Risiko und Bedeutung der verschiedenen Haltungsformen in Fernost
Welchen Einfluss hat die jeweilige Haltungsform auf die Epidemiologie in den fernöstlichen Ländern, die als Epizentrum der derzeitigen H5N1 Epidemie gelten?
Entwicklung und Stellenwert der verschiedenen Geflügelhaltungsformen in den ostasiatischen Ländern sind im rascher Entwicklung und müssen differenziert betrachtet werden
Bei einem Vergleich des AI Risikos in Thailand der vier Haltungsformen
1- Geschlossenes High biosecurity system
2- Open House System
3 -Grazing System (Free-range Ducks)
4- Backyard Ducks
ergaben sich erhebliche Differzen im Ergebnis:
In 1) High securuty system keine AI, während in den drei offenen systemen AI in unterschiedlichem Ausmass festgestellt wurde.
Zitat:
The 4 duck-raising systems in wide use at the beginning of the 2004 Thai epidemic differed markedly in cases of influenza detected. No infections with H5N1 influenza virus were detected in ducks raised in the closed system, attesting to the effectiveness of the biosecurity employed. In contrast, H5N1 infection was detected in ducks raised in all 3 open systems. Notably, infection in the hatchery or during the 3 weeks of brooding was detected only after the ducks were released into the rice fields. The source of the H5N1 viruses infecting domestic ducks in the rice fields remains controversial. Because H5N1 viruses were detected in herons, storks, egrets, and other dead waterfowl in Eastern Asia, the initial spread of the highly pathogenic viruses in this region of the world has been attributed to wild migrating birds. What role wild migrating birds had in the spread of H5N1 influenza virus is now a moot question. The widespread outbreaks and massive die-off of bar-headed geese and other species in western China (17,18), and the spread of H5N1 to central Asia (Kazakhstan, southern Russia, and Turkey) and more recently to Romania and Croatia in eastern Europe, are likely caused by wild migratory birds.
Detailed studies of 10 flocks of grazing ducks in Thailand in the present study showed infection with H5N1 influenza virus in all flocks. Although the ducks shed virus for 5 to 10 days, few ducks showed disease signs, and in some flocks, no ducks were symptomatic. Prolonged shedding of H5N1 viruses in experimentally infected ducks has been previously described (16,19), but prolonged shedding in free-range ducks has not. Therefore, free-range (grazing) ducks that are moved long distances by truck and that do not necessarily show disease signs are an optimal vehicle for the spread of H5N1 viruses throughout the country. These findings support the need for regulations that forbid the practice of raising ducks on the free range, a need underscored by the association of the recent human infection with illegal free-range duck grazing.
This study also points out the dangers of raising ducks in the open systems without complete biosecurity. Although stopping the commercial raising of ducks in open system may be impossible, the more problematic issue is that of backyard ducks, which are part of traditional village livestock. Highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus is now likely endemic in poultry in Vietnam, Cambodia, China, and Indonesia. The vaccine option should be considered if backyard duck raising is to continue in Southeast Asia.
Quelle: Thaweesak Songserm,* Rungroj : Domestic Ducks and H5N1 Influenza Epidemic, Thailand. CDC, Vol. 12, No. 4 April 2006 http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol12no04/05-1614.htm
