DOCSLIB.ORG

Report on Survey and Diagnosis of Fish Diseases in Europe 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report on Survey and Diagnosis of Fish Diseases in Europe 2016 Report on Survey and Diagnosis of Fish Diseases in Europe 2016 DISCLAIMER The EURL for Fish and Crustacean Diseases and the EU Commission have no liability for the accuracy of the information and cannot be held liable for any third-party claims or losses of any damages related to this report. Contents Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................4 Production data from FEAP .............................................................................................................................4 Health categorization of fish farms: .................................................................................................................5 Outbreaks and severity of listed diseases in Europe .............................................................................................5 Other fish diseases problems in EU ......................................................................................................................6 Reports from the individual European countries ..................................................................................................7 Austria ..................................................................................................................................................................7 Belgium ................................................................................................................................................................7 Bosnia and Herzegovina .......................................................................................................................................8 Bulgaria ................................................................................................................................................................8 Croatia ..................................................................................................................................................................9 Cyprus ..................................................................................................................................................................9 The Czech Republic .............................................................................................................................................9 Denmark ............................................................................................................................................................ 13 Estonia ............................................................................................................................................................... 14 Faroe Islands ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 Finland ............................................................................................................................................................... 14 France ................................................................................................................................................................ 15 Germany ............................................................................................................................................................ 16 Greece ................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Hungary ............................................................................................................................................................. 17 Iceland ............................................................................................................................................................... 17 Ireland ................................................................................................................................................................ 18 Italy .................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Latvia ................................................................................................................................................................. 19 Lithuania ............................................................................................................................................................ 19 Norway .............................................................................................................................................................. 20 Poland ................................................................................................................................................................ 21 Page 2 of 73 Report on Survey and Diagnosis of Fish Diseases in Europe 2016 Portugal ............................................................................................................................................................. 23 Author/Institute: ................................................................................................................................................ 23 Map I ..................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Romania ............................................................................................................................................................. 26 Serbia ................................................................................................................................................................. 27 Slovakia ............................................................................................................................................................. 27 Slovenia ............................................................................................................................................................. 27 Spain .................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Sweden .............................................................................................................................................................. 28 Switzerland ........................................................................................................................................................ 28 The Netherlands ................................................................................................................................................. 28 Turkey ............................................................................................................................................................... 29 England and Wales ............................................................................................................................................ 29 Northern Ireland ................................................................................................................................................ 31 UK – Scotland ................................................................................................................................................... 31 Annex 1 Number of fish Farms .............................................................................................................................. 33 Annex 2: Number of farms in country placed in the respective categories according to listed diseases ............ 34 Number of farms in country placed in the respective categories according to listed diseases ............................ 34 Number of farms not in any category ................................................................................................................... 34 Annex 3 Outbreaks of listed diseases .................................................................................................................... 38 Annex 4 Other Fish diseases problems .................................................................................................................. 43 Annex 5 Laboratory data ....................................................................................................................................... 47 No. of samples tested for VHSV in EUROPE in 2016 ............................................................................................. 47 No. of samples tested for IHNV in EUROPE in 2016 .............................................................................................. 50 No. of samples tested for ISAV in EUROPE in 2016 ............................................................................................... 53 No. of samples tested for KHV in EUROPE in 2016 ............................................................................................... 56 No. of samples tested for SVCV in EUROPE in 2016 .............................................................................................. 59 No. of samples tested for CEV in EUROPE in 2016 ................................................................................................ 62 No. of samples tested for IPNV in EUROPE in 2016 .............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition – APRIL 2011
    SGR 129 Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition – APRIL 2011 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY AND APPLIED NUTRITION OFFICE OF FOOD SAFETY Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition – April 2011 Additional copies may be purchased from: Florida Sea Grant IFAS - Extension Bookstore University of Florida P.O. Box 110011 Gainesville, FL 32611-0011 (800) 226-1764 Or www.ifasbooks.com Or you may download a copy from: http://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances You may submit electronic or written comments regarding this guidance at any time. Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations. gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number listed in the notice of availability that publishes in the Federal Register. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (240) 402-2300 April 2011 Table of Contents: Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance • Guidance for the Industry: Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance ................................ 1 • CHAPTER 1: General Information .......................................................................................................19 • CHAPTER 2: Conducting a Hazard Analysis and Developing a HACCP Plan
    [Show full text]
  • Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue Working Group Report on Salmon Disease
    Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue Working Group Report on Salmon Disease Larry Hammell - Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada Craig Stephen- Centre for Coastal Health, University of Calgary, Canada Ian Bricknell- School of Marine Sciences, University of Maine, USA Øystein Evensen- Norwegian School of Veterinary Medicine, Oslo, Norway Patricio Bustos- ADL Diagnostic Chile Ltda., Chile With Contributions by: Ricardo Enriquez- University of Austral, Chile 1 Citation: Hammell, L., Stephen, C., Bricknell, I., Evensen Ø., and P. Bustos. 2009 “Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue Working Group Report on Salmon Disease” commissioned by the Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue, available at http://wwf.worldwildlife.org/site/PageNavigator/SalmonSOIForm Corresponding author: Larry Hammell, email: [email protected] This report was commissioned by the Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue. The Salmon Dialogue is a multi-stakeholder, multi-national group which was initiated by the World Wildlife Fund in 2004. Participants include salmon producers and other members of the market chain, NGOs, researchers, retailers, and government officials from major salmon producing and consuming countries. The goal of the Dialogue is to credibly develop and support the implementation of measurable, performance-based standards that minimize or eliminate the key negative environmental and social impacts of salmon farming, while permitting the industry to remain economically viable The Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue focuses their research and standard development on seven key areas of impact of salmon production including: social; feed; disease; salmon escapes; chemical inputs; benthic impacts and siting; and, nutrient loading and carrying capacity. Funding for this report and other Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue supported work is provided by the members of the Dialogue‘s steering committee and their donors.
    [Show full text]
  • Detection and Identification of Fish Pathogens: What Is the Future?
    The Israeli Journal of Aquaculture – Bamidgeh 60(4), 2008, 213-229. 213 Detection and Identification of Fish Pathogens: What is the Future? A Review I. Frans1,2†, B. Lievens1,2*†, C. Heusdens1,2 and K.A. Willems1,2 1 Scientia Terrae Research Institute, B-2860 Sint-Katelijne-Waver, Belgium 2 Research Group Process Microbial Ecology and Management, Department Microbial and Molecular Systems, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Association, De Nayer Campus, B-2860 Sint-Katelijne-Waver, Belgium, and Leuven Food Science and Nutrition Research Centre (LfoRCe), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, B-3001 Heverlee-Leuven, Belgium (Received 1.8.08, Accepted 20.8.08) Key words: biosecurity, diagnosis, DNA array, multiplexing, real-time PCR Abstract Fish diseases pose a universal threat to the ornamental fish industry, aquaculture, and public health. They can be caused by many organisms, including bacteria, fungi, viruses, and protozoa. The lack of rapid, accurate, and reliable means of detecting and identifying fish pathogens is one of the main limitations in fish pathogen diagnosis and disease management and has triggered the search for alternative diagnostic techniques. In this regard, the advent of molecular biology, especially polymerase chain reaction (PCR), provides alternative means for detecting and iden- tifying fish pathogens. Many techniques have been developed, each requiring its own protocol, equipment, and expertise. A major challenge at the moment is the development of multiplex assays that allow accurate detection, identification, and quantification of multiple pathogens in a single assay, even if they belong to different superkingdoms. In this review, recent advances in molecular fish pathogen diagnosis are discussed with an emphasis on nucleic acid-based detec- tion and identification techniques.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Fish Vaccine Development Strategies: Conventional Methods and Modern Biotechnological Approaches
    microorganisms Review A Review of Fish Vaccine Development Strategies: Conventional Methods and Modern Biotechnological Approaches Jie Ma 1,2 , Timothy J. Bruce 1,2 , Evan M. Jones 1,2 and Kenneth D. Cain 1,2,* 1 Department of Fish and Wildlife Sciences, College of Natural Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA; [email protected] (J.M.); [email protected] (T.J.B.); [email protected] (E.M.J.) 2 Aquaculture Research Institute, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 25 October 2019; Accepted: 14 November 2019; Published: 16 November 2019 Abstract: Fish immunization has been carried out for over 50 years and is generally accepted as an effective method for preventing a wide range of bacterial and viral diseases. Vaccination efforts contribute to environmental, social, and economic sustainability in global aquaculture. Most licensed fish vaccines have traditionally been inactivated microorganisms that were formulated with adjuvants and delivered through immersion or injection routes. Live vaccines are more efficacious, as they mimic natural pathogen infection and generate a strong antibody response, thus having a greater potential to be administered via oral or immersion routes. Modern vaccine technology has targeted specific pathogen components, and vaccines developed using such approaches may include subunit, or recombinant, DNA/RNA particle vaccines. These advanced technologies have been developed globally and appear to induce greater levels of immunity than traditional fish vaccines. Advanced technologies have shown great promise for the future of aquaculture vaccines and will provide health benefits and enhanced economic potential for producers. This review describes the use of conventional aquaculture vaccines and provides an overview of current molecular approaches and strategies that are promising for new aquaculture vaccine development.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Pathology Section Laboratory Manual
    FISH PATHOLOGY SECTION LABORATORY MANUAL Edited by Theodore R. Meyers, Ph.D. Special Publication No. 12 2nd Edition Alaska Department of Fish and Game Commercial Fisheries Division P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526 January 2000 Rev. 03/98 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE .............................................................................................................................v CHAPTER/TITLE Page .................................................................................................................... 1. Sample Collection and Submission.............................................................................1-1 to 1-8 I. Finfish Diagnostics....................................................................................................... 1-1 II. Finfish Bacteriology ..................................................................................................... 1-2 III. Virology ........................................................................................................................ 1-3 IV. Fluorescent Antibody Test (FAT) ................................................................................ 1-4 V. ELISA Sampling of Kidneys for the BKD Agent (see ELISA Chapter 9).................... 1-5 VI. Parasitology and General Necropsy ........................................................................... 1-5 VII. Histology ...................................................................................................................... 1-5
    [Show full text]
  • Common Diseases of Cultured Striped Bass, Morone Saxatilis, and Its Hybrid (M
    PUBLICATION 600-080 Common Diseases of Cultured Striped Bass, Morone saxatilis, and Its Hybrid (M. saxitilis x M. chrysops) Stephen A. Smith, Professor, Biomedical Sciences and Pathobiology, Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech David Pasnik, Research Scientist, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Fish Health and Disease Parasites Striped bass (Morone saxitilis) and hybrid striped bass Parasitic infestations are a common problem in striped (M. saxitilis x M. chrysops) are widely cultured for bass culture and may have harmful health consequences both food and sportfishing markets. Because these fish when fish are heavily parasitized (Smith and Noga 1992). are commonly raised in high densities under intensive aquaculture situations (e.g., cages, ponds, tanks), they Ichthyophthiriosis or “Ich” is caused by the ciliated are often exposed to suboptimal conditions. Healthy protozoan parasite Ichthyophthirius multifiliis in fresh- striped bass can generally resist many of the viral, water or Cryptocaryon irritans in saltwater. These bacterial, fungal, and parasitic pathogens, but the fish parasites cause raised, white lesions visible on the become increasingly susceptible to disease agents when skin and gill (commonly called “white spot disease”) immunocompromised as a result of stress. and can cause high mortalities in a population of fish. The parasite burrows into skin and gill tissue (figure A number of noninfectious problems are commonly 1), resulting in osmotic stress and allowing secondary encountered in striped bass and hybrid striped bass bacterial and fungal infections to become established culture facilities. Factors such as poor water quality, at the site of penetration. The life cycle of the parasite improper nutrition, and gas supersaturation can directly can be completed in a short time, so light infestations cause morbidity (clinical disease) and mortality.
    [Show full text]
  • November/December 2015
    november/december 2015 January/February 2009 DEPARTMENTS From The President 2 From The Editor 3 18 Parasite Treatment Reduces Flavobacterium Columnare GAA Activities 5 Infection In Tilapia Advocacy And Advances 10 De-Hai Xu, Ph.D.; Craig Shoemaker, Ph.D.; Dunhau Zhang, Ph.D. Advocate Advertisers 80 20 Increased Density Improves Feeding Response, Growth Performance In Grouper Ingrid Lupatsch, Ph.D. On the cover: 22 Study: Inbreeding Affects Body Weight, But Not Survival In White Shrimp Responsible aquaculture provides healthy food and important employ- Dr. Lidia de los Ríos-Pérez, Dr. Gabriel R. Campos-Montes, ment opportunities around the world. The Global Aquaculture Alliance Dr. Alfonso Martínez-Ortega, Dr. Héctor Castillo Juárez, has been proud to share this news through the Global Aquaculture Advo- Dr. Hugo H. Montaldo cate magazine. Please continue to read the new Advocate online. Photo by Noppharat_th. 26 Natural Feed Additive Improves Shrimp Productivity In Ecuador Demonstration Juan Carlos Valle; Peter Coutteau, Ph.D. Page 20 28 The Bottom Line Density Ups Feeding Feed And Water Quality Revisited Response In Grouper Thomas R. Zeigler, Ph.D. Contrary to common perceptions, 32 Sustainable Aquaculture Practices grouper stocked at high density had Efficiency Of Mechanical Aeration greater feed intake and better feed Claude E. Boyd, Ph.D. conversion. 35 Biofilter Inoculation In Recirculating Aquaculture Systems Dr. Adrian A. Bischoff, Laura Koch, Marcus Thon, Prof. Dr. Bela H. Buck Page 66 37 Dietary Acidification In Aquaculture Enhanced AHPND Detection Christian Lückstädt, Ph.D. A study found that shrimp allowed to decompose prior to processing 39 Maximizing Nutrition For Adult Marine Fish reflected improved PCR detection of AHPND.
    [Show full text]
  • Epidemiology of Marine Gill Diseases in Atlantic Salmon (Salmo Salar) Aquaculture: a Review Annette S
    Reviews in Aquaculture, 1–20 doi: 10.1111/raq.12426 Epidemiology of marine gill diseases in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) aquaculture: a review Annette S. Boerlage1 , Angela Ashby2 , Ana Herrero2,3 , Aaron Reeves1 , George J. Gunn1 and Hamish D. Rodger4 1 Epidemiology Research Unit, Department of Veterinary and Animal Science, Northern Faculty, Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), Inverness, UK 2 Fish Vet Group Ltd., Inverness, UK 3 Moredun Research Institute, Pentlands Science Park, Penicuik, UK 4 VAI Consulting, Oranmore, Co. Galway, Ireland Correspondence Abstract Annette S. Boerlage, Epidemiology Research Unit, Department of Veterinary and Animal Gill disease of farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the marine environment Science, Northern Faculty, Scotland’s Rural has emerged as a significant problem for the salmon aquaculture industry. Differ- College (SRUC), An Lochran, 10 Inverness ent types of marine salmon gill disease reported include amoebic gill disease Campus, Inverness, UK. Email: (AGD), parasitic gill disease, viral gill disease, bacterial gill disease, zooplankton [email protected] (cnidarian nematocyst)-associated gill disease, harmful algal gill disease and chemical/toxin-associated gill disease. The term ‘multifactorial gill disease’ is used Received 29 October 2019; accepted 9 March 2020. when multiple distinguishable types of disease (as opposed to an obvious single primary type) are present. When gill disease is non-specific, it is referred to as ‘complex gill disease’ (CGD) or ‘complex gill disorder’. These two terms are often used interchangeably and are overlapping. The significance of many infectious and non-infectious agents that may be associated with CGD is often unclear. In this review, we summarise aspects of the different types of gill disease that are rel- evant to the epidemiology of gill disease and of CGD in particular.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Conditions in Freshwater Aquarium Fish Fish Are the Largest and Most Species-Rich Group of Vertebrates, Numbering 60,229 Species and Subspecies
    WILDLIFE and EXOTICS | FISH ONLINE EDITION Common conditions in freshwater aquarium fish Fish are the largest and most species-rich group of vertebrates, numbering 60,229 species and subspecies. Given there is such a plethora of species, fish have adapted to a wide range of aquatic environments – from the oceans to desert puddles, and from deep-sea hydrothermal vents to glacial mountain lakes and streams (Weber, Sonya Miles 2013). This article focuses on cold and tropical freshwater fish that are kept as pets. BVSc CertAVP(ZM) MRCVS Sonya qualified from Bristol In this author’s experience, University in 2013. After there are a large variety of beginning her professional pathogens that can affect career in small animal practice, freshwater fish. Stress she now works at Highcroft and subsequent immune Exotic Vets where she sees a suppression – invariably wide variety of species. She caused by poor water has a special interest in reptile quality – often underpin the medicine and surgery, but enjoys pathogenesis of many of all aspects of being an exotic these ubiquitous organisms. species veterinary surgeon. Underlying causes should, therefore, always be Sonya runs North Somerset investigated and corrected Reptile Rescue in her spare time. (Roberts et al, 2009; Roberts- Sweeney, 2016). Unlike mammalian patients, Figure 1. A blood sample being taken from the caudal vein in a fish. samples taken for culture and sensitivity testing in freshwater to cause infections and, as ensuring that the head is also fish should be cultured at such, first-choice antibiotics removed and the remaining room temperature (22°- should target them (Roberts- wound treated with a 25°C).
    [Show full text]
  • Bacterial Fish Pathogens Diseases of Farmed and Wild Fish B
    Bacterial Fish Pathogens Diseases of Farmed and Wild Fish B. Austin and D. A. Austin Bacterial Fish Pathogens Diseases of Farmed and Wild Fish Fourth Edition J'V'v Published in association with ^ Springer Praxis Publishing Chichester, UK Professor B. Austin School of Life Sciences John Muir Building Heriot-Watt University Riccarton Edinburgh UK Dr D. A. Austin Research Associate Heriot-Watt University Riccarton Edinburgh UK SPRINGER-PRAXIS BOOKS IN AQUATIC AND MARINE SCIENCES SUBJECT ADVISORY EDITOR: Dr Peter Dobbins Ph.D., CEng., F.I.O.A., Senior Consultant, Marine Devision, SEA, Bristol, UK ISBN 978-1-4020-6068-7 Springer Dordrecht Berlin Heidelberg New York Springer is part of Springer-Science + Business Media (springer.com) A catalogue record of this book is available from the Library of Congress Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to the publishers. © Praxis Publishing Ltd, Chichester, UK, 2007 Printed in Germany The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
    [Show full text]
  • Epidemiology of Amoebic Gill Disease
    Epidemiology of amoebic gill disease By Greetje Marianne Douglas-Helders B.Sc., M.Sc. Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Tasmania, November 2002 Declaration This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for a degree or diploma by the University or any other institution, except by way of background information and duly acknowledged in the thesis, and to the best of my knowledge and belief no material previously published or written by another person except where due acknowledgments is made in the text of the thesis. Marianne Douglas-Helders Authority of Access This thesis n-lay be made available for loan and limited copying in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 Marianne Douglas-Helders Abstract Amoebic gill disease (AGD) is the main disease affecting the salmon industry in Australia, however inadequate information is available on the epidemiology of amoebic gill disease (AGD) and the biology of the pathogen, Neoparamoeba pemaquidensis (Page, 1987). Thus far no convenient mass screening test was available. In this project a pathogen specific and non-lethal dot blot test was developed and validated against indirect fluorescence antibody testing (IFAT), the 'gold standard'. The agreement between the 300 paired gill mucus samples that were analysed using both tests was high, with a corrected kappa value of 0.88. The overall aim of this project was to investigate distributions and seasonal patterns of the pathogen, identify risk factors for the disease and reservoirs of N. pemaquidensis, and develop and review husbandry methods in order to reduce AGD prevalence.
    [Show full text]
  • Role of Bacteria in Amoebic Gill Disease
    Role of bacteria in amoebic gill disease by Sridevi Embar-Gopinath B.Sc., M.Sc., M.Phil. Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Aquaculture, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia December, 2006 Declaration I hereby declare that this thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university and, to the best of my knowledge contains no copy or paraphrase of material previously published or written by any other person, except where due reference is made in the text of the thesis. Sridevi Embar-Gopinath Authority of Access This thesis may be made available for loan and limited copying in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968. Sridevi Embar-Gopinath i Abstract Neoparamoeba spp., are the causative agent of amoebic gill disease (AGD) in marine farmed Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar and AGD is the major problem faced by the salmonid industry in Tasmania. The only effective treatment to control AGD is freshwater bathing; however, complete removal of the parasite is not achieved and under favourable conditions AGD can reoccur within 10 days. Previous research on AGD suggests that gill bacteria might be one of the factors influencing colonisation of Neoparamoeba spp. onto Atlantic salmon gills. Therefore, the aim of this project was to investigate the role of salmonid gill bacteria in AGD. To obtain good understanding of the bacterial populations present on Atlantic salmon gills, bacteria samples were collected twice during this study. Initially, bacteria were cultured from AGD-affected and unaffected fish both from laboratory and farm.
    [Show full text]