羊布鲁氏杆菌病的诊治探讨

笔者针对河南省洛阳市动物养殖过程中出现的羊布鲁氏杆菌病,对其概念、诊断以及防治措施进行了研究。羊布鲁氏杆菌病在家畜养殖过程中危害较大,很多家畜养殖者在面对羊布鲁氏杆菌病的侵袭时显得束手无策,因此加强对羊布鲁氏杆菌病的研究意义重大。     

羊布鲁氏杆菌病的传播途径及实验室化验人员的防控措施

介绍了布鲁氏杆菌及其种类,分析了羊布鲁氏杆菌病的感染途径,并提出了实验室化验人员针对羊布鲁氏杆菌病的防控措施。     

羊布鲁氏菌病综合防控

<正>布鲁氏菌病又称布病或者波浪热,是由布鲁氏杆菌属的细菌引起的以感染牛羊为主的慢性、全身性的人畜共患传染病。1病原导致布鲁氏菌病的病原是布鲁氏杆菌,该菌菌体较小,形状不规则,呈杆状或似球状,革兰氏染色为阴性,属革兰氏阴性杆状菌,其分7个菌,包括羊布鲁氏杆菌、牛布鲁氏杆菌、猪布鲁氏杆菌、绵羊布鲁氏杆菌等,其中牛、羊、猪类菌的危害最严重,羊布鲁氏杆菌的致病能力最强。     

羊布鲁氏杆菌病的诊断与防治

随着我国国民生活水平的逐渐提高,人们对肉类等消费需求刺激了畜牧业的蓬勃发展,我国多省大力发展养羊业,全国各地羊群的流动转运频繁,同时也加速了羊布鲁氏杆菌病的扩散传播。羊布鲁氏杆菌病是由布鲁氏杆菌引起的一种人兽共患传染病,对养羊业危害严重,同时危害公共卫生安全,越来越受到社会各界的关注。文章主要就羊布鲁氏杆菌病的诊断和防治措施进行探析,以期为我国羊布鲁氏杆菌病的预防控制提供具有参考性的理论基础。     

羊布鲁氏菌病的危害及防控措施

羊布鲁氏杆菌病对人们生命安全所造成的危害性不比口蹄疫少,可是我国至今仍然没有研究出科学有效的防治该病的策略,它对国家经济发展以及羊产业的发展所造成的危害性仍在逐年上升,本文就依据羊布鲁氏杆菌病在内蒙古鄂尔多斯的实况,提出对羊布鲁氏杆菌病危害的解决办法。     

浅谈牛布鲁氏杆菌病的危害与防治措施

正青河县近几年由于养殖业发展迅猛,许多养殖户不断从外地引进良种牛、羊,随之也将布鲁氏杆菌病传入本地区。此病在一定范围内有所传播,对养殖户带来健康危害。因此,我们要加强对布鲁氏杆菌病的防范和控制。1布鲁氏杆菌病的症状布鲁氏杆菌病是由布鲁氏杆菌引起的一种人畜共患的传染病,是目前已知的200多种动物传染病之一,简称布病。此病主要传染源是患布病的家畜以及患布病啮齿类动物,如羊、牛、猪、鹿、马、骆     

布鲁氏杆菌病检测方法的对比试验

布鲁氏杆菌病是由布鲁氏杆菌引起的人与畜均可感染的传染病,家畜中牛、羊、猪最常发生,感染布病的牛、羊、猪会传染给人和其它家畜,其特征侵害生殖系统及胎膜,出现流产不育。控制与消灭本病的关键所在是准确诊断,本文对比了平板凝集试验、试管凝集试验、快速反应试纸条和布鲁氏杆菌ELISA试剂反应盒4种方法检测布鲁氏杆菌病,试验表明,纸片快速诊断是实验室中诊断布鲁氏杆菌病较准确的方法之一,为净化布鲁氏杆菌病提供了有力手段。     

羊布鲁氏杆菌病的防控措施

布鲁氏杆菌病是由布鲁氏杆菌引起的一种人畜共患传染病,主要侵害生殖系统。本文根据羊布鲁氏杆菌病的病原及症状特点,提出了相应的防控措施。     

一起羊布鲁氏杆菌病诊治的报告

羊布鲁氏杆菌病是由布鲁氏杆菌引起的人畜共患传染病，危害较大，而且这些年越来越多，给人、畜健康造成严重危害。2012年9月份庄河市仙人洞镇某羊场发生了一起羊布鲁氏杆菌病。由于及时采取了隔离、消毒、扑杀病羊等综合防控措施，有效地控制了疫情的发展蔓延。     

几种羊常见细菌病的防治

正1 羊布鲁氏杆菌病羊布鲁氏杆菌病是由布鲁氏杆菌引起的一种人畜共患慢性传染病,家畜中羊、牛、猪易感,其中山羊最易感;母羊易感性高于公羊,成年羊易感性高于羔羊。世界动物卫生组织(OIE)将其列为必须通报的动物传染病,我国则将其列为二类动物疫病。1.1 诊断要点1.1.1 流行病学布鲁氏杆菌为球杆状或短杆状革兰氏阴性菌,无荚膜和芽孢,不能运动。病原主要存在于病羊的分泌物、排泄物(如阴道分泌物、乳汁、精液、粪便、尿等)中,     

天祝县2011—2019年布病监测及分析

调查分析2011—2019年甘肃省天祝县布鲁氏菌病人、畜间流行病学特征,为调整防控策略提供科学依据。天祝县畜牧业历史悠久,是布病老疫区,2011年始牛羊阳性率不断出现,老疫区呈现布病活跃状态,输入性染疫成为畜间布病传染的主要原因。人间新增病人每年也有变化,与畜间阳性率呈正相关。     

奶山羊布鲁氏菌病抗原与抗体双检测的效果分析

为了有效检测净化奶山羊布鲁氏菌病群体,加快奶山羊产业健康稳步发展。本文采用布鲁氏菌病抗原与抗体双检测方法对陕西某奶山羊场进行了检测分析。结果表明,在某奶山羊场引入羊时,采用抗体单一检测发现全群228只羊感染了36只,感染率达到15.79%,发现感染后对本群感染羊进行了无害化处理和圈舍清洗消毒,3个月后对剩余的192只羊有进行了一次全群检测,结果检测出18只阳性羊,与上一次的净化方式一样处理后,同样又在3个月后对剩余的174只羊采用抗原与抗体双检测方法,布病抗体检测卡检测出8只羊,布病抗原检测卡检测出10只羊,而且用布病抗体检测卡和布病抗原检测卡检测出来的羊只编号完全不同,3个月后对剩余的156只羊进行同样的方法进行检测,结果仅检查出1只阳性羊,6个月后对剩余的155只羊进行同样的方法进行检测,未发现布病阳性羊只。利用抗原与抗体双检测继续在3个月、6个月进行检测均未发现阳性羊只。本试验得出结论,相比于抗体单一的布鲁氏菌病检测法,抗原抗体共同使用的检测方法布病阳性率明显的降低,且能短期内达到预期净化的效果,说明双抗使用在羊布鲁氏菌病检测中效果更好,更具有推广使用的意义。     

The use of skin delayed-type hypersensitivity as an adjunct test to diagnose brucellosis in cattle: a review

Brucellosis, caused by bacteria of the genus Brucella, is a contagious disease that causes economic loss to owners of domestic animals due to loss of progeny and milk yield. Because cattle, sheep, goats, and to a lesser extent pigs are considered to be the source of human brucellosis, serological tests have been used to screen domestic animals for antibodies against Brucella. Although the serological tests helped to eradicate brucellosis in many countries, serological tests are not always adequate to detect latent carriers of Brucella. Therefore, the use of the skin delayed-type hypersensitivity (SDTH) test, which is independent of circulating antibodies, might improve the diagnosis of brucellosis. In the literature, however, there are conflicting reports as to the value of the SDTH test for the diagnosis of brucellosis. Some studies consider the test unreliable, whereas others advocate its use because it detects brucellosis earlier than serological tests. The objectives of this study were therefore to assess the characteristics of the SDTH test, to select a Brucella strain that will yield a suitable brucellin for use in the field, and to determine whether the use of serological tests in combination with the SDTH test improves the detection of brucellosis. The results of this study clearly show that the SDTH test detects latent carriers of Brucella and confirms brucellosis in cattle with ambiguous serological test results. Brucellins prepared from smooth or mucoid strains of Brucella are better suited for use in the field than brucellins prepared from rough strains because they detect brucellosis in cattle with acute as well as chronic infection. The SDTH test is highly specific (99.3% specificity), and repeated testing of naive cattle or cattle infected with microorganisms that serologically cross-react with Brucella does not sensitize cattle to subsequent SDTH tests. However, it is possible that some naive cattle may serologically react to the injection of brucellin. The effect of these serological reactions on the sero-diagnosis of brucellosis is limited, because cattle may only now and then react serologically either with the serum agglutination test (SAT) or the complement fixation test (CFT). Nevertheless, cattle infected with microorganisms that serologically cross-react with Brucella may test seropositive for brucellosis 4 to 7 weeks after injection of brucellin, depending on the cross-reacting microorganism. The value of the SDTH test for the diagnosis of brucellosis was demonstrated after an outbreak of brucellosis. When the SDTH test was used in combination with SAT and CFT at diagnostic threshold > or =2 mm or > or =1 mm (increase in skinfold thickness), respectively, 39/44 (88%) or 42/44 (95%) of the infected cattle were detected compared with only 27/44 (61%) when SAT and CFT were used. When cattle in areas of low prevalence or in areas free from brucellosis are tested with the SDTH test an increase > or =2 mm in skinfold thickness should be considered indicative of infection. When the control and eradication of brucellosis is based on test-and-slaughter, an increase of > or =1 mm in skinfold thickness should be considered indicative of infection. Repeated serological testing complemented with the SDTH test in this programme will shorten the quarantine (movement control) period of a suspect herd, limiting the financial loss incurred during outbreaks of the disease. Consequently, since the SDTH test usually does not interfere with the serological diagnosis and can safely be used to establish the infection status of cattle in a suspect herd, it is opportune to consider adding the SDTH test to the procedure currently used to diagnose brucellosis in individual animals.     

Brucellosis in the European Union and Norway at the turn of the twenty-first century

Control and eradication programs of brucellosis in cattle, sheep, goats and pigs have been more or less successfully implemented within the Member States (MS) of the European Union (EU) and Norway after Word War II. As a result, the epidemiological situation of animal brucellosis is extremely diverse among different MS or regions within a MS and among the different animal species. Some MS, mainly North European countries, and Norway are declared “officially bovine brucellosis free” and/or “officially ovine and caprine (Brucella melitensis) free”. The situation is less favorable in Southern European countries, particularly as far as sheep and goat brucellosis are concerned. This situation has important zoonotic consequences as reflected in the number of human brucellosis cases due to B. melitensis that are still encountered in those countries. Brucellosis in swine has re-emerged as a result of spillover from the wild boar brucellosis (Brucella suis biovar 2) reservoir, particularly in outdoor reared pigs. Besides the actual challenge to eradicate brucellosis, further issues have to be addressed: (1) the management of false positive serological results that occur in the course of brucellosis testing, particularly in cattle; (2) the impact of wildlife brucellosis, particularly wild boar brucellosis in domestic animals; and (3) the importance of B. melitensis infection in cattle that are in contact with infected sheep.     

动物布鲁氏菌Rev.1疫苗研究进展

布鲁氏菌病（布病）是由布鲁氏菌引起的一种重要的人畜共患病,对公共卫生有着巨大的威胁。布鲁氏菌Rev.1疫苗研制于上世纪50年代中期,并在欧洲、中东和蒙古等地区被广泛应用于小反刍动物布病的防控,一度被认为是防控小反刍动物布病最为有效的疫苗。但是,由于Rev.1疫苗存在毒力偏强及毒力不稳定等现象,其安全性仍值得关注。本文主要从Rev.1疫苗背景及其菌株的生物学特性、疫苗使用情况以及存在的不足等几个方面进行阐述,以期为Rev.1疫苗的应用和布鲁氏菌相关疫苗的开发提供借鉴。     

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) brucellosis eradication program in the United States

Efforts to eradicate brucellosis caused by Brucella abortus in the United States began in 1934 as part of an economic recovery program to reduce the cattle population because of the Great Depression and concurrent severe drought conditions. A number of states saw this as an opportunity to reduce the level of brucellosis, which was the most significant livestock disease problem in the US at the time. In 1934 and 1935, the reactor rate in adult cattle tested was 11.5%. In 1954, the magnitude of the brucellosis problem in the United States in terms of economics to the cattle industry and human health prompted Congress to appropriate funds for a comprehensive national effort to eradicate brucellosis. The brucellosis eradication program was designed as a cooperative effort between the federal government, the states, and livestock producers. As the science and technology of brucellosis has developed over the years through research and experience, the eradication program has been modified many times.

As of 31 December 2000, there were no affected cattle herds in the United States. This was the first time in the history of the brucellosis program that the United States had no known brucellosis affected herds. However, brucellosis has a variable, sometimes quite lengthy incubation period, so it is expected that additional affected herds will be disclosed. It is likely that additional affected herds will be disclosed before brucellosis is finally eradicated from cattle. Animal health officials remain prepared to aggressively pursue any newly disclosed affected herds to eliminate the disease as quickly as possible.

The State-Federal Brucellosis Eradication Program has made tremendous progress since its inception. In an eradication program, it is critically important to recognize that, despite all the tools that are available to eliminate the disease, an effective surveillance system is the critical first step that must be in place in order to be successful. It is imperative, not only to be able to find the disease and eliminate it, but to find it before it spreads to susceptible herds. When brucellosis can be identified, contained, and eliminated before spread occurs, eradication can be achieved.     

An epidemiological and surveillance overview of brucellosis in Romania

This article reports epidemiological investigations on the occurrence of brucellosis in Romania. Like in other former communist countries, data concerning epidemiology of brucellosis and published articles are very few. The epidemiology and control of brucellosis in Romania was analyzed using data made available by the Office International des Epizooties and Veterinary Service of Romania. Romania, like many other developed countries, has eradicated Brucella abortus from cattle since 1969. Brucellosis caused by Brucella melitensis has never been reported. The incidence of brucellosis in swine and sheep is very rare but still there are a few outbreaks in some regions. In 2000, the number of cases was 47 in swine and 270 cases in sheep. Vaccination against brucellosis is prohibited in Romania.     

布鲁氏菌病的致病机理、流行特征及其防控和防治

布鲁氏杆菌病是由布鲁氏菌属细菌侵入机体引起的牛羊易感的一种人畜共患传染病。布鲁氏杆菌病的发生不仅降低了养殖户的经济效益,还对人的生命健康产生极大威胁。观察最近15年的发病趋势,发现布氏杆菌病疫情在世界范围内呈反弹趋势,我国尤甚。应在之前的防控、防治的基础上,进一步研究布氏杆菌病的发病机理,寻求更加有效的措施降低发病率,并探寻能够降低人感染率的有效方法。本文概述了牛羊布氏杆菌病的发病机理和临床特征,并结合近几年布氏杆菌病的流行情况和国内外已有的防治措施,探寻新背景下能够有效降低感染率的方法。     

Epidemiology and control of brucellosis in China

The paper describes the history and evolvement of brucellosis in China. It presents the variation of epidemic situation, epidemiological characteristics, application of vaccines and control in brief. Before 1980s, human and animal brucellosis was quite severe; during 1980s, the incidence of human and animal brucellosis was relatively low, and seemed to decrease during the decade. During 1990s, there were no obvious changes in the incidence of animal brucellosis, but the incidence of human brucellosis increased, especially from 1995 to 2001. There are not only some common characteristics but also some differences in brucellosis epidemiology relative to that reported in the rest of the world. For the entire country, B. melitensis was the predominant strain associated with outbreaks, and the epidemic peak is from February to June. Several Brucella vaccines have been used in China for prevention and control of brucellosis. such as B. abortus 104 M in humans, B. suis S2 in animals. The introduction of comprehensive measures has allowed great progress in the prevention and control of brucellosis in China. Surveillance points were set-up countrywide to estimate the epidemic situation. In addition, we discussed the new characteristics of brucellosis in China, the influence of the El Nino phenomenon on brucellosis epidemic situation, the phenomenon of antigenic interference between Brucella species and some disadvantages of live Brucella vaccines.     

The use of skin delayed‐type hypersensitivity as an adjunct test to diagnose brucellosis in cattle: A review

Summary

Brucellosis, caused by bacteria of the genus Brucella, is a contagious disease that causes economic loss to owners of domestic animals due to loss of progeny and milk yield. Because cattle, sheep, goats, and to a lesser extent pigs are considered to be the source of human brucellosis, serological tests have been used to screen domestic animals for antibodies against Brucella. Although the serological tests helped to eradicate brucellosis in many countries, serological tests are not always adequate to detect latent carriers of Brucella. Therefore, the use of the skin delayed‐type hypersensitivity (SDTH) test, which is independent of circulating antibodies, might improve the diagnosis of brucellosis. In the literature, however, there are conflicting reports as to the value of the SDTH test for the diagnosis of brucellosis. Some studies consider the test unreliable, whereas others advocate its use because it detects brucellosis earlier than serological tests. The objectives of this study were therefore to assess the characteristics of the SDTH test, to select a Brucella strain that will yield a suitable brucellin for use in the field, and to determine whether the use of serological tests in combination with the SDTH test improves the detection of brucellosis. The results of this study clearly show that the SDTH test detects latent carriers of Brucella and confirms brucellosis in cattle with ambiguous serological test results. Brucellins prepared from smooth or mucoid strains of Brucella are better suited for use in the field than brucellins prepared from rough strains because they detect brucellosis in cattle with acute as well as chronic infection. The SDTH test is highly specific (99.3% specificity), and repeated testing of naive cattle or cattle infected with microorganisms that serologically cross‐react with Brucella does not sensitize cattle to subsequent SDTH tests. However, it is possible that some naive cattle may serologically react to the injection of brucellin. The effect of these serological reactions on the sero‐diagnosis of brucellosis is limited, because cattle may only now and then react serologically either with the serum agglutination test (SAT) or the complement fixation test (CFT). Nevertheless, cattle infected with microorganisms that serologically cross‐react with Brucella may test seropositive for brucellosis 4 to 7 weeks after injection of brucellin, depending on the cross‐reacting microorganism. The value of the SDTH test for the diagnosis of brucellosis was demonstrated after an outbreak of brucellosis. When the SDTH test was used in combination with SAT and CFT at diagnostic threshold ≥2 mm or ≥1 mm (increase in skinfold thickness), respectively, 39/44 (88%) or 42/44 (95%) of the infected cattle were detected compared with only 27/44 (61%) when SAT and CFT were used. When cattle in areas of low prevalence or in areas free from brucellosis are tested with the SDTH test an increase ≥2 mm in skinfold thickness should be considered indicative of infection. When the control and eradication of brucellosis is based on test‐and‐slaughter, an increase of ≥1 mm in skinfold thickness should be considered indicative of infection. Repeated serological testing complemented with the SDTH test in this programme will shorten the quarantine (movement control) period of a suspect herd, limiting the financial loss incurred during outbreaks of the disease. Consequently, since the SDTH test usually does not interfere with the serological diagnosis and can safely be used to establish the infection status of cattle in a suspect herd, it is opportune to consider adding the SDTH test to the procedure currently used to diagnose brucellosis in individual animals.