1

Swine vescicular disease 1 1

CAMPANIA

Bluetongue 1 3 2 4 1 1 12

Bovine leucosis 2 2

Bovine tuberculosis 8 6 1 3 4 5 27


EMILIA ROMAGNA

American foulbrood of honey bees 2 2

Bluetongue 1 1

Equine rhinopneumonitis 1 1 2

Erysipelas 1 1 1 3

Non-typhoidal avian salmonellosis 2 2

Scrapie 1 1

FRIULI VENEZIA GIULIA


Leptospirosis 1 1

Newcastle disease 1 1

LAZIO


Bovine leucosis 1 1 2

Bovine tuberculosis 1 1 1 2 5

Brucellosis of cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats and pigs 1 1 5 2 9

Chlamydophila abortus infection (Enzootic abortion of ewes, ovine chlamydiosis)

1 1

Equine infectious anaemia 2 2 4

European foulbrood of honey bees 1 1 2


Q fever 1 1

Salmonellosis (S. abortusovis) 1 1

July 2015 Number 21

13 In these months



LOMBARDY


Leptospirosis 1 1

Non-typhoidal avian salmonellosis 2 2 4

West Nile Disease 1 1

MARCHE

Avian typhosis 1 1

Bluetongue 2 2 4



Scrapie 1 1 2

MOLISE

Bluetongue 1 1 2


Brucellosis of cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats and pigs 1 1 6 8

PIEDMONTBovine tuberculosis 1 1

Paratuberculosis 1 1 2

SARDINIA

African swine fever 12 3 3 5 3 26

Antrax 1 1

Bluetongue 1 4 1 6

Caprine arthritis/encephalitis 2 2 4

Contagious agalactia 5 3 6 5 5 3 27

Contagious bovine mastitis 1 1

Erysipelas 1 1

Leptospirosis 1 1

Maedi-visna 2 1 3


Pasteurellosis of cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats and pigs 1 1

Porcine respiratory reproductive syndrome (PRRS) 1 1

Q fever 1 1

Rabbit haemorrhagic disease 1 1

Salmonellosis (S. abortusovis) 3 1 4


SICILY





Scrapie 1 1

TRENTO

American foulbrood of honey bees 1 1 2 1 5

Contagious agalactia 1 1

Leptospirosis 1 1

Mixomatosis 1 1


Viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS) 1 1 2


14 In these months


TUSCANY

Avian typhosis 1 1

Bluetongue 2 2 4



Scrapie 1 1 2

MOLISE

Bluetongue 1 1 2


Brucellosis of cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats and pigs 1 1 6 8

PIEDMONTBovine tuberculosis 1 1


SARDINIA

African swine fever 12 3 3 5 3 26

Antrax 1 1

Bluetongue 1 4 1 6

Caprine arthritis/encephalitis 2 2 4

Contagious agalactia 5 3 6 5 5 3 27

Contagious bovine mastitis 1 1

Erysipelas 1 1

Leptospirosis 1 1

Maedi-visna 2 1 3


Pasteurellosis of cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats and pigs 1 1

Porcine respiratory reproductive syndrome (PRRS) 1 1

Q fever 1 1

Rabbit haemorrhagic disease 1 1

Salmonellosis (S. abortusovis) 3 1 4


SICILY





Scrapie 1 1

TRENTO

American foulbrood of honey bees 1 1 2 1 5

Contagious agalactia 1 1

Leptospirosis 1 1

Mixomatosis 1 1


Viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS) 1 1 2

TUSCANY

Bluetongue 4 1 5


Equine rhinopneumonitis 1 1

Low patogenicity Avian influenza in poultry 1 1

Mixomatosis 1 1

Salmonellosis (S. abortusovis) 2 1 1 1 5


July 2015 Number 21

15 In these months



UMBRIA Bluetongue 1 2 3

VENETO

American foulbrood of honey bees 2 2

Avian infectious laryngotracheitis 1 1

Low patogenicity Avian influenza in poultry 1 1 2


Q fever 1 1



16 In these months

Animals involved in outbreaks reported to SIMAN in the 1st semester 2015

Disease name Animals involved No. of animal in the holding

No. of diseased animals

No. of died

animals

No. of culled

animals

No. of destroyed

animas

African swine fever Suidae 296 91 34 254 269

American foulbrood of honey bees Bees 134 17 0 5 7

Antrax Ruminants 12 3 3 0 3

Avian infectious laryngotracheitisBirds 4000 0 0 0 0

Poultry 9500 2675 2675 0 0

Avian typhosis Poultry 41000 16000 16000 0 16000

Bluetongue Ruminants 12050 155 1 0 0

Bovine leucosis Ruminants 1249 39 0 6 0

Bovine tuberculosis Ruminants 15887 1443 3 701 46

Brucellosis of cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats and pigs Ruminants 35426 3460 9 2339 323

Caprine arthritis/encephalitis Ruminants 866 455 0 0 0

Chlamydophila abortus infection (Enzootic abortion of ewes, ovine chlamydiosis)

Ruminants 400 4 0 0 0

Contagious agalactia Ruminants 10535 2622 8 2 7

Contagious bovine mastitis Ruminants 244 1 0 0 0

Equine infectious anaemia Equidae 123 10 1 1 0

Equine rhinopneumonitis Equidae 123 14 8 0 8

Erysipelas Suidae 26360 50 0 11 6

European foulbrood of honey bees Bees 39 3 0 0 0

Leptospirosis Suidae 5657 17 0 0 0

Leptospirosis Domestic carnviores 1 1 1 0 0

Low patogenicity Avian influenza in poultryBirds 285 12 0 285 165

Poultry 40 1 0 40 40

Maedi-visna Ruminants 885 58 1 0 1

Mixomatosis Lagomorphs 23 2 1 3 0

Newcastle disease Birds 150 1 1 0 0

Non-typhoidal avian salmonellosis Birds 14727 14727 0 0 0

Non-typhoidal avian salmonellosis Poultry 344593 239936 821 104017 22559

Paratuberculosis Ruminants 701 7 0 5 0

Pasteurellosis of cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats and pigs


Porcine respiratory reproductive syndrome (PRRS)

Suidae 162 20 0 0 0

Q Fever Ruminants 694 26 0 0 0

Rabbit haemorrhagic disease Lagomorphs 20 20 20 0 20

Salmonellosis (S. abortusovis) Ruminants 6008 75 2 0 0

Salmonellosis of animals

Poultry 306 1 0 306 306


Suidae 391 1 1 0 1

Scrapie Ruminants 2172 8 6 0 2

Swine vescicular disease Suidae 20 4 0 20 20

Viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS) Acquatic animals 40400 250 0 250

West Nile Disease Birds 3 1 0 0 0

July 2015 Number 21

17 A look at the maps

A LOOK AT THE MAPSThe geographical distribution of the main animal diseasesreported to SIMAN in the 1st semester 2015

Equine Infectious Anaemia

Bluetongue

--Geographical distribution of the outbreaks




Avian Influenza, low patogenicity


African Swine Fever


July 2015 Number 21


Swine Vesicular Disease


West Nile Fever



20 Around us

AROUND USThe main events of epidemiological interest in the last months in the European Union and in the neighbour countries

The Middle East respiratory syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV): news and updates

Since the first known human infection due to the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) occurred in 2012 in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), the disease has been reported in more than 20 countries around the world: Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen (Middle East); Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom (UK) (Europe); Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt (Africa); China, Malaysia, Republic of Korea, the Philippines and Thailand (Asia), and the United States of America (Americas).

The vast majority of the cases have so far occurred in the KSA (76%), where MERS-CoV may have established itself as an endemic infection that is capable of causing community and hospital outbreaks. Indeed, in the Middle East compared to 2014, there has not been any substantial increase in the number of reported cases and the epidemiological characteristics of the cases reported in 2015 do not show any significant difference when compared with cases reported during the same period in 2013 and in 2014.

Most of the cases detected up to now outside the Middle East are exported cases, without the establishment of a local transmission chain, with the sole relevant exception of the Republic of Korea. The first case detected in the Republic of Korea was confirmed on 20 May 2015 in a man with a recent history of travel to 4 countries of the Middle East (KSA, Qatar, UAE and Bahrain). Nowadays 185 cases and 33 deaths have been recorded in the Republic of Korea, making it the largest MERS-CoV outbreak outside of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (5).

Although the majority of human cases of MERS have been attributed to human-to-human infections, the virus does not appear to pass easily from person to person unless a close contact occurs, such as when unprotected care is provided to an infected patient. Clusters of infections were observed in healthcare facilities, where human-to-human transmission appears to be the most probable transmission route, and frequently associated to inadequate prevention and control practices . Thus far, no sustained community transmission has been documented.

MERS-CoV is a zoonotic virus that is transmitted from animals to humans. The origins of the virus are not fully understood but, according to the analysis of different virus genomes, it is believed that it originated in bats and was transmitted to one-humped camels sometime in the distant past.

Retrospective analysis indicates that MERS-CoV was circulating in dromedary camels as early as 1992 in Saudi Arabia and 2003 in the United Arab Emirates (1-4). Strains of MERS-CoV that are identical to human strains have been isolated

July 2015 Number 21

21 Around us

from camels in several countries, including Egypt, Oman, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. MERS-CoV infections in dromedary camels are either asymptomatic or cause mild respiratory symptoms suggesting that outbreaks in camel herds are likely to go undetected (2).

Although camels are suspected to be a major reservoir host for MERS-CoV and an animal source of MERS infection in humans, their exact role in the transmission of the virus to human beings and the exact route(s) of transmission are still unclear. Direct contact with dromedary camels does not seem to explain the majority of observed cases. Other possible sources and vehicles of infection that have hypothesized include food-borne transmission and zoonotic transmission from other species.

Camel milk consumption is increasingly popular in the Arabian Peninsula where it is mostly sold as unpasteurized fresh or fermented milk to local and urban consumers. Washing hands, face and hair in camel urine has been also indicated as a traditional custom among Bedouins and camel-herding peoples in the Arabian Peninsula and East Africa. Camel urine is also part of the traditional pharmacopoeia, and it is consumed pure or mixed with camel milk. At the same time, in the last fifty years there has been a radical change in dromedary camel farming practices in the Arabian Peninsula with an intensification of the production and a concentration of the production around cities. It is possible that the recent intensification of camel herding in the Arabian Peninsula has increased the virus’ reproductive number and attack rate in camel herds while the ‘urbanization’ of camel herding increased the frequency of zoonotic ‘spillover’ infections from camels to humans considering the traditional habits as well (3).

There are still important gaps in the descriptive epidemiology of the disease and additional experimental and field studies are required to address the duration of shedding of infectious MERS-CoV from infected camels, to determine whether infection results in protective immunity, and to identify exact modes of infection to humans.

Figure 1.Confirmed cases of MERS-CoV from 2012 to 2015 (Source: World Health Organization)


22 Around us

Figure 2.Epidemic curve of confirmed cases of MERS-CoV in Republic of Korea, China, Saudi Arabia and other Countries(Source: World Health Organization)

July 2015 Number 21

23 Around us

References

1. Alagaili, A. N., T. Briese, N. Mishra, V. Kapoor, S. C. Sameroff, P. D. Burbelo, E. de Wit, V. J. Munster, L. E. Hensley, I. S. Zalmout, A. Kapoor, J. H. Epstein, W. B. Karesh, P. Daszak O. B. Mohammed, and W. I. Lipkin, 2014: Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection in dromedary camels in Saudi Arabia. MBio 5, e00884-14.

2. Danielle R. Adney, Neeltje van Doremalen, Vienna R. Brown, Trenton Bushmaker, Dana Scott, Emmie de Wit, Richard A. Bowen,corresponding and Vincent J. Munster Replication and Shedding of MERS-CoV in Upper Respiratory Tract of Inoculated Dromedary Camels Emerg Infect Dis. 2014 Dec; 20(12): 1999–2005.

3. Gossner C, Danielson N, Gervelmeyer A, Berthe F, Faye B, Kaasik Aaslav K, Adlhoch C, Zeller H, Penttinen P, Coulombier D. Human-Dromedary Camel Interactions and the Risk of Acquiring Zoonotic Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Infection. Zoonoses Public Health. 2014 Dec 27

4. Meyer, B., M. A. Muller, V. M. Corman, C. B. Reusken, D. Ritz, G. J. Godeke, E. Lattwein, S. Kallies, A.Siemens, J. van Beek, J. F. Drexler, D. Muth, B. J. Bosch, U. Wernery, M. P. Koopmans, R. Wernery, and C. Drosten, 2014: Antibodies against MERS coronavirus in dromedary camels, United Arab Emirates, 2003 and 2013. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 20, 552–5

5. World Health Organization (WHO). 2015. Middle East respiratory syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) – update 9 July 2015. http://www.who.int/emergencies/mers-cov/en/

--Edited by:Daria Di SabatinoCOVEPIIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dell’Abruzzo e del Molise “G. Caporale”


24 Around us

Monitoring of Campylobacter in Italy and in other European countries

Campylobacter has been the most commonly reported gastrointestinal bacterial pathogen in humans in the European Union (EU) since 2005. The number of reported confirmed cases of human campylobacteriosis in the EU in 2013 was 214,779, of which 1178 in Italy (2). Several scientific studies indicate that the consumption of contaminated food is the main cause of infection in humans (1; 7) and that contaminated poultry meat is one of the main routes of infection (12; 14; 15). In particular, the consumption of undercooked meat and cross-contamination with ready to eat food are considered the major risk factors for human (8; 9; 12). In a scientific opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is reported that at least the 20%-30% of human cases of campylobacteriosis are due to the consumption of poultry meat, while the 50%-80% of the cases could be ascribed to poultry as indirect source of infection (4).

A decrease of the incidence of human cases, thus, must go hand in hand with a resolute action of contamination reduction along the poultry production chain.

Results of the 2008 EU Baseline Survey

The virus of PED (PEDV) is an enveloped, single-stranded, positive-sense RNA virus In the EU, a harmonised and standardised Baseline Survey (BS) on the prevalence of Campylobacter in broiler flocks and broiler carcasses was carried out during 2008, in compliance with the provisions laid down by the Commission Decision 2007/516/EC. The survey was based on the collection and testing of caeca content and neck skins taken from broiler slaughter batches randomly selected. The BS results provided information on the prevalence of Campylobacter in broilers and quantitative data on contamination level of carcasses at slaughter.

The prevalence of Campylobacter ranged from 3.2% for Norway to 100% for Luxembourg; in Italy, 393 slaughter batches were sampled and the 63.3% of them were found positive (5). Moreover, the BS results showed that a Campylobacter-colonised broiler batch was about 30 times more likely to have the sampled carcass contaminated with Campylobacter, compared to a non-colonised batch (4). This finding indicates, thus, a limited importance of cross-contamination between batches at slaughterhouse, confirming the importance of the level of infection at primary production stage for the maintenance and the spread of contamination along the production chain.

The contamination levels and prevalence in Italy are showed in table 1 and are in line with those found in other EU countries (6).

The results also highlighted that several risk factors are able to increase the prevalence and/or the contamination levels of Campylobacter in poultry meat, thus influencing the final exposure for the Italian consumer. The risk for Campylobacter-contaminated carcasses increased with the period July-September being the quarter at most risk (7). It was also estimated that the increase of the age at slaughter from 33-35 days to 42-44 days can double the prevalence of positive batches, which would be even quadrupled for increased age up to 48-61 days (3). Other risk factors are linked to the hygienic conditions of farms and to the possibility of contamination of carcasses at slaughter during the evisceration step.

July 2015 Number 21

25 Around us

The national monitoring plan on Campylobacter spp. contamination in broiler production chain in Italy

Based on the results of the EU BS, EFSA recommended member States to prepare national surveys to identify more specifically the risk factors influencing the carcass contamination during slaughtering and the Campylobacter colonization at primary production level.

In this context, at the beginning of 2015, a national monitoring plan is started in Italy on Campylobacter spp. contamination in broiler production chain, with the following specific objectives:

• To determine the levels of contamination of carcasses produced in Italian slaughterhouses;

• To estimate the levels of prevalence of infection in Italian fattening farms;• To estimate the expected number of not compliant slaughter batches and the final

level of risk reduction in case of application of microbiological criteria at slaughter.

The target population comprises nearly all the intensive broiler production units in Italy, including all the main producers registered into the National Body of the agricultural chains of meat and eggs (UNAITALIA). The plan is started in 2015 and prescribe own-checks activities carried out by the producers at slaughterhouse. To this aim, 450 broiler flocks are randomly selected to be sampled in the course of 2015, representing proportionally different categories of broilers (small, medium, large). For each group, 5 animals are selected to collect:

• 5 pools of intestines to be analysed to verify the presence of Campylobacter in caeca content,

• 5 samples of neck skin from 5 carcasses after chilling (table 2).

The monitoring plan foresee also to test 335 samples of breast skin (67 flocks for 5 carcasses each flock) as shown in table 3.

The plan provided detailed guidelines on sampling procedures and laboratory methods.

To date the monitoring plan is still on-going.

Table 1. Contamination levels of Campylobacter in carcasses tested in 2008 in Italy in the context of the EU BS (Source: EFSA)

Contamination level (CFU/g) No of samples %

<10 246 62.6

10-39 23 5.9

40-99 13 3.3

100-999 62 15.8

1 000-10 000 34 8.7

>10 000 15 3.8

Totale 393 100


26 Around us

Table 2. Distribution of neck skin samples by major producers and regions of localization of slaughterhouses

Producer % of production Region No of flocks

No of carcasses

No of pools of intestines

No of neck skin samples

AIA 35% Veneto 158 790 158 790

Amadori15%

Emilia Romagna

68 340 68 340

15% Abruzzo 68 340 68 340

Fileni 15% Abruzzo 68 340 68 340

Monteverde 10% Lombardia 44 220 44 220

Vallespluga 10% Lombardia 44 220 44 220

Total 100% 450 2250 450 2250

Table 3. Distribution of breast skin samples by major producers and regions of localization of slaughterhouses

Producer % of production Region No of flocks No of

carcassesNo of breast skin samples

AIA 35% Veneto 23 115 115

Amadori15%

Emilia Romagna

10 50 50

15% Abruzzo 10 50 50

Fileni 15% Abruzzo 10 50 50

Monteverde 10% Lombardia 7 35 35

Vallespluga 10% Lombardia 7 35 35

Total 67 335 335

What’s up in other EU countries?

Campylobacter is notifiable in Gallus gallus in the Czech Republic, Finland, Slovenia, Iceland and Norway, in cattle in Germany and in all animals in Belgium, Estonia (only C. jejuni), Ireland, Latvia, the Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland. The largest investigations are carried out in the Nordic countries, where the prevalence is at a low or moderate level. In these countries, Campylobacter control or monitoring programmes have been in place for several years and, in 2013, samples obtained in Denmark, Finland and Sweden constituted 73.2 % of the reported samples in the EU (2).

In Sweden, termophilic Campylobacter spp. are notifiable in broilers: a surveillance programme for broilers has been operated by the industry (Swedish Poultry Meat Association) since 1991. The programme covers the 99% of broilers slaughtered in Sweden. Since 2006, sampling is performed by collecting intact caeca from 10 birds of every slaughter flock at the major abattoirs. In 2014, termophilic Campylobacter spp. were detected in the 11.5% of the 2162 broiler flocks at slaughter in the national Campylobacter programme (11).

In Denmark, the first initiatives to combat Campylobacter were initiated in the 1990s, primarily by the poultry industry and the Danish food authorities and comprised hygienic measures at farm level as well as initiation of a monitoring programme of broiler flocks and retail food, especially poultry meat. In 1998, Campylobacter was included in the national governmental pathogen strategy: all broiler flocks (with more than 4200 animal produced per year) were sampled by collecting 10 cloacal swabs at slaughter. The number of flocks tested varied from about 6000 in 1998 to about 4500 in 2007. In 2002, the major slaughter companies also initiated testing of flocks on farm. Moreover, in order to be able to channel the production, in 2003, the two major slaughter companies also initiated a private monitoring programme where all flocks are sampled on farm 7–10 days before slaughter. In 2004, Campylobacter surveillance of chilled broiler meat was established at the two largest slaughterhouses, comprising approximately 98% of the Danish production of chilled broiler meat. In 2008, a new 5-year action plan against Campylobacter was launched by the Danish Government, aiming at reducing the prevalence of Campylobacter in Danish broiler flocks and in

July 2015 Number 21

27 Around us

Danish broiler meat and, innovatively, the plan also focuses on reducing the risk of acquiring Campylobacter infections from imported broiler meat (10).

Data on Campylobacter spp. provided by the Netherlands to the EU are based on a national control program on Salmonella spp. and Campylobacter spp. (Action Plan), which was set up and implemented by the Dutch Product Board for Livestock, Meat and Eggs (PVE) in 1997 to reduce Salmonella and Campylobacter contamination of poultry meat, and S. Enteritidis and S. Typhimurium contamination of laying hens. This programme includes microbiological examination of flocks at each stage of the production chain, application of strict hygiene measures throughout the production chain and a logistic slaughtering procedure for broiler flocks. Approximately 100–200 flocks of laying hens and broilers are sampled annually (13).

Conclusions

EFSA has estimated that the public health benefits of controlling Campylobacter in the primary production will be greater than interventions at a later point in the food chain due to the spread of Campylobacter from broilers to humans by transmission routes other than consumption of broiler meat. Implementation of strict biosecurity in the primary production followed by Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP)/HACCP at slaughter is expected to be able to reduce the prevalence in broilers and the proportion of carcases contaminated during slaughter (3).


28 In these months

References

1. ACMSF — Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food. 2005. Second report on Campylobacter. Published by Food Standards Agency, UK, March 2005. FSA/0986/0605. 195 pages (http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/acmsfCampylobacter.pdf).

2. EFSA and ECDC (European Food Safety Authority and European Centre for Disease Prevention and 3Control), 2015. The European Union Summary Report on Trends and Sources of Zoonoses, Zoonotic Agents and Food-borne Outbreaks in 2013. EFSA Journal 2015;13(1):3991, 162 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2015.3991

3. EFSA — European Food Safety Authority. 2011. Scientific Opinion on Campylobacter in broiler meat production: control options and performance objectives and/or targets at different stages of the food chain. EFSA Journal 2011;9(4):2105. [141 pp.]. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2105.

4. EFSA — European Food Safety Authority. 2010a. Scientific Opinion on Quantification of the risk posed by broiler meat to human Campylobacteriosis in the EU. EFSA Journal 2010; 8(1):1437. [89 pp.]. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1437.

5. EFSA — European Food Safety Authority. 2010b. Analysis of the baseline survey on the prevalence of Campylobacter in broiler batches and of Campylobacter and Salmonella on broiler carcasses in the EU, 2008, Part A: Campylobacter and Salmonella prevalence estimates. EFSA Journal 2010; 8(03):1503). [100 pp.]. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1503.

6. EFSA — European Food Safety Authority. 2010c. Analysis of the baseline survey on the prevalence of Campylobacter in broiler batches and of Campylobacter and Salmonella on broiler carcasses, in the EU, 2008; Part B: Analysis of factors associated with Campylobacter colonisation of broiler batches and with Campylobacter contamination of broiler carcasses; and investigation of the culture method diagnostic characteristics used to analyse broiler carcass samples. EFSA Journal 2010; 8(8):1522. [132 pp.] doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1522.

7. EFSA — European Food Safety Authority. 2005. Scientific report of the scientific panel on biological hazards on the request of the commission related to Campylobacter in animals and foodstuffs. Annex to The EFSA Journal 173, 1–105 (http://www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/medialib/efsa/science/biohaz/biohaz_opinions/857.Par.0003.File.dat/biohaz_ej173_op_Campylobacter_report_en1.pdf).

8. Luber P., Brynestad S., Topsch D., Scherer K., Bartelt E. 2006. Quantification of Campylobacter species cross-contamination during handling of contaminated fresh chicken parts in kitchens. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 72, 66–70 Jan. 2006.

9. Rosenquist H., Nielsen N.L., Sommer H.M., Nørrung B., Christensen B.B. 2003. Quantitative risk assessment of human Campylobacteriosis associated with thermophilic Campylobacter species in chickens. International Journal of Food Microbiology 83, 87–103.

10. 10. Rosenquist H., Boysen L., Galliano C., Nordentoft S., Ethelberg S., Borck B. 2009. Danish strategies to control Campylobacter in broilers and broiler meat: facts and effects. Epidemiol. Infect. (2009), 137, 1742–1750.

11. 11. SVA, Uppsala, Sweden. National Veterinary Institute. Surveillance of infectious diseases in animals and humans in Sweden 2014. SVA:s rapportserie 31 ISSN 1654-7098.

12. 12. Uyttendaele M., Baer, K., Ghafir Y., Daube G., De Zutter L., Herman L., Dierick K., Pierard D., Dubois J.J., Horion B., Debevere J. 2006. Quantitative risk assessment of Campylobacter spp. in poultry based meat preparations as one of the factors to support the development of risk-based microbiological criteria in Belgium. International Journal of Food Microbiology 111, 149–163.

13. 13. Van de Giessen A. W., Bouwknegt M., Dam-Deisz W. D. C., van Pelt W., Wannet W. J. B., & Visser G. 2006. Surveillance of Salmonella spp. and Campylobacter spp. in poultry production flocks in The Netherlands. Epidemiology and Infection, 134(6), 1266–1275. doi:10.1017/S0950268806005905

14. 14. WHO – World Health Organization. 2000. The increasing incidence of human Campylobacteriosis. Report and Proceedings of a WHO Consultation of Experts Copenhagen, Denmark. 21–25 November 2000. WHO/CDS/CSR/APH/2000.4, 137 pages. (http://libdoc.who.int/hq/2001/WHO_CDS_CSR_APH_2001.7.pdf).

July 2015 Number 21

29 In these months

15. 15. Wingstrand A., Neimann J., Engberg J., Nielsen E.M., Gerner-Smid, P., Wegener H.C., Mølbak K. 2006. Fresh chicken as main risk factor for Campylobacteriosis, Denmark. Emerging Infectious Diseases 12 (2), 280–284 February.

--Edited by:Simona IannettiCOVEPIIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dell’Abruzzo e del Molise “G. Caporale” Rossella Pedicone Unione nazionale filiere agroalimentari carni e uova - UNAITALIA


30 Officially free territories

OFFICIALLY FREE TERRITORIES

Bovine tuberculosis: provinces and regions officially free according to the community legislation up to 14/02/2014

Bovine tuberculosis

Decision Province Region

2003/467/CE

Bergamo

LombardiaLecco

Sondrio

Ascoli Piceno Marche

BolzanoTrentino Alto Adige

Trento

2004/230/CE Grosseto Toscana

2005/28/CEComo Lombardia

Prato Toscana

2006/169/CEPescara Abruzzo

All the region Friuli Venezia Giulia

2007/174/CE

All the region Emilia Romagna

NovaraPiemonte

Verbania

Livorno

ToscanaLucca

Siena

BellunoVeneto

Padova

2008/97/CE

Vercelli Piemonte

PisaToscana

Pistoia

2008/404/CE All the region Veneto

2009/342/CE Oristano Sardegna

2010/391/CE

All the region Lombardia

All the region Toscana

Cagliari

SardegnaMedio-Campidano

Ogliastra

Olbia-Tempio

2011/277/CERieti

LazioViterbo

2012/204/UE

AstiPiemonte

Biella

Fermo Marche


July 2015 Number 21

Bovine tuberculosis

Officially free territories 31

Bovine leukosis: Provinces and Regions Officially Free according to the EU legislation up to 14/02/2014


2003/467/CE

Bergamo

Lombardia

Brescia

Como

Lecco

Mantova

Sondrio

Varese


Bolzano Trentino Alto Adige

Bologna

Emilia Romagna

Ferrara

Forlì

Cesena

Modena

Parma

Piacenza

Ravenna

Reggio Emilia

Rimini

Aosta Valle D'Aosta

2004/63/CE

Cremona

LombardiaLodi

Milano

Arezzo

Toscana

Firenze

Grosseto

Livorno

Lucca

Pisa

Pistoia

Prato

Siena

2005/28/CE

Pavia Lombardia

Massa-Carrara Toscana

PerugiaUmbria

Terni

2005/604/CE

Alessandria

Piemonte

Asti

Biella

Cuneo

Novara

Torino

Verbania

Vercelli


2006/169/CE

Pescara Abruzzo

Tutta la regione Friuli Venezia Giulia

FrosinoneLazio

Rieti

Imperia Liguria

Ancona

MarcheMacerata

Pesaro

2006/290/CE Tutta la regione Molise

2007/174/CE

Savona Liguria

Oristano in Sardegna; Sardegna

Tutta la regione Veneto

2009/342/CE Tutta la regione Sardegna

2010/391/CE

Napoli Campania

Brindisi Puglia

Agrigento Sicilia

Caltanissetta

Siracusa

Trapani

2011/277/CE Viterbo Lazio

2012/204/UE

Catania

SiciliaEnna

Palermo

Ragusa

2013/177/UE Benevento Campania

2014/91/UE

Latina Lazio

Tutta la regione Liguria

Avellino Campania

Bovine leukosis


32 Officially free territories


2003/467/CE

Bergamo

Lombardia

Como

Lecco

Mantova

Sondrio

Varese


BolzanoTrentino Alto Adige

Trento

Bologna

Emilia Romagna

Ferrara

Forlì

Cesena

Modena

Parma

Piacenza

Ravenna

Reggio Emilia

Rimini

Cagliari

SardegnaNuoro

Oristano

Sassari

2004/63/CE

Cremona

LombardiaLodi

Pavia

2005/28/CE

Pavia Lombardia

Massa-Carrara Toscana

PerugiaUmbria

Terni

2005/604/CE

Alessandria

Piemonte

Asti

Biella

Novara

Verbania

Vercelli

2006/169/CE

Pescara Abruzzo


Rieti Lazio

ImperiaLiguria

Savona

Milano Lombardia

PistoiaToscana

Siena

Bovine brucellosis: Provinces and Regions Officially Free according to the EU legislation up to 14/02/2014


2007/174/CE

Torino Piemonte

Firenze Toscana


2008/97/CEBrindisi Puglia

Tutta la regione Toscana

2009/342/CE

Ancona

MarcheMacerata

Pesaro

Cuneo Piemonte

2010/391/CE Campobasso Molise

2011/277/CE

Frosinone

LazioLatina

Viterbo

2012/204/UE Tutta la regione Valle d’Aosta

2014/91/UE Tutta la regione Liguria

Bovine brucellosis


July 2015 Number 21

Bovine brucellosis

Officially free territories 33


2002/482/CE Bolzano Trentino Alto Adige

2003/237/CE

Arezzo Toscana

Cagliari

SardegnaNuoro

Sassari

Oristano

2003/732/CE

Bergamo

Lombardia

Brescia

Como

Cremona

Lecco

Lodi

Mantova

Milano

Pavia

Sondrio

Varese

Trento Trentino Alto Adige

2004/199/CERieti

LazioViterbo

2005/28/CE

Firenze

Toscana

Livorno

Lucca

Massa-Carrara

Pisa

Pistoia

Prato

Siena

Perugia

Terni Umbria

2005/764/CE Grosseto Toscana

2005/604/CE

Ancona

Marche

Ascoli Piceno

Macerata

Pesaro

Urbino

Alessandria

Piemonte

Asti

Biella

Cuneo

Novara

Torino

Verbania

Vercelli

2006/169/CE

Pescara Abruzzo


Savona Liguria

Isernia Molise


2008/97/CE

RomaLazio

Latina


2010/391/CE Tutta la regione Molise

2011/277/CETutta la regione Emilia Romagna

Tutta la regione Valle d’Aosta

2014/91/UETutta la regione Lazio

Tutta la regione Liguria

Ovine and caprine brucellosis: Provinces and Regions Officially Free according to the EU legislation up to 14/02/2014

Ovine and caprine brucellosis

April 2015 Number 20


34 Contacts & Editorial staff

-National Reference Centre for Veterinary Epidemiology, Planning, Information and Risk Analysis (COVEPI)

EpidemiologyDr. Paolo Calistriph +39 0861 332241

Statistics and GISDr. Annamaria Conteph +39 0861 332246

-CoordinatorSimona Iannetti (COVEPI)

Editorial boardBarbara AlessandriniPaolo CalistriFabrizio De Massis Gianfranco DilettiNicola FerriArmando Giovannini Federica MonacoDaniela MorelliFrancesco PomilioGiovanni Savini

Istructional designerAlessandro De Luca

Web masterand desktop publishingSandro Santarelli

mail [email protected] +39 0861 332251www.izs.it

-National Reference Centre for the study and verification of Foreign Animal Diseases (CESME)

Diagnostics and Monitoring of Exotic Viral DiseasesDr. Federica Monacoph +39 0861 332446

Diagnostic and surveillance of exotic diseases, Virology laboratory. Windhoek, Namibia Dr. Massimo Scacchiaph +39 0861 332405

CONTACTS& EDITORIAL STAFF

21 benv july 2015 en

Documents