Information provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region, as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).

;• g ~~ .5'~

~ ` ° ~` A, C ^~.


### National Animal Health and Agrifood Quality Service (SENASA)
Risk Analysis Unit


## QUESTION 8:

LIVESTOCK DEMOGRAPHICS AND MARKETING PRACTICES IN THE REGION

November 2002

47

~ Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region, as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### - LIVESTOCK DEMOGRAPHICS AND MARKETING PRACTICES IN THE REGION

HOW MANY HERDS, FLOCKS, ETC., OF EACH RELEVANT SPECIES ARE IN THE REGION? The population of susceptible FMD animals in Argentina includes 52,500,000 bovines, 13,800,000 sheep, 2,500,000 hogs and 2,400,000 goats. The main cattle production area is in the Provinces of Buenos Aires, Santa Fe, Cordoba, Entre Rios, Corrientes and La Pampa which has 44,500,000 bovines, 2,700,000 sheep, 2,000,000 hogs and 300,000 goats. The distribution of the cattle population in Argentina is shown below.
Table 2: Number per type of operation (2002) Type of Operations Dairy 15,604 Cow-calf Operations 103,913 Fattening 23,383 Mixed (breeding & fattening) 65,821 Subsistence 32,823



### 48

~ Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region, as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### -- Table 3: Demographics of the Cattle Population in Argentina, per Province (2002) REGION PROVINCE BOVINES SHEEP

Buenos Aires 19,391,640 1,374,991 Chaco 1,910,969 72,974 Cordoba 6,257,395 59,361 Formosa 1,441,073 36,991 J Q ~

## fz w v La Pampa 3,524,017 124,036

S. del Estero 1,128,557 140,405 San Luis 1,511,988 54,500 Santa Fe 6,410,569 73,260 Total for the Region 41,576,208 1,936,518 Misiones 257,164 5,874 Q

~ Q H O a O co 

### w 2 Corrientes 4,107,914 1,530,945

E. Rios 4,197,860 388,760 Total for the Region 8,562,938 1,925,579 Mendoza 512,459 42,077 O >- D V San Juan 34,062 1,886

Total for the Region 546,521 43,963 Catamarca 125,999 20,515 La Rioja 204,833 22,263

~ ~ 

## O ~ z ~ 0 

### z " Jujuy 85,433 601,105

Salta 455,662 43,857 Tucuman 125,218 9,342 Total for the Region 997,145 697,082



## 49

~ Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region, as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).

Neuquen 123,069 216,900 

### za Wz = O H O 

### Rio Negro 581,912 2,132,829

Total for the Region 704,981 2,349,729 z a Chubut 121,068 4,002,342 Q 

## ~ Z Santa Cruz 33,615 2,333,526 w0 2 ~ 

### Tierra del Fuego 20,480 553,605 O

~ 

# a Total for the Region 175,163 6,889,473 TOTAL 52,562,956 13,842,344


### HOW ARE THEY DISTRIBUTED (E.G., HERD DENSITY, ETC.)? The cattle population is concentrated in the center and to the northwest of Argentina. Different ecosystems determine different production areas: a fattening area (western part of Buenos Aires, south of Santa Fe, southeast of Cordoba, south of Entre Rios, and northeast of La Pampa); and two breeding areas: the Salado River Basin (eastern part of Buenos Aires) and the northeastern region.There are 15,604 dairy farms with a population of 2,000,000 dairy cows. These operations are mainly located in three dairy basins: C6rdoba-Santa Fe, Abasto (Buenos Aires); and Mar y Sierra (Buenos Aires). Sheep production is declining in Argentina. There are approximately 18,000 farms withan average of 667 animals. These operations are concentrated in three regions: Patagonia (Rio Negro, Santa Cruz, Chubut and Tierra del Fuego), Buenos Aires and Mesopotamia (Entre Rios, Corrientes and Misiones). Hog farms are mainly along the corn belt (North of Buenos Aires, South of Santa Fe and C6rdoba). 

## >0
— Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region, as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### — Goat production is not much developed in Argentina. The goat population (2,500,000

animals) is mainly in the marginal northwest areas, the foothills of the Andean Range, the semiarid valleys in the North and the semiarid area in the center of the country (hills and the Chaco area). South American camelidae populate the semiarid plateau of Patagonia (guanacos), and the highlands in the northwest (Ilamas, alpacas and vicunas).



### WHERE ARE THE MAJOR LIVESTOCK MARKETING CENTERS? The major livestock marketing centers are located in the breeding and fattening areas. There are two main livestock concentration markets for animals for slaughter: Liniers (Buenos Aires) and Rosario (Province of Santa Fe).



### WHAT ARE THE PATTERNS OF LIVESTOCK MOVEMENT WITHIN THE REGION? From the production viewpoint, cattle operations in Argentina may be classified intoclearly differentiated categories: commercial cow-calf operations, small-scale and subsistence farming, fattening and complete cycle. The movement of cattle between regions mirrors the different production systems, and the shipments of young cattle from breeding areas to fattening areas constitute the most important flow. The extensive breeding areas (Provinces of Formosa, Chaco, Corrientes, Santiago delEstero and North of Santa Fe) have poor soil and grasses that are not suitable for fattening. The typical production system therefore is extractive, limited to selling the calves after weaning. The same production characteristics apply in small areas of the Provinces of Cordoba, San Luis and La Pampa. >1

_ Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region, as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### The extensive cow-calf production area in the Province of Buenos Aires (the Salado River Basin area) has very poor natural grasslands and, as the seeding of pastures andgreenfeed annual crops is not easy, the calves must be shipped to other regions for fattening.Consequently, the most important flow of animals (mainly calves) is towards the fattening areas which are mainly in the central part of the country - the most important livestock production provinces in terms of livestock population -: Buenos Aires (northwest), La Pampa (northeast), Santa Fe (south), Cordoba and Entre Rios. The most significant fattening farms, dairy and agriculture operations are in this region that has good soil and good pastures that carry high stocking rates per hectare. Where the quality of the soil allows breeding and fattening on the same farm (complete cycle), animal shipments are only within the area. To illustrate the dynamics of animal shipments, below is a map of Argentina showing the above-mentioned fattening area; the arrows represent the principal flow of animals.

;?
-- Risk Analysis Unit

### - , .......,. ~ 

### .:W. 4 Information provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region, as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



## ~ 

## .... __....... _. w

~ df.....F'• ~ ,

~



### 1999 data Arrow % NUMBER 1 18.80 935,197 2 27.20 1,353,357 

### 3 and 4 6.85 340,067 5 3.59 178,577 6 43.57 2,167,587 

### TOTAL 100.0 4 1 974,785 Arrow #1 shows the shipments of calves from the provinces North of the Central Region (Formosa, Chaco, Santiago del Estero and north of Santa Fe). This year, 1,246,930heads were shipped from these four provinces, 75% of which (935,197) went to the fattening area. Arrow #2 shows the flow of calves from the breeding area in Mesopotamia (Corrientesand north of Entre Rios). A total of 1,555,583 animals were shipped to fattening operations, 87% of which (1,353,357) went to the fattening area in the center of the country. 

### 53 ^ Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region, as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### - Arrows #3 and 4 show the movements of weaned calves from the breeding areas in the

central and northern part of the Provinces of San Luis and Cordoba to the fattening areas. Together, both provinces shipped 755,705 animals, 45% of which (340,067) went to the fattening area in the center of the country. Arrow #5 shows the movements of animals to fattening operations within the Province of La Pampa. The annual total of animals shipped was 192,018, 93% of which (178,577) went to the main fattening area.Arrow #6 shows the movements of animals from the Province of Buenos Aires to fattening areas. Buenos Aires ships 2,643,399 heads of cattle for fattening, 82% of which (2.167.587) go to the above-mentioned fattening area.


### Graph 2: Monthly distribution of cattle shipments to the fattening areas

DISTRIBUCION MENSUAL DE MOVIMIENTOS DE INVERNADA
1000000 900000 800000 cn 700000 N 600000 W 500000 m Q 400000 V 300000 200000 100000 0 ENE FEB MAR ABR MAY JUN JUL AGO SEP OCT NOV DIC MES


### Over 66% of the sheep operations in Argentina are in the Patagonia area, which is FMD free with no vaccination (O.I.E. May 2002). There are some sheep farms with large flocks for wool or meat in other regions such as Mesopotamia (mainly in Corrientes and
>4
— Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region, as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### - south of Buenos Aires), but they are declining in number. In other areas, some farmers

have only a few sheep as a secondary activity or for on-the-farm consumption. Hog production in Argentina can be divided into two main categories: large commercialoperations with a complete production system (breeding and fattening) that apply stringent biosafety measures and good manufacturing practices throughout the process to produce animals for slaughter in abattoirs owned by the same company or third parties with which they have an agreement. As these operations keep the hogs in pens and operate a complete cycle, the animals are never in contact with other species. For the operations in the second category, the hogs are not their main line of business and the animals are not moved because they are only kept for on-the-farm consumption. Goat production is not much developed in Argentina. The country has 2,500,000 goats most of which are in marginal areas in the northwestern region simply because this species adapts to unfavorable production conditions. Goat production in the central partof the country is negligible and only some farms have a few goats for on-the-farm consumption.

HOW ARE THE ANIMALS TRANSPORTED AND HANDLED DURING MARKET 

## TRANSACTIONS? Animals are transported on special vehicles serving only for this purpose. The vehicles must comply with SENASA Resolution # 97/99 which requires approval of the vehicle bySENASA, and SENASA Resolution # 809/82 which states hygiene and sanitation requirements. The animals are shipped from farms or livestock concentration markets (such as auction markets) to slaughtering plants or to other farms.



## »

~ Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region, as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### - To market or move animals, the farmers must be registered and have a RENSPA number (National Register of Farmers as defined in Resolution # 417/97 of the former Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Foodstuffs - see copy of the RENSPA in Annex IX -). Shipment of animals to any destination requires a DTA (Animal Transit Document) (SENASA Resolution # 848/98), and a Provincial Transit Certificate (Guia) that is issued by provincial authorities. A copy of the DTA is attached in Annex X. The Local SENASA Offices keep a record of the movements of susceptible animals andreport this information on a monthly basis to the statistics unit of DNSA (Monthly Statistics - I.E.M.), and to the Technical Management Unit (S.G.S.). SENASA Resolution # 104/01 and its amendment SENASA Resolution # 414/02, define the inspection procedures at auction markets and other livestock concentration facilities, and the conditions and requirements to ship animals to livestock concentration facilities. To better control animal shipments and guarantee an adequate follow-up of the animals, Resolution # 178/01 requires mandatory individual branding of the animals, correct identification of the transportation vehicles, and establishes joint liability for the Officialstaff that issues the health certificate, the owners or persons responsible for the animals, the shippers and the slaughtering plants.

> 6

_ Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### National Animal Health and Agrifood Quality Service (SENASA)
Risk Analysis Unit


## QUESTION 9:

TYPE AND EXTENT OF DISEASE SURVEILLANCE IN THE REGION, E.G., IS IT PASSIVE AND/OR ACTIVE, AND WHAT IS THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF SAMPLING AND TESTING

November 2002

57
— Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### 58

~ Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### - 9- TYPE AND EXTENT OF DISEASE SURVEILLANCE IN THE REGION, E.G. IS IT

PASSIVE AND/OR ACTIVE, AND WHAT IS THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF SAMPLING AND TESTING The epidemio-surveillance system in Argentina has three levels: central, regional and local. 1) CENTRAL LEVELThe central level includes DNSA, the Epidemiology Office and the National FMD Eradication Committee (CONALFA). The central level analyzes information, defines strategies and general actions, and issues reports. The Epidemiology and Virology Advisory Committee of the Epidemiology Office, that includes representatives from SENASA, INTA, the Animal Virology Center (CEVAN),and Schools of Veterinary Sciences, offers advice and recommendations for epidemiological surveillance, vaccination campaign follow-up actions, etc. Most of the information originates from other areas of SENASA, government agencies and international organizations. SENASA issues two reports: a national report and aninternational report with the information submitted to SENASA's International and Institutional Affairs Office. The international report is distributed to other countries and international bodies such as PAHO/WHO and O.I.E. The Epidemiology Office is responsible for: • The analysis and follow-up of the epidemiological process. • The follow-up of the National FMD Program. • Communication and training. The information collected by the Local Offices is reported to the central level where it is analyzed by the pertinent units. The reports are issued by DNSA.



### _ 59

~ Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### 2) REGIONAL LEVEL: The regional level includes SENASA's Regional Supervisors and the Provincial Animal Health Committees (COPROSAS). This level functions as liaison between the central level and the local offices, manages and assesses health documentation, and supports the Local Animal Health Offices with human and economic resources. The regional level is also responsible for managing and harmonizing the national strategies.


### 3) LOCAL LEVEL: The local level, which includes the local SENASA offices and the animal health NGOs, is the operational level and the main source of information (health protocols, reports on suspect cases, collection of specimen for laboratory testing, etc.). The Epidemiological Surveillance System for FMD includes: 

### Active Surveillance: actions carried out by SENASA to identify: a) viral activity with no clinical symptoms; and b) lesions compatible with the disease. A) Viral Activity with no clinical symptoms

• Random serum sampling to determine prevalence of the infection. • Targeted serum surveys of premises affected with FMD and adjacent farms to identify viral activity, bleeding of animals born after an outbreak is closed,animals that previously tested negative, non-vaccinated susceptible specles. • Viral isolation in animals that tested positive in serum (Probang, PCR).
B) Lesions compatible with the disease

-- _— 

### 60 — Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### -- • Inspection of animals prior to shipment for Slaughter to Export (SENASA Resolution # 115/2002. • Inspection of animals prior to shipment to livestock concentration facilities (SENASA Resolution # 104/2002 and 414/2001). • Inspection at Livestock Auction Markets. • Inspection of animals at public weighing stations. • Inspection at Livestock Concentration Markets of animals for slaughter (Liniers and Rosario). • Ante mortem inspection. • Inspection of mouth and feet at the time of slaughter.• Inspection of farming operations by trained vaccinators for surveillance purposes.
Passive Surveillance: Spontaneous reporting by farmers, private veterinarians, livestock or milk shippers, livestock dealers, etc. SENASA Resolution # 234/96 establishes the National Epidemiological SurveillanceSystem that requires all players in the farming sector - the farmers, veterinary physicians, cattle dealers, slaughtering plants, cattle shippers, diagnostic laboratories, etc. -, to report FMD compatible diseases and others for which reporting is mandatory.Notification and recording of outbreaks and suspect cases of vesicular diseases: Section 9 of Act # 24,305 states that FMD is a disease that must be reported immediatelyby individuals and/or companies that know about, or suspect the presence of the disease. Sections 46, 47, 48, 49 and 50 of Regulatory Decree # 643/96 of the FMD Actrequire mandatory reporting and describe the reporting process. When a case is re

### 61

~ Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### ported to the Local SENASA Office, the official veterinarian must inspect the farm, prepare a protocol (Resolution # 383/2001), and fax the protocol to the Epidemiology Office within a period of 24 hours. The Analysis and Outbreak Recording Unit of the Epidemiology Office analyses and classifies the health reports into one of the following categories: outbreak, suspect case of vesicular disease, or report of an FMD compatible disease. SENASA's Central Laboratory receives and tests the samples remitted by the Local SENASA Offices. The test results are sent by fax to the Epidemiology Office and the Local SENASA Office that sent the samples. The test results are also sent by e-mail to the Regional Supervisors.


### LABORATORY TESTING OF SUSPICIOUS ANIMALS. IF YES, WHAT PROCEDURES AND TO WHAT EXTENT (E.G., WHAT PROPORTION OF SUSPICIOUSCASES ARE EVALUATED USING EACH OF THE SPECIFIC LABORATORY PROCEDURES)? The actions required when a vesicular disease or a suspect case is reported, including the procedures for collection and remittance of samples to the laboratory for testing, are defined in current statutes, the Procedures Manual, and Internal Procedures.When the Veterinary Physician of the Local SENASA Office receives a report of a suspect case and his diagnosis does not confirm the absence of the FMD virus, the veterinarian must collect epithelium samples from mouth or foot lesions for virus identification purposes.

___ 62 Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### — If the Official Veterinarian considers that the quantity or quality of the samples does not

meet the minimum standards, a representative number of blood samples of the herd is required; the animals must be identified and bled again after twenty or thirty days.In addition, esophageal-pharyngeal fluid may be collected. The epithelium and esophageal-pharyngeal fluid samples are tested by ELISA for virus typing and cell culture. The blood samples are tested to identify non-structural antibodies for the FMD virus by 3 ABC ELISA and the test results are confirmed with EITB. The only diagnostic laboratory approved for viral testing of suspect animals is SENASA's Central Laboratory.

ARE QUARANTINES IMPOSED ON PREMISES WITH SUSPICIOUS CASES, PENDING FINAL DIAGNOSIS? Yes, premises are quarantined until the final diagnosis is issued.

ARE SERUM SURVEYS CONDUCTED, AND IF SO, HOW FREQUENTLY, WHAT SAMPLE SIZES ARE USED, AND WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND?Yes. Active epidemio-surveillance actions include serum surveys to identify and measure viral activity. Serum testing as a tool, is used regularly because it provides a legitimate measure and interpretation to define the progress of the National Program. The design of the survey (e.g. sample size, regions and subregions into which the country isdivided, etc.), was adjusted based on the epidemiological status at the time of the survey and the goals that were set. Seroepidemiological Surveiliance in 2001:



### 63

~ Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### -- A countrywide serum survey was conducted at the end of 2001 when the epidemic was

declining 2 , to identify viral activity and estimate the level of immunity provided by the vaccine. The survey included the areas that were affected by FMD outbreaks to measure the level of viral activity. A targeted statistical sampling was designed for three focal areas, perifocal / surveillance areas, and others, in each one of the FMD ecosystems into which the country is divided. In the Central and Mesopotamia region, the goal was to measure viral activity in the areas affected by outbreaks (focal, perifocal/surveillanceareas, and others), whereas in low prevalence regions (NOA, Cuyo and Northern Patagonia A) an additional goal was to identify viral activity where no cases had been reported. As expected, the prevalence of viral activity in the Central and Mesopotamia regions,was higher in the focal area and lower in the other two (perifocal/surveillance, and others), confirming the hypothesis of more viral activity in the area affected by cases withclinical symptoms. In all the regions, the results confirmed that the reports were adequately recorded and that the disease was positively identified at an early stage. A comparison of the data from the Central - Mesopotamia regions shows a 13.8% prevalence in positive bovines in the focal area, 4.4% in the perifocal / surveillance area, and 1.5% in others. In sheep, the prevalence was 5.38%, 1.22% and 0.1 %, in each region, confirming the same principle and the expected lower prevalence levels.

2 The size of the sample was defined based on the "CSURVEY" criteria, with an expected prevalence of 5% in bovines, 2% in sheep, and a 95% confidence level. 

# z l

~ Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### - The same principle was confirmed in the Northwest and Cuyo regions. In other areas,

the absence of viral activity in cattle was confirmed. In sheep, serum testing showed no evidence of viral activity. The behavior of the disease in the Northern Patagonia A region was similar to the one observed in the Northwest and Cuyo regions. The tables included below illustrate the protection level attained in vaccinated cattle on premises with no viral activity (a subsample of EITB negative farms).

65

— Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### -- Table 4: Level of antibodies in vaccinated cattle on premises with no viral activity in different regions of the country (Central area, Mesopotamia, Northern Patagonia A, Northwest and Cuyo) in 2001. Central - Mesopotamia Regions -151 operations/n = 2,166 animals (3'1 Campos,. A 241 A 2000 A 2001 Very high protection 89% 91% 84% 83% Titres > 2.10 High protection 6% 6% 7% 8% Titres: 1.80 to 2.10 Average protection 3% 1% 5% 4% Titres: 1.60 to 1.80 Low protection 2% 2% 4% 5% Titres < 1.60 

### Northern Patagonia Region — 

### 180 operations/n = 1,866 animals

O~ Campos` A 24 A 2000 A 2001 Very high protection 82% 90% 76% 71% Titres > 2.10 High protection 10% 4% 11% 12% Titres: 1.80 to 2.10 Average protection 4% 2% 5/% 6% Titres: 1.60 to 1.80 Low protection 5% 4% 8% 11% Titres < 1.60

. . -^ Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### ^ Northwest - Cuyo Region -163 operations/n = 2,193 animals 04.. Campos; A 24 - A 2000 A 2001 , Very high protection 

### 75% 82% 73% 68% Titres > 2.10 High protection 10% 8% 10% 10% Titres: 1.80 to 2.10 Average protection 8% 2% 8% 7% Titres: 1.60 to 1.80 Low protection 7% 8% 9% 15% Titres < 1.60


### Table 5: Antibody protection levels in vaccinated cattle on premises with no viral activity. 2001. Country total n= 6,215 - Young animals n= 4,972 -(Young animals: 1 to 2 years old) 01 Campos A24 A 2000 A 2001 Very high protection 

### 81% 88% 77% 72% Titres > 2.10 High protection 

### 10% 6% 10% 11% Titres: 1.80 to 2.10 Average protection 5% 2% 6% 6% Titres: 1.60 to 1.80 Low protection 4% 4% 7% 11% Titres < 1.60



### 67

~ ' Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### Older animals n= 1,243 -(Animals over 2 years old) 01 Campos A24 A 2000 A 2001 Very high protection 86% 88% 82% 80% Titres 

### > 2.10 High protection 5% 5% 7% 7% Titres: 1.80 to 2.10 Average protection 4% 1% 5% 4% Titres: 1.60 to 1.80 Low protection 5% 6% 6% 9% Titres 

### < 1.60


### Table 6: Antibody protection levels in vaccinated cattle on premises with no viral activity in different regions of the country. 2001. Country total 494 operations/n = 6,215 - n/operations: - Central-Mesopotamia and Northwest-Cuyo n= 15, Northern Patagonia A n= 10 O 1 Campos A 24 A 2000 A 2001 Very high protection 82% 88% 78% 74% Titres 

### > 2.10 High protection 9% 6% 9% 10% Titres 1.80 to 2.10 Average protection 5% 2% 6% 6% Titres 1.60 to 1.80 Low protection 5% 5% 7% 10% Titres 

### < 1.60

— 68 Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### - 2002 Survey:

The annual serum survey was conducted this year to measure and assess the results of the actions required by the FMD Eradication Program.

ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF ACTIVITY OF THE FMD VIRUS IN CATTLE AND 

## SHEEP GOAL • To assess the level of activity of the Foot and Mouth Disease Virus (FMDV) in the different regions of the country that were affected by FMD outbreaks in the period 2000 - 2001. • To rule out the presence of FMD infected animals in regions where no outbreaks were detected or in which the occurrence of FMD was sporadic in the period 2000 - 2001.

VARIABLE TO BE MEASURED Presence of antibodies for non-structural proteins of the FMD virus in cattle and sheep/goats, as an indicator of infection.

DESIGN The country was divided into the 3 regions defined by the vaccination strategies and the frequency of the FMD outbreaks. The regions were then subdivided into 15 subregions, following the regionalization criteria stated in the FMD Eradication Program and the production characteristics of the areas:

69

~ Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### Region A • Goal: To assess the level of activity of the FMD virus • Systematic vaccination of cattle • High frequency of FMD outbreaks in the period 2000 - 2001 (2457 outbreaks)• Includes the Central and Mesopotamia Regions and is subdivided into 7 subregions (A1 to A7) Diagram 1. 

### • Species sampled: Bovines and sheep/goats. Region B • Goal: To rule out the presence of animals infected with the FMD virus. • Systematic vaccination of cattle.• Sporadic appearance of FMD outbreaks in the period 2000 - 2001 (16 outbreaks). • Includes the NOA, Cuyo and Northern Patagonia A Regions. Subdividided into 3 subregions (138 to B10) Diagram 1. 

### • Species sampled: Bovines. Region C • Goal: To rule out the presence of animals infected with the FMD virus. • No vaccination. • Absence of clinical cases (FMD free area with no vaccination and Surveillance Area with no vaccination). • Includes the Northern Patagonia B and Southern Patagonia Regions. Subdivided into 5 subregions (C1 to C5) Diagram 1. 

### • Species sampled: Bovines (subregions C1 and C2) and sheep (C1, C2, C3, C4 and C5). 70 " Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### - 

### Diagram 1

71

, Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### Age categories of the individuals of each species that were sampled: • Bovines - Category 1: 6 to 12 months. - Category 2: 12 to 24 months. • Sheep / goats Any age, not vaccinated.
Number of samples collected per operation: Region A:■ 

### 5 bovines 6 to 12 months■ 

### 4 bovines 12 to 24 months■ 

### 5 sheep / goats Region B:■ 

### 10 bovines 6 to12 months■ 

### 10 bovines 12 to 24 months Region C:■ 

### 28 bovines 6 to 24 months■ 

### 28 sheep / goats

DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES For bovine serum samples: 3 ABC ELISA (screening) and EITB (for confirmation). For ovine serum samples: VIAA / IDGA test.

_ 72

, Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### Criteria to read test results: • Positive test result of a bovine sample: a sample that tests positive by 3 ABC ELISA and EITB. • Positive test result of an ovine sample: a sample that tests positive by VIAA. • Positive operation: An operation where at least one bovine, or ovine / caprine sample tested positive.

NUMBER OF SAMPLES TESTED Seventy-eight per cent of the universe of samples planned (88,672), were collected and tested (69.017). The difference in the number was due to:

• Operational problems at the time of collecting the samples in the field.• Samples not tested in the laboratory because of identification and/or temperature problems.
Table # 1: Total number of samples tested, per area:

AREA BOVINES OVINE / CAPRINE TOTAL A 21,671 9,171 30,842 B 14,893 

### - 14,893 C 5,292 17,990 23,282 TOTAL 41,856 27,161 69,017

73

, Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### RESULTS

SPECIES AREA AGE GROUP 6 TO 12 MONTHS 1 TO 2 YEARS % PREVALENCE C.I. % PREVALENCE C.I. BOVINE A 0.63 0.43 -0.83 2.16 1.75-2.57 BOVINE B 0.22 0.11-0.33 1.49 0.98-2.00 BOVINE C 0.16 0.02-0.30 0.34 0.00-0.78

SPECIES AREA % PREVALENCE C.I. OVINE / CAPRINE A 0.64 0.39-0.90 OVINE / CAPRINE C 0.00 --



### CONCLUSIONS - The samples that were collected and tested served to estimate the parameters with a high degree of precision. - As expected, the prevalence in 12 to 24 month-old cattle was higher than in the 6 to 12 month-old age group because the animals in Category 2 were exposed for a longer period of time precisely when the number of clinical cases of the disease was highest.- The ratio of the prevalence in cattle between both age categories (2 and 1) indicates a decline in the incidence level along the time line. - As most of the sheep / goats that were sampled were adults, the prevalence in these species (not subject to systematic vaccination) when compared to bovines


### 74

~ Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### _ in Category 2, strengthens the hypothesis that these species play a secondaryrole in hosting and spreading the FMD virus with the production and management schemes used in our country. - The higher level of viral activity found in Region A and particularly in subregions 1 and 5, is consistent with the higher number of outbreaks with clinical symptoms during the 2000-2001 epidemic. - Prevalence in positive 12 to 24 month-old bovines in subregion B9 was relativelyhigh and similar to the prevalence in subregions 1 and 5 of Region A. This suggests that in 2001 the number of infected farms in subregion 139 was significantlyhigher that the number of farms with a clinical presence of the disease (4 operations). Oppositely, the low prevalence in 6 to 12 month-old bovines suggests that the 12 to 24-month old cattle was mainly exposed during the first year of their life and that the incidence of the infection dropped significantly as time progressed. - Given the situation in 2000 and 2001, the overall low prevalence level indicates that the measures taken to control the epidemic as of the first half of 2001 were successful to eliminate the disease and significantly restrict the spreading of the FMDV.


### IS REPORTING OF SICK ANIMALS MANDATORY, AND IF SO, WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE (BY WHOM AND TO WHOM) AND WHAT PENALTIES ARE INVOLVED FOR FAILURE TO REPORT? Act # 24,305 requires immediate and mandatory reporting of Foot and Mouth Disease in Argentina. As stated in FMD statutes, SENASA has authority to apply severe penalties to any individual or company that does not report a case of FMD.

_ 75 Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### _ Awareness among farm owners was clearly demonstrated in March 2001 when over

300 cases or suspect FMD cases were reported. As stated in the Animal Health Law Enforcement Authority Act (# 3959) all veterinariansin private practice that work in rural areas (5,752) must report epizootic diseases. In addition, as these professionals sit on the board of the technical subcommittees of the Regional and Local Animal Health Committees they are highly motivated and support thenational eradication programs. Private diagnostic laboratories are also required to immediately report epizootic diseases. Failure to comply with statutory requirements is subject to severe penalties. On the farms, as the owner or person in charge sees the animals every day, they arewell aware of the FMD symptoms, the reporting requirements, and the resources available to avoid the disease.Twice a year, when the staff of the Local Animal Health Offices visit the farms to vaccinate cattle, they physically see the animals, collect information on the animal population, provide information about preventive measures, and generate awareness about the plan, contributing to the efficiency of the surveillance system. The INTA (National Farming Technology Institute) and its network of Experimental and Extension facilities, work with the farmers and receives updated information on the health conditions of the herds.

- ----- 76

~ Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



# ~

National Animal Health and Agrifood Quality Service (SENASA)
Risk Analysis Unit


## QUESTION 10:

DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY CAPABILITIES

November 2002



### 77 ^ Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### _ 

### 10- DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY CAPABILITIES

WHAT DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY CAPABILITIES ARE THERE? In Argentina, SENASA has one diagnostic laboratory with biosafety level NBS3 Ag thatwas approved in 1997. The laboratory is authorized to manipulate FMDV and other microorganisms risk 3 or lower, and meets SENASA and O.I.E. biosafety requirements. It is located at 1653 Fleming Av., Martinez, Buenos Aires.In 2001, the FMD Unit of the Laboratories and Technical Control Office (DILACOT) focused on the sanitary emergency which resulted by the re-importation of the disease in 2000. For the sanitary emergency, the Central Laboratory focused on: • Diagnosis. • Vaccine control. • Serum sampling. 

### Diagnosis:Diagnostic work included testing of all epithelium samples collected from FMD outbreaks and suspect cases of vesicular diseases, typing and identification of actuatingstrains which, in that year were two different type A FMDV strains which, after identification, were named A Argentina 2000 and A Argentina 2001. Vaccine Control: 

### Immunity testing to identify the most appropriate oil-base FMD vaccine for the existing emergency conditions. The findings indicated that the vaccine should contain 01 Campo, A 24 Cruzeiro, A ARGENTINA 2000 and A ARGENTINA 2001.

78 Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### The Central Laboratory also audited and inspected the critical production points at the vaccine manufacturer's facilities, and tested all the series of vaccines used during the year, as required in Resolution # 195/01. Ninety-three series with a total production of 11,639.277.593 - 2 ml doses of the vaccine were tested. DILACOT also tested an additional 15 series (16,406,120 doses) that were exported to other countries. Serum Sampling: Serum samples of different susceptible species were tested, as required by the 2001 serum survey designed by the Epidemiology Office to determine the level of viral activity and immunity in different regions of the country. To determine viral activity, non-structural protein antibodies of the FMDV were tested in 8810 bovine samples with 3 ABC ELISA and EITB. The protection level in bovines on premises with no viral activity was measured in 6215 samples from 494 operations. Ovine serum samples (6140 samples) were tested with VIAA to measure viral activity. The 2002 serum survey to measure viral activity and immunity is almost completed. Audits: In 2000, the laboratory was audited by foreign inspectors from the European Union andthe Pan American FMD Center - PAHO, among others. The scope of the audits included working procedures, quality programs, and biosafety conditions. The findings were satisfactory.

79

_ Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### ARE THERE LABORATORIES APPROVED FOR AGENT ISOLATION, IDENTIFICATION, AND TYPING? (IF YES, INDICATE THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF EACH). AII tissue, organ, esophageal-pharyngeal fluid, and other samples of suspect cases ofvesicular diseases must be remitted to SENASA's Central Laboratory (Operational Procedures and Working Instructions Manual - Virology Unit - SENASA 2001. Former SENASA Resolution # 219/95 - Annex Xi).



### WHAT SECURITY MEASURES ARE IN PLACE IN LABORATORIES WITHIN THE REGION TO PREVENT ESCAPE OF BIOLOGICAL AGENTS? SENASA's laboratory with NBS3 Ag biosafety level includes: • Restricted and controlled access; • Airtight compartments and mandatory showering; • Negative air flow with two HEPA filters; • Heat treatment of liquid effluents (100°C during 1 hour); • Border autoclave; • Airlock with formaldehyde spraying; • Category II biosafety booths; • Electric energy generator.
The Argentine biosafety requirements to manipulate the FMD virus are stated in former SENASA Resolution # 219/95.

80

_ Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### _ WHAT KIND OF TRAINING HAVE THE DIAGNOSTIC PERSONNEL HAD REGARDING THE SPECIFIC DISEASE AGENTS OF CONCERN? The staff of SENASA's Central Laboratory is trained in manipulating and diagnosing the FMD virus. The 5 veterinarians and 8 laboratory technicians of the FMD Unit have a high level of expertise in diagnosing vesicular diseases and testing FMD vaccines.The Virology Advisory Committee was established in 1992. Its members include professionals from the INTA (National Farming Technology Institute) and the Animal VirologyCenter (CEVAN) of the National Council for Technical and Scientific Research (CONICET). The Virology Advisory Committee, that continuously provides support to SENASA, has the best technical and human resources in the country.



### 81

~ Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



# ~

, ,... 

# ~

National Animal Health and Agrifood Quality Service (SENASA)
Risk Analysis Unit


## QU ESTION 11:

POLICIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ANIMAL DISEASE CONTROL IN THE

REGION, i.e., EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAPACITY

November 2002



### 82

_ Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### 11- POLICIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ANIMAL DISEASE CONTROL IN THE REGION, i.e., EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAPACITY

WHAT POLICIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE EXIST FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE TO OUTBREAK SITUATIONS? The outbreaks which occurred as of October 2001 were managed in accordance with an eradication strategy that required stamping out 3 , among other measures, to preservethe health status of the FMD free areas. AII the measures included in the strategy comply with the recommendations stated in the FMD Chapter of the International Animal Health Code of the O.I.E. By Decree # 394/2001 that updated Decree # 1585/1996, the President of SENASA has authority to take prompt actions to respond to emergency situations involving animahealth. SENASA has special policies, logistics and a budget for zoosanitary and phytosanitary emergency situations. The National Animal Health Emergency System (SINAESA) defines the responsibilities and functions to control FMD in emergency situations. The SINAESA operates at three levels: Central, Regional and Local.At the central level, there is a Central Animal Health Emergency Committee that is responsible for describing the emergency scenario, defining the control measures, financing mechanisms and responsibilities, and assigning the human and other resources required for the eradication operations.

3 Stamping-out is required in risk situations such as: clinical cases of FMD, importation of animals or products from infected areas or areas presumed to be infected, inadequate coverage of the vaccine. 

### 83

~ Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### At the regional level, the actions required by SINAESA are carried out by SENASA's regional resources. The Regional Animal Health Emergency Team, that is coordinated by the Epidemiology Office of DNSA at SENASA headquarters (DNSA Collective #30/20), constitutes the functional unit of the system. The team includes SENASA professionals, technicians and administrative staff specialized in responding to emergency situations. The members of the team were especially selected for their technical and psychophysical profile because, in cases of emergency, they must be continuously available and able to respond immediately. An alternate person was appointed for each member of this team in the event one member is unable to respond. Each Regional Animal Health Emergency Team operates within the jurisdiction of the corresponding SENASA Regional Supervisor although, in the event of an emergency, one team may provide collaboration to others. In all cases, the staff of the Local SENASA Office in the affected area collaborates with the group of Field Technicians to provide support.
The Local SENASA Office is required to: 1. Provide a primary response to suspect cases (collection and remittance of samples, description of the operation, and implementation of preliminary measures). 2. Notify the Regional Supervisor. 3. Submit a status report to the Local Animal Health Emergency Committee. 4. Carry out the actions defined by the chief of operations. In addition, the Local SENASA Office must: a. Supply updated maps of their area, including cadastre drawings.

84

_ Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for recognition of Argentina as a region as defined in Section 92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).



### b. Keep updated records on the characteristics of the production system in their area, including a geographic description.
c. Keep updated information on local suppliers and service suppliers such as: mobile telephone companies, equipment suppliers, transportation and rental companies of said equipment, trucks, etc. d. Keep updated information on the livestock population, inventory of other products, shippers of animal products and byproducts, cattle dealers, other professionals related to the farming sector (veterinarians, agronomists, cattle buyers, dairy farm inspectors, etc.)
e. Keep updated records of the local authorities such as: Municipal, Law Enforcement Authorities, Fire brigade, veterinarians in private practice, and others in the area). f. Oversee the surveillance and repopulation of farming operations.
Regulatory Framework for Emergency Animal Health Situations: In the event of an outbreak of an exotic or endemic disease that represents a hazard forthe health of the national livestock herd, and if the Official Service determines a stamping-out policy, SENASA's actions and level of involvement are defined in Resolutions # 1410/2000 and 488/2002. These actions are listed in Resolution # 779/1999 by which the National Animal Health Emergency System, as authorized by Act # 24,305 enactedin 1993, Decrees # 1585 (1996) and #643 (1996), and the Animal Health Law Enforcement Act (#3959) enacted in 1902, was created.

_ 85
i Risk Analysis UnitInformation provided by SENASA for the recognition of Argentina as a Region comprised in Article 92.2 - Title 9, Code of Federal Regulations in regards to F&MD.



# ~
NATIONAL ANIMAL HEALTH AND AGRIFOOD QUALITY SERVICE


# APPENDIX 1: THE AUTHORITY, ORGANIZATION, AND INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE VETERINARY SERVICES

ORGANIZATION IN THE REGION.

November 2002

— Risk Analysis unitU w cn W W z LLJ

O J 

### p 

## ~~ QU Q U) _z Z C)JW ZQE p>

[[O z o U pQ O w w U pwQ zz U00
0 

### J
~ CLW FOoCU) O Z U - } w C 0 U Cn ❑ 0 C/ ) 00 

### z U~OU~ 02U Q U5 Z)WZ w O 00Qw g ~ pQ ~Q> LL.
w¢ } p-Q op~ p 0J o -W Z ~ 0 0 :EQZ LD 0fwz UQZU

~ Lij _O 

### ~ E ❑ Q J

LL 

### _ W J Q Q O~ < Q U Q p Z p U Q p Q W Q Z z p W 

### o caUQ 

### ~ U J
> 0

~ yW Z Z} Q ~ Q a ~ OQ ~ QC7 Q Z O J~ ZirQCn OpUZ U~Z~ U LUW- lj < -p p Z O U O~ Z ~ w f- U ZJ 

### ZZ 0¢ UQ UZ w ~ O w U~ w- O Q a:Q ~ W w pZw> p w p
Q

ZpO ~ OQQW UZ N :E w O J Q w 

### UU Q ~Z~o O C O Q U) U)

ZQ } w Oz

~ z 

## Q ZmO p~ 

### HU

~ aZt ~ UU°C ~ 

### U w U ' w p U ZJp

O¢OJ 

### UpZ < WU Q ZCIQ W Q pZC)Information provided by SENASA for the recognition of Argentina as a Region comprised in Articic 92.2 Title 9, Code of Federal Regulations 

### in regards to F&MD.

1 ) 1 \I A
C:c>c)I<I)Ih/1.c:101a lI;I C:(-101'.' 

### I)II:I (-(-1ONI 

### 01 I I I;\ , ; I 1 ."-

- /'.f\ 1 f TArI f.c.

- '

~ 

### rJr-r_F: /;S 0 -F-;I Ir-r-.

~ 

### r'r

~ 

### ,.r, ~~,.~ ~ (•:IC ~l~~ia

II\I/`, 1 OGA1



# P F rz

- rrFi - E r rrA
i ) i\ I i /`. ilnacr.ic)P OII:I (:(:I()!I 

### rr_ nMci•.i.i. - 1•.ciC - ,► 

### , Mlc:•lot

. _
rr, ~ r-r,rrrnc o ~ u.'/•.c:lula ^ vn^ ^, r,r,rr•r,rrrnc•^ ~ .

~ - n"~ " r r!r.0 -rr/u;tr.cr•ss ~ I (~I~~ 'rl:/:I( 1 F; ~ ~ I:I ~ nr/•.ca: ~ t: I I•t:c ~l~l~c ~ (<I:/:I
~ '/•,I;

I'. I'I I1M.C.frfi! S I

® 

### ~
(:)0F: [i: vrTr_nrv.r•Ir, r•r•cruc os

I•/:I:nv carl ~ . 1•I:c ~ l'I
~ c: ~ . i .1
~ <:•i I:I/:1 1'rhu;
~ g

SENASA —Risk Analysis unitInformation provided by SENASA for the recognition of Argentina as a Region comprised in Articic 92.2 Title 9, Code of Federal Regulations 

### in regards to F&MD. 

# PRESIDENCIA
C44RDINACI4N DE CUARENTENA FRQNTERAS Y AREA OPERATIVA 

### CERTIFICACI4NES AREA NORh1ATIVA



### FRONTERAS 

# I H TRAFICO fSupervisor geneittlF INTERNACIONAL C UARENTEN,4 VEGETAL CUARENTENA ANIP/IAL
ItdPQRT. DE PUESTQS [}E PRODUCTOS CONTROL DE BARRERAS EXPORT. DE Y FRaNTERAS PROOUCTOS CERT. ANIh1AL ESTACtdN SEwIEN CUARENTENARIA EXP. Ih1P. 1fEG ETAL


### DIRECCION DE LABORATORIOS Y CONTROL TECNICO I CALIDAD I

COORDINACION GENERAL DE LABORATORIO ANIMAL
COORDINACION DE BACTERIOLOGIA
COORDINACION DE VIROLOGIA
COORDINACION DE QUIMICA Y RESIDUOS QUIMICOS
COORDINACION DE PRODUCTOS AIJMENTICIOS Y CONEXOS COORDINACION GENERAL 

# I RED DE LABORATORIOS DE LABORATORIO VEGETAL
COORDINACION RESIDUOS QUIMICOS Y METODOS DE DIAGNOSTICO
COORDINACION DE PLAGAS Y ENFERMEDADES COORD. DE FERTILIZANTES, FORMULADOS Y CONTAMINANTES QUIMICOS COORDINACION DE PRODUCTOS VEGETALES Y MICROBIOLOGIA AGRICOLA

SFNASA —Risk Analysis unit

## 3 pravincias y Ciudad 

## ut6nloma de Buenas itE'eS:



# ~ 6*w

, 

# - Information provided by SENASA for the recognition of Argentina as a Region comprised in Article 92.2 Title 9, Code of Federal Regulations 

### in regards to F&MD

.

~ 

# Argentina is divided into 23 provinces. The capital district of the

nation is Buenos Aires City.

1 Jujuy 2 Salta 3 Formosa 4 Chaco 5 Misiones 6 Tucuman 7 Catamarca 8 Santiago del Estero 9 Corrient'es 10 La Rioja 11 SarrJuan 12 C6rdoba 13 Santa Fe 14 Entre Rios 15 Mendoza 16 San Luis 17 Buenos - Aires • Ciudad de Bs. As. 18 La Pampa 19 Neuquen 20 Rio Negro 21 Chubut 22 Santa Cruz - 23 Tierra del Fuego Islas Malvinas 

# This map shows the total SENASA personnel per province (ln percentage)

SENASA —Risk Analysis unit

~

### Information provided by SENASA for the recognition of Argentina as a Region comprised in Article 92.2 Title 9, Code of Federal Regulations in regards to F&MD.



# DtstribrUclon del persC>Clal tCt<tal por provincia.

; i rw ~ 

## Total personal: 3.536

~ 

## . `... p V..r/70,Q ^ f > !
f ... 6
0 

# ~~„~ ~

. ~ .

SENASA —Risk Analysis unitInfoi

- mation provided by SENASA for the recognition of Argentina as a Region comprised in Article 92.2 Titic 9, Code of Federal Regulations 

### in regards to F&MD

.


# ARE ALL OFFICERS VETERINARIANS?

DistribuelQn dei personal de planta 

## permanente y contratados Actividad Planta pormanente C+anfi ata.dos Vetetinados 576 ?? ~ 

### lngenieros Agr6nonos 149 29 Otros 159 55 

### Farat6cr~,Icos 1046 347 Administrativos 635 :80 

## PersonaE de maestranza 29

. 

## 10
TOTA4L 2, 594 942

Distribucian 

# ~ parcentual dei 

## personai total Administrati°ros 26%

Paratecnicos 38

1 %

Personal de masstranza 1 0 % Peritos Clasificadores 3 0 /o lnaenieros Aaronomos 5 0 fs Qtras profesiones lrofo SGNASA —Risk Analysis unitlnformation provided by SENASA for the recognition of Argentina as a Region comprised in Article 92.2 Title 9, Code of Federal Regulations 

### in regards to F&MD. 

### Personal de apoyo sanitario por convenio con otras Instituciones -Fundaciones: (Total) 4.283 Vacunadores 3.831 Programadores 452 

### -Barreras (47) (Rio Barrancas y Colorado: 14, Neuquen-Rio Negro: 10, Paralelo 42:3, Mesopotamia: 3, NOA: 11, Cuyo: 6) 

### 371 -Institutos de investigacion: (Total) 5.497 INTA 4.400 C EVAN 35 INTI 1.062 

### Facultades: (Total) 2.882 Buenos Aires 912 La Plata 490 Tandil 209 La Pampa 190 Rio IV 250 Corrientes 330 Mendoza 501 

### Personal de apoyo sanitario por convenio con otras Instituciones •Profesionales Privados, Provinciales y Municipales: (Total) 39.200 Medicos Veterinarios (Colegios 22) 14.200 Ingenieros Agronomos (Colegio 1) 25.000 

### -Fuerzas de seguridad: (Total) (Gendarmeria (*), Prefectura,Policia Provincial y Aeronautica Nacional) 32.000 (") Personal permanentes en operativos 200

SENASA —Risk Analysis unit