华明贵, 张云智, 张子荣, 刘汝艳, 杨卫红, 章域震. 云南省禄丰县家犬狂犬病毒带病毒率及阳性犬分布情况的调查[J]. 疾病监测, 2013, 28(10): 853-856. DOI: 10.3784/j.issn.1003-9961.2013.10.017
引用本文: 华明贵, 张云智, 张子荣, 刘汝艳, 杨卫红, 章域震. 云南省禄丰县家犬狂犬病毒带病毒率及阳性犬分布情况的调查[J]. 疾病监测, 2013, 28(10): 853-856. DOI: 10.3784/j.issn.1003-9961.2013.10.017
HUA Ming-gui, ZHANG Yun-zhi, ZHANG Zi-rong, LIU Ru-yan, YANG Wei-hong, ZHANG Yu-zhen. Rabies virus carriage in domestic dogs and distribution of positive dogs in Lufenng, Yunnan[J]. Disease Surveillance, 2013, 28(10): 853-856. DOI: 10.3784/j.issn.1003-9961.2013.10.017
Citation: HUA Ming-gui, ZHANG Yun-zhi, ZHANG Zi-rong, LIU Ru-yan, YANG Wei-hong, ZHANG Yu-zhen. Rabies virus carriage in domestic dogs and distribution of positive dogs in Lufenng, Yunnan[J]. Disease Surveillance, 2013, 28(10): 853-856. DOI: 10.3784/j.issn.1003-9961.2013.10.017

云南省禄丰县家犬狂犬病毒带病毒率及阳性犬分布情况的调查

Rabies virus carriage in domestic dogs and distribution of positive dogs in Lufenng, Yunnan

  • 摘要: 目的 分析云南省禄丰县自然状态家犬狂犬病毒携带阳性率及阳性犬分布情况,为制定狂犬病防制对策提供依据。 方法 2012年3月12 18日在全面扑杀8个自然村疫区的犬只过程中,采犬脑标本检验,调查家犬狂犬病毒携带阳性率,分析阳性犬分布情况;全面扑杀犬只3个月、6个月和1年后开展3次农户恢复养犬情况调查。 结果 8个自然村扑杀1103只家犬,采集犬脑标本542只(份),检测阳性24只,阳性率4.43%,阳性犬呈离散性分布,阳性率最高的自然村达9.09%;全面扑杀犬只1年后养犬户和养犬数分别恢复到扑杀前的80.38%和61.92%,户均养犬恢复到0.56只(扑杀前0.90只)。 结论 禄丰县家犬狂犬病毒带病毒率不高,阳性犬呈离散性分布,阳性率与疫点距离远近不存在比例关系。扑杀后农户恢复养犬较快,犬只来源较为复杂,狂犬病等疫源输入的危险因素增加。 科学抽样监测动物狂犬病带病毒动态,以免误杀健康犬只,可避免大面积扑杀犬只带来的社会慌恐和经济损失。

     

    Abstract: Objective To understand the natural carriage status of rabies virus in domestic dogs and the distribution of positive dogs Lufeng, Yunnan province, and provide evidence for the development of rabies control measures. Methods Dog brain samples were collected to detect rabies virus antigen with direct immunofluorescence assaay (DFA) in domestic dogs culled in 8 villages from 12 to 18 in March 2013. The household surveys of re-raising of dogs were carried out 3 months, 6 months and one year respectively after dog culling. Results Totally 1103 dogs were killed and 542 dog brain samples were collected in the 8 villages. Among the collected brain samples, 24 were rabies virus positive by DFA (4.43%). The positive dogs were distributed discretely. The positive rate was as high as 9.09% in one village. The numbers of dog raising households and dogs raised were equal to 80.38% and 61.92% of those before culling only after one year and the number of dogs raised was 0.56 per household compared with 0.90 before culling. Conclusion The rabies virus carrying rate was not high in the domestic dogs and the positive dogs were distributed discretely in Lufeng county. No proportional relationship existed between the positive rate and the distance to epidemic areas. Dog culling, would disrupt the social stability, is not a scientific rabies control strategy due to its little influence on dog control and the potential to bring new risk factors resulting from dog importation.

     

/

返回文章
返回