Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): bovine genital campylobacteriosis
2017; Wiley; Volume: 15; Issue: 10 Linguagem: Inglês
10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4990
ISSN1831-4732
AutoresSimon J. More, Anette Bøtner, Andrew Butterworth, Paolo Calistri, Klaus Depner, S.A. Edwards, Bruno Garin‐Bastuji, Margaret Good, Christian Gortázar, Virginie Michel, Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca, Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Mohan Raj, Liisa Sihvonen, Hans Spoolder, Arjan Stegeman, Hans‐Hermann Thulke, Antonio Velarde, Preben Willeberg, Christoph Winckler, Francesca Baldinelli, Alessandro Broglia, Candiani Denise, Beatriz Beltrán‐Beck, Lisa Kohnle, Dominique Bicout,
Tópico(s)Agricultural safety and regulations
ResumoEFSA JournalVolume 15, Issue 10 e04990 Scientific OpinionOpen Access Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): bovine genital campylobacteriosis EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Search for more papers by this authorSimon More, Search for more papers by this authorAnette Bøtner, Search for more papers by this authorAndrew Butterworth, Search for more papers by this authorPaolo Calistri, Search for more papers by this authorKlaus Depner, Search for more papers by this authorSandra Edwards, Search for more papers by this authorBruno Garin-Bastuji, Search for more papers by this authorMargaret Good, Search for more papers by this authorChristian Gortázar Schmidt, Search for more papers by this authorVirginie Michel, Search for more papers by this authorMiguel Angel Miranda, Search for more papers by this authorSøren Saxmose Nielsen, Search for more papers by this authorMohan Raj, Search for more papers by this authorLiisa Sihvonen, Search for more papers by this authorHans Spoolder, Search for more papers by this authorJan Arend Stegeman, Search for more papers by this authorHans-Hermann Thulke, Search for more papers by this authorAntonio Velarde, Search for more papers by this authorPreben Willeberg, Search for more papers by this authorChristoph Winckler, Search for more papers by this authorFrancesca Baldinelli, Search for more papers by this authorAlessandro Broglia, Search for more papers by this authorDenise Candiani, Search for more papers by this authorBeatriz Beltrán-Beck, Search for more papers by this authorLisa Kohnle, Search for more papers by this authorDominique Bicout, Search for more papers by this author EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Search for more papers by this authorSimon More, Search for more papers by this authorAnette Bøtner, Search for more papers by this authorAndrew Butterworth, Search for more papers by this authorPaolo Calistri, Search for more papers by this authorKlaus Depner, Search for more papers by this authorSandra Edwards, Search for more papers by this authorBruno Garin-Bastuji, Search for more papers by this authorMargaret Good, Search for more papers by this authorChristian Gortázar Schmidt, Search for more papers by this authorVirginie Michel, Search for more papers by this authorMiguel Angel Miranda, Search for more papers by this authorSøren Saxmose Nielsen, Search for more papers by this authorMohan Raj, Search for more papers by this authorLiisa Sihvonen, Search for more papers by this authorHans Spoolder, Search for more papers by this authorJan Arend Stegeman, Search for more papers by this authorHans-Hermann Thulke, Search for more papers by this authorAntonio Velarde, Search for more papers by this authorPreben Willeberg, Search for more papers by this authorChristoph Winckler, Search for more papers by this authorFrancesca Baldinelli, Search for more papers by this authorAlessandro Broglia, Search for more papers by this authorDenise Candiani, Search for more papers by this authorBeatriz Beltrán-Beck, Search for more papers by this authorLisa Kohnle, Search for more papers by this authorDominique Bicout, Search for more papers by this author First published: 12 October 2017 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4990Citations: 2 Correspondence: alpha@efsa.europa.eu Requestor: European Commission Question number: EFSA-Q-2017-00038 Panel members: Dominique Bicout, Anette Bøtner, Andrew Butterworth, Paolo Calistri, Klaus Depner, Sandra Edwards, Bruno Garin-Bastuji, Margaret Good, Christian Gortázar Schmidt, Virginie Michel, Miguel Angel Miranda, Simon More, Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Mohan Raj, Liisa Sihvonen, Hans Spoolder, Jan Arend Stegeman, Hans-Hermann Thulke, Antonio Velarde, Preben Willeberg and Christoph Winckler. Acknowledgements: The Panel wishes to thank Jaap Wagenaar for the support provided to this scientific output. Adopted: 14 September 2017 Reproduction of the images listed below is prohibited and permission must be sought directly from the copyright holder: Figure 1 and Figure 1 (Annex): © World Organization for Animal Health (OIE); Table A1 (Appendix) and Table 2 (Annex): © World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). AboutSectionsPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Abstract Bovine genital campylobacteriosis has been assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on the eligibility of bovine genital campylobacteriosis to be listed, Article 9 for the categorisation of bovine genital campylobacteriosis according to disease prevention and control rules as in Annex IV and Article 8 on the list of animal species related to bovine genital campylobacteriosis. The assessment has been performed following a methodology composed of information collection and compilation, expert judgement on each criterion at individual and, if no consensus was reached before, also at collective level. The output is composed of the categorical answer, and for the questions where no consensus was reached, the different supporting views are reported. Details on the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. According to the assessment performed, bovine genital campylobacteriosis can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention as laid down in Article 5(3) of the AHL. The disease would comply with the criteria as in sections 4 and 5 of Annex IV of the AHL, for the application of the disease prevention and control rules referred to in points (d) and (e) of Article 9(1). The assessment here performed on compliance with the criteria as in section 3 of Annex IV referred to in point (c) of Article 9(1) is inconclusive. The animal species to be listed for bovine genital campylobacteriosis according to Article 8(3) criteria is mainly cattle as susceptible and reservoir. 1 Introduction 1.1 Background and Terms of Reference as provided by the requestor The background and Terms of Reference (ToR) as provided by the European Commission for the present document are reported in Section 1.2 of the scientific opinion on the ad hoc methodology followed for the assessment of the disease to be listed and categorised according to the criteria of Article 5, Annex IV according to Article 9 and 8 within the Animal Health Law (AHL) framework (EFSA AHAW Panel, 2017). 1.2 Interpretation of the Terms of Reference The interpretation of the ToR is as in Section 1.2 of the scientific opinion on the ad hoc methodology followed for the assessment of the disease to be listed and categorised according to the criteria of Article 5, Annex IV according to Article 9 and 8 within the AHL framework (EFSA AHAW Panel, 2017). The present document reports the results of assessment on bovine genital campylobacteriosis (BGC) according to the criteria of the AHL articles as follows: Article 7: bovine genital campylobacteriosis profile and impacts Article 5: eligibility of bovine genital campylobacteriosis to be listed Article 9: categorisation of bovine genital campylobacteriosis according to disease prevention and control rules as in Annex IV Article 8: list of animal species related to bovine genital campylobacteriosis. 2 Data and methodologies The methodology applied in this opinion is described in detail in a dedicated document about the ad hoc method developed for assessing any animal disease for the listing and categorisation of diseases within the AHL framework (EFSA AHAW Panel, 2017). 3 Assessment 3.1 Assessment according to Article 7 criteria This section presents the assessment of BGC according to the Article 7 criteria of the AHL and related parameters (see Table 2 of the opinion on methodology (EFSA AHAW Panel, 2017)), based on the information contained in the fact-sheet as drafted by the selected disease scientist (see Section 2.1 of the scientific opinion on the ad hoc methodology) and amended by the AHAW Panel. 3.1.1 Article 7(a) Disease Profile Campylobacter fetus subsp. venerealis (Cfv) is described as the causative agent of BGC. BGC is a venereal disease, also known as bovine venereal campylobacteriosis (BVC). BGC is sexually transmitted and characterised by infertility, early embryonic death and abortions in bovines (Thompson and Blaser, 2000). BGC is listed by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) since it is deemed to have socioeconomic and public health implications. Several countries have been successful in eradicating BGC, whereas in many countries BGC is still endemic. The incidence of BGC is highest in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) where natural breeding of cattle is widely practiced, compared to high income countries where cattle are bred through artificial insemination (AI) (Mshelia et al., 2010). Compared to several other agents causing disease in animals, detailed data on pathogenesis, epidemiology and transmission are lacking due to the fact that there are no reliable serological assays and detection of the causative agent is difficult. It requires specific laboratory equipment to cultivate the agent under microaerobic conditions, very well-trained technical staff to recognise the bacterial growth among more rapid growing contaminating microflora (expertise) and once a suspected isolate has been cultivated, easy-to-perform reliable identification methods are lacking. There are hardly monitoring programs implemented showing numerator and denominator and data are often available from necropsy room findings in aborted fetuses (mostly lacking a denominator to estimate the prevalence). These findings are even more complicated by the fact that in several studies only identification at species level is reported (with an undefined fraction Cfv, the causative agent of BGC) and in some studies the isolates are identified at subspecies level. Finally, in particular in older literature the reliability of the subspecies identification is questionable due to the lack of molecular techniques. The worldwide database on the presence of a disease (OIE) shows positive findings but also their prevalence data are lacking. This results into scarce data on basic aspects of BGC. 3.1.1.1 Article 7(a)(i) Animal species concerned by the disease Susceptible animal species Parameter 1 – Naturally susceptible wildlife species (or family/orders) The naturally susceptible wildlife species of Cfv causing BGC is cattle (Bos taurus) (OIE, 2012). Parameter 2 – Naturally susceptible domestic species (or family/orders) The naturally susceptible wildlife species of Cfv causing BGC is cattle (B. taurus) (OIE, 2012). Parameter 3 - Experimentally susceptible wildlife species (or family/orders) No experimentally susceptible wildlife species for Cfv causing BGC have been described. It is to be expected that wildlife cattle (B. taurus) is the only wildlife species that is susceptible for BGC. Parameter 4 – Experimentally susceptible domestic species (or family/orders) Experimentally susceptible domestic species for Cfv causing BGC are cattle (B. taurus) (Corbeil et al., 1975; Cipolla et al., 1994) and guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus) (Plummer, 2017). Reservoir animal species Parameter 5 – Wild reservoir species (or family/orders) The wild reservoir species for Cfv causing BGC is cattle (B. taurus). Parameter 6 – Domestic reservoir species (or family/orders) The domestic reservoir species for Cfv causing BGC is cattle (B. taurus) (Blaser et al., 2008). 3.1.1.2 Article 7(a)(ii) The morbidity and mortality rates of the disease in animal populations Morbidity Parameter 1 – Prevalence/incidence Although BGC is wide-spread in the world, the lack of monitoring programmes for this disease in many countries makes, it difficult to estimate the prevalence rates of BGC world-wide. As shown in Table 1, the estimates are based on small studies with highly questionable representability. The prevalence of herds infected with Cfv causing BGC is relatively high in LMIC compared to low prevalence or even eradication of BGC in developed countries (data available of the OIE and published data (Mshelia et al., 2007, 2010)). Table 1. C. fetus prevalence world-wide Country Samples Result Reference Argentina Aborted bovine fetuses 26 of 354 tested fetuses (7%) were C. fetus positive Campero et al. (2003) Australia Aborted bovine fetuses 11% of 265 tested fetuses were C. fetus positive Jerrett et al. (1984) Brazil Preputial washings of bulls 170 of 327 tested bulls (52.3%) and 17 of 19 tested farms (89.5%) were C. fetus positive Pellegrin et al. (2002) Brazil (Goiás) Vaginal mucus samples of cows 22.4% of 1,685 cows were C. fetus positive Andrade et al. (1986) USA (California) Blood samples of cows 189 of 400 (47%) tested cows were C. fetus positive Akhtar et al. (1990) USA (California) Blood samples of dairy cows 22.2% of 790 tested cows were C. fetus positive Akhtar et al. (1990) Canada Preputial washings of bulls 18 of 529 (3%) bulls tested were C. fetus positive Devenish et al. (2005) Colombia Preputial washings of bulls 103 farms tested, 15% of the farms had C. fetus positive bulls Griffiths et al. (1984) Egypt BGC prevalence of 10% in buffalo cows Mshelia et al. (2010) India (Calcutta) Fecal samples from cattle No C. fetus found in 120 samples Chattopadhay et al. (2001) India (West Bengal) Estimated BGC prevalence of 6% in cattle Mshelia et al. (2010) Japan Fecal samples from cattle 26.5% of 94 tested samples were Cff positive. 'A few' samples were Cfv positive Giacoboni et al. (1993) Japan Fecal samples from healthy cattle 13 of 338 (4%) samples were C. fetus positive Ishihara et al. (2004) New Zealand Vaginal mucus samples from cows and preputial washings from bulls 1.230 mucus samples from 125 beef cow herds were tested, 70% of herds had > 1 C. fetus positive CVM sample All 54 preputial washings from 9 herds were C. fetus negative McFadden et al. (2005) Nigeria Vaginal mucus samples from cows and preputial washings from bulls 15 of 585 (3%) tested bulls were C. fetus positive 5 of 104 (5%) tested cows were C. fetus positive Bawa et al. (1991) Nigeria Vaginal mucus samples from cows and preputial washings from bulls 3.7% of vaginal mucus samples of cows were C. fetus positive 11% of preputial washings of bulls were C. fetus positive Mshelia et al. (2010) Nigeria Vaginal mucus samples from cows and preputial washings from bulls Total; 270 bovine samples tested, consisting of 170 preputial washings from bulls and 100 vaginal mucus samples of cows. Of these 270 samples, 2.2% were Cfv positive and 1.5% were Cff positive Mshelia et al. (2012) North America Fecal samples from dairy cows cattle 5% of 720 cows were Campylobacter spp. positive Harvey et al. (2004) Malawi Vaginal mucus samples from cows and preputial washings from bulls 1 bull was tested positive for vibriosis Vaginal mucus samples gave no clear result Klastrup and Halliwell (1977) Scotland Preputial washings of bulls 0% of 109 tested bulls were C. fetus positive McGowan and Murray (1999) South Africa (Republic of Transkei) Preputial washings of bulls 10 of 14 (71%) tested sites were C. fetus positive Pefanis et al. (1988) South Africa (Gauteng province) Preputial washings of bulls 2.1% of 143 tested bulls were C. fetus positive Njiro et al. (2011) Tanzania Preputial washings of bulls 3 of 58 (5.1%) tested bulls were Cfv positive Swai et al. (2005) Turkey Preputial washings of bulls and aborted bovine fetuses Cfv is isolated from both bulls and aborted fetuses Mshelia et al. (2010) United Kingdom Aborted bovine fetuses 28 of 161 (17%) tested samples were C. fetus positive Devenish et al. (2005) Zimbabwe Aborted bovine fetuses 9.5% of 21 tested fetuses were C. fetus positive Estimated; BGC prevalence is 33% in cows in Zimbabwe Mshelia et al. (2010) Cff: Campylobacter fetus subsp. fetus; Cfv: Campylobacter fetus subsp. venerealis. Parameter 2 – Case-morbidity rate (% clinically diseased animals out of infected ones) Bulls are asymptomatic carriers of Cfv, so by definition the case-morbidity rate is 0% in these. The case-morbidity rate in cows is unknown, since infection in naturally served animals is mainly detected through the BGC disease symptoms, such as abortion as most clear symptom, and there are no data of the total population of infected animals. Mortality Parameter 3 – Case-fatality rate Infection with Cfv will not cause death of the infected bull and/or cow, but can result in embryo mortality and abortion. The disease can spread rapidly through a herd and abortions and/or infertility due to BGC can reduce the annual weaning rate by 10% (Mshelia et al., 2007). 3.1.1.3 Article 7(a)(iii) The zoonotic character of the disease Cfv is restricted to the genital tract of cattle and no human cases are reported, except for one isolate from a woman with bacterial vaginosis in Sweden in 1987 (Holst et al., 1987). 3.1.1.4 Article 7(a)(iv) The resistance to treatments, including antimicrobial resistance Parameter 1 – Resistant strain to any treatment even at laboratory level All C. fetus strains and most Cfv strains are resistant to naladixic acid and all C. fetus strains are sensitive to cephalothin (On, 1996). In a field study, 1,084 C. fetus strains were isolated from bovines in Alberta and 95% of the isolates showed to be resistant to naladixic acid, 60% of the isolates was resistant for doxycycline, 57% was resistant to tetracycline and 1% was resistant to ciprofloxacin and enrofloxacin (Inglis et al., 2006). The subspecies, however, was not reported and given that the isolates were obtained from faeces, it might be C. fetus subsp. fetus only. There is one study from Germany specifically reporting on susceptibility (Hanel et al., 2011). They report full susceptibility of 50 investigated strains to gentamicin. In 14% of the strains, there was reduced susceptibility to one or more antimicrobials, mostly to lincomycin and spectinomycin. 3.1.1.5 Article 7(a)(v) The persistence of the disease in an animal population or the environment Animal population Parameter 1 – Duration of infectious period in animals BGC infections in cows are usually self-limiting and most cows usually regain fertility within 5 months following elimination of the infection from the uterus (Timoney et al., 1988). However, in an experimental study, the infection persisted in cows for several months, possibly more than a year (Cipolla et al., 1994). Bulls can be life-long carriers of the pathogen (Blaser et al., 2008). Parameter 2 – Presence and duration of latent infection period For bulls, the latent infection period of Cfv causing BGC is from the moment of infection as they can act as a vector to transmit the agent to the next animal. For cows, this period is unknown. Parameter 3 – Presence and duration of the pathogen in healthy carriers It has been estimated that up to 10% of infected animals remain life-long carriers of Cfv causing BGC (Irons et al., 2004), whereas cows can become permanent vaginal carriers (Dekeyser, 1984) and older bulls can be life-long carriers in the crypts of the prepuce (García et al., 1983). Environment Parameter 4 – Length of survival (dpi) of the agent and/or detection of DNA in selected matrices (soil, water, air) from the environment (scenarios: high and low T) Soil and water in cattle fields can be contaminated with C. fetus, however data about the length of survival of C. fetus in the environment is lacking. Campylobacter coli and Campylobacter jejuni can survive up to 10 months in cattle manure; however, the survival of these Campylobacter spp. is apparently quite different from C. fetus and this must be extrapolated with care (Wagenaar et al., 2014). 3.1.1.6 Article 7(a)(vi) The routes and speed of transmission of the disease between animals, and, when relevant, between animals and humans Routes of transmission Parameter 1 – Types of routes of transmission from animal to animal (horizontal, vertical) The route of transmission from animal to animal of Cfv is venereal with mainly asymptomatic bulls spreading the infection. Cows become infected through natural service or AI with contaminated semen. Bulls can become infected by serving an infected cow and transmission may occur between bulls during mounting. Vertical transmission has never been reported. Parameter 2 – Types of routes of transmission between animals and humans (direct, indirect, including food-borne) Not applicable – humans are not susceptible to Cfv. Speed of transmission Parameter 3 – Incidence between animals and, when relevant, between animals and humans The transmission of Cfv between animals within a herd depends on the presence of a 'vector'; an infected bull that spreads the infection between animals, because BGC is a venereally transmitted infection. However, no quantitative estimates are available in bibliography. Parameter 4 – Transmission rate (beta) (from R0 and infectious period) between animals and, when relevant, between animals and humans No data available about the transmission rate of BGC between animals. 3.1.1.7 Article 7(a)(vii) The absence or presence and distribution of the disease in the Union, where the disease is not present in the Union, the risk of its introduction into the Union Presence and distribution Parameter 1 – Map where the disease is present in the EU The map where BGC is present in the European Union (EU) is depending on the self-reporting of the country and this will certainly not show a full picture. The BGC distribution in the EU in 2016 as reported to OIE is presented in Figure 1. Figure 1Open in figure viewerPowerPoint BGC distribution in the EU in 2016 (obtained from OIE (online)) Parameter 2 – Type of epidemiological occurrence (sporadic, epidemic, endemic) at MS level The use of AI with BGC-free semen in Europe has greatly reduced the incidence of BGC. In countries from which BGC is reported, the type of epidemiological occurrence is only sporadic cases. For the sporadic cases, there are no studies on risk factors. Furthermore, the notification of BGC cases in Europe to OIE may be affected by underreporting (OIE, online). Risk of introduction Parameter 3 – Routes of possible introduction As some countries report on a more regular basis cases (e.g. the UK), the pathogen is frequently detected in some European countries but the disease is sporadic (few outbreaks). In countries that do not report cases and are supposed to be free of BGC, there is a risk for introduction of BGC. The routes of possible introduction of BGC are import of infected cattle or contaminated bovine products, like semen and embryos. Parameter 4 – Number of animal moving and/or shipment size In 2014, the EU has imported around 9.7 million doses of bovine semen (Eurostat; The European Platform of Exporters of Bovine Genetics (ExPla)). Parameter 5 – Duration of infectious period in animal and/or commodity The duration of the infectious period in animals is mentioned in Section 3.1.1.5 of this fact-sheet. Parameter 6 – List of control measures at border (testing, quarantine, etc.) The general animal health requirements governing the intra-EU trade and import of bovine semen are laid down in Council Directive 88/407/EEC11 Council Directive 88/407/EEC of 14 June 1988 laying down the animal health requirements applicable to intra- Community trade in and imports of deep-frozen semen of domestic animals of the bovine species. OJ L 194, 22.7.1988, p. 10–23. and for bovine embryos in Council Directive 89/556/EEC.22 Council Directive 89/556/EEC of 25 September 1989 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in and importation from third countries of embryos of domestic animals of the bovine species. OJ L 302, 19.10.1989, p. 1–11. These directives harmonise the animal health conditions for the trade within the EU and import to the EU from third countries, as well as the conditions of collection and storage. According to Council Directive 88/407/EEC, bulls whose semen is used for intra-community trade must be kept in quarantine before being admitted to an AI station. During the quarantine, bulls younger than 6 months are tested once for BGC and bulls older than 6 months are tested three times with 1 week intervals. Bulls that are in production must be tested annually. Bulls that are on hold are excluded with the proviso that when they are longer than 6 months on hold, they should be tested at the earliest 30 days prior to the resumption of the semen production. Bulls in non-EU countries are mainly tested twice per year. Bulls are screened for BGC as described in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code by the OIE (2013). If an animal is tested positive for BGC in an AI station, the AI station is closed and all semen obtained in the period from the latest negative test will be destroyed, according to Council Directive 88/407/EEC. All bulls will be treated with antibiotics and must be tested negative for BGC for 3 times with 2 weeks interval, before the AI centre is allowed to continue their production. Parameter 7 – Presence and duration of latent infection and/or carrier status The presence and duration of the latent infection and/or carrier status of BGC are mentioned in Section 3.1.1.5 of this fact-sheet. Parameter 8 – Risk of introduction If animals are infected or products are contaminated, the risk of introduction of BGC to the EU is high, but spread can be prevented by the control measures of AI centres and treatment of animals. 3.1.1.8 Article 7(a)(viii) The existence of diagnostic and disease control tools Diagnostic tools Parameter 1 – Existence of diagnostic tools BGC is diagnosed by diagnostic tools prescribed by the OIE (2012). The immunofluorescence antibody test (IFAT) is suitable to detect if a sample contains suspected C. fetus bacteria, but for definite diagnosis confirmation has to be done by isolating C. fetus from the sample. The isolation of the pathogen causing BGC can be challenging, since C. fetus is slow-growing and requires specific microaerobic conditions. It is critical that collected samples are sent immediately to the laboratory and cultured. If transport takes long, transport medium should be used. It is recommended to use selective Skirrow medium to isolate C. fetus. Alternatively, the filtration-technique can be used, where the sample is brought onto a 0.65 μm filter, allowing the Campylobacter bacteria to pass to a non-selective blood-based (5–7% blood) medium. Identification of C. fetus can be done with biochemical tests or molecular tests, as described in the OIE manual (OIE, 2012). Serological assays are not suitable for diagnosis due to cross-reaction between C. fetus subsp. fetus and C. fetus subsp. venerealis. Control tools Parameter 2 – Existence of control tools BGC can be controlled by vaccination (Section 3.1.4.2), antimicrobials (Section 3.1.4.3), the separation of infected from non-infected animals and control measurements for the prevention of introduction to a herd by infected animals or their products (Section 3.1.1.7 Parameter 6), including quarantine measurements. Artificial insemination is considered to be the most effective for controlling BGC, as is evidenced by farms that have changed from natural breeding to controlled AI programmes (Figueiredo et al., 2002). 3.1.2 Article 7(b) The impact of diseases 3.1.2.1 Article 7(b)(i) The impact of the disease on agricultural and aquaculture production and other parts of the economy The level of presence of the disease in the Union Parameter 1 – Number of MSs where the disease is present See Section 3.1.1.7, BGC is sporadic in several MSs. In 2016, sporadic cases of BGC were reported in four MSs: the United Kingdom, Ireland, France and Spain. The presence of the disease in EU countries from 2005 to 2016 is presented in Table A.1 in Appendix A. The loss of production due to the disease Parameter 2 – Proportion of production losses (%) by epidemic/endemic situation Control measures prevent the spread of BGC within the EU. Data about production losses in the EU are not available; however, it was estimated that during the first year of infection, the gross profit margins may be reduced by 66% and when the disease becomes established within a herd, gross profit margins are 36% lower than those of uninfected herds (Hum et al., 1994). In Argentina, weaning rates in BGC-infected herds decrease by 10%, which accounts for an annual loss of $165 million (Jimenez et al., 2011). In the modern dairy industry, it appears that more than 90% of dairy calves are born to AI. For example, in Denmark in 2015, around 17% of first parity dairy cows and 7% of older dairy cows were bred using natural service, with the balance using AI and overall for dairy cattle, 90% are inseminated using AI (SEGES, 2016). Similarly in France, 79% of births in dairy herds are by AI (IDELE, 2017). In Ireland, extrapolated data from the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation indicate approximately 45–60% of calves from the dairy herds are sired by AI (ICBF, 2017). According to the German Cattl
Referência(s)