Annual Report of the EU Wild Bird Surveillance 2006

and Preliminary Results of the First Quarter 2007

Uta Hesterberg, Alex Cook, Ian Brown & EU Epidemiology Working Group on AI Wild Bird Surveillance

ObjectivesObjectives

Present the 2006 wild bird surveillance data reported Present the 2006 wild bird surveillance data reported by MS in a comparative mannerby MS in a comparative manner

Present and discuss descriptive analysis of these data Present and discuss descriptive analysis of these data with focus on H5N1/ H5 HPAIwith focus on H5N1/ H5 HPAI

Present data of the first quarter 2007Present data of the first quarter 2007

Overview of terminology and definitions 1Overview of terminology and definitions 1

Positive/ Infected: bird, from which at least one sample tested positive on either PCR or virus isolation.

Risk Species: EFSA (EFSA, 2006) and the 2007 guidelines(SANCO, 2006) (in total 29 species)

Origin: Relates to the collected information on the status of the bird when sampled. The four categories are: live, hunted, diseased and found dead

Overview of terminology and definitions 2Overview of terminology and definitions 2

Passive surveillance: For the purpose of this report, passive surveillance will be used as an equivalent to the surveillance of dead or diseased birds

Active surveillance: For the purpose of this report, active surveillance will be used as an equivalent to the surveillance of live or hunted birds

Exclusion of captive birds and data errors in species (extinct etc)

Unless otherwise stated all totals and overall proportions relate to EU 24 (excl. Spain) + Bulgaria for 2006

Total number of birds sampled per Member State in 2006

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Member State Total 27913 24715 24099 12318 7253 6388 5991 5801 5103 4322 4316 3074 2824 2237 2129 1983 1817 1735 1529 997 915 664 621 536 504 446 259 58

% o f total birds sampled 18.54 16.42 16.01 8.182 4.818 4.243 3.979 3.853 3.39 2.871 2.867 2.042 1.876 1.486 1.414 1.317 1.207 1.152 1.016 0.662 0.608 0.441 0.412 0.356 0.335 0.296 0.172 0.039

Accumulative % of total birds sampled 18.54 34.96 50.97 59.15 63.97 68.21 72.19 76.04 79.43 82.3 85.17 87.21 89.09 90.57 91.99 93.3 94.51 95.66 96.68 97.34 97.95 98.39 98.8 99.16 99.49 99.79 99.96 100

DE NL ES UK FR IT DK HU RO SE AT PL PT CZ EL BU BE SK CH SL IE LU LT FL CY LV EE MT

During 2006, 143 915 birds were sampled in the EU 25 + Bulgaria . Romania tested an approximate additional 5103 birds and Switzerland sampled a total of 1529 birds.

Number and proportion of all birds sampled by season and MS Number and proportion of all birds sampled by season and MS (EU total = EU 24 + Bulgaria)(EU total = EU 24 + Bulgaria)

•0%

•20%

•40%

•60%

•80%

•100%

•Sept to Dec •463 •648 •280 •71 •68 •3463 •102 •8 •1935 •7385 •302 •2682 •284 •3190 •67 •23 •65 •21 •7586 •1024 •1207 •109 •238 •2202 •412 •3530•36953

•June to August•298 •943 •515 •63 •121 •1158 •6 •85 •2075 •3925 •232 •0 •113 •1154 •240 •20 •25 •0 •2769 •67 •573 •120 •138 •1116 •42 •1692•17448

•Feb to May •3555 •226 •1188 •370 •2048 •1370 •151 •443 •3243 •16603•1595 •3119 •518 •2044 •139 •578 •574 •37 •14360•1983 •1044 •1506 •621 •1004 •1075•7096 •65415

•AT •BE •BU •CY •CZ •DK •EE •FL •FR •DE •EL •HU •IE •IT •LV •LT •LU •MT •NL •PL •PT •SK •SL •SE •CH •UK •EU

Number and proportion of total birds sampled by origin Number and proportion of total birds sampled by origin and season (EU 24+Bulgaria)and season (EU 24+Bulgaria)

•

•0%

•20%

•40%

•60%

•80%

•100%

•No info origin •2326 •974 •909

•Found dead •50983 •6220 •3530

•Diseased •2867 •48 •164

•Hunted •448 •493 •6942

•Live •8791 •9713 •25408

•Feb to May •Jun to Aug •Sep to Dec

Number and proportion of birds sampled by risk species Number and proportion of birds sampled by risk species (EU total = EU 24 + Bulgaria)(EU total = EU 24 + Bulgaria)

•

•0%

•20%

•40%

•60%

•80%

•100%

•Other •38274 •8559 •14623

•Risk Species•(introduction)

•27141 •8889 •22330

•Feb to May •Jun to Aug •Sep to Dec

Positives H5 N1/ H5 HPAIPositives H5 N1/ H5 HPAI

Between February and May 2006, 13 MS and Bulgaria reported a total of 591* birds infected with H5N1/ H5 HPAI

In the second and third reporting period only two H5N1/ H5 HPAIcases were detected; one H5N1 positive Great Crested Grebe (Podiceps cristatus) from Spain and one H5 HPAI positive hunted Ferruginous Duck (Aythya nyroca) from Germany in November respectively were reported

* 272 H5N1 positive birds found in Germany could not be reported

Proportion of sampled birds positive by surveillance Proportion of sampled birds positive by surveillance type and country, for countries that did experience type and country, for countries that did experience H5N1 cases for H5N1/ H5 HPAI FebH5N1 cases for H5N1/ H5 HPAI Feb--May 06 May 06

Member State Excl

Spain

Total number sampled

a

Total number positive

b

Total positive

proportion

a/b

Proportion positive of

dead or diseased risk

species n= number sampled

Positive proportion in live or hunted risk species

n= number sampled

Positive proportion in

dead or diseased other

species n= number sampled

Positive proportion in live or hunted other species

n= number sampled

621 46 7.41% 18.80% 0.00% 0.61% 0.00% SL n=234 n=32 n=330 n=25

1004 42 4.18% 9.73% 0.00% 6.49% 0.00% SE n=257 n=86 n=262 n=399

1983 70 3.53% 4.61% 8.61% 0.38% 0.00% PL n=607 n=453 n=780 n=143

3555 120 3.38% 6.04% 0.00% 0.94% 0.00% AT n=1806 n=233 n=1172 n=344

1370 45 3.28% 19.21% 0.00% 1.01% 2.63% DK n=177 n=169 n=986 n=38

1075 32 2.98% 2.91% 0.00% 3.04% 0.00% CH n=515 n=0 n=560 n=0

3243 65 2.00% 6.03% 0.00% 0.57% 0.00% FR n=912 n=145 n=1743 n=443

3119 61 1.96% 20.42% not sampled 0.07% not sampled HU n=289 n=0 n=2830 n=0

1595 31 1.94% 6.77% 0.00% 0.10% 0.00% EL n=443 n=85 n=987 n=80

2044 19 0.93% 8.42% 0.00% 0.83% 0.00% IT n=202 n=609 n=240 n=275

2048 14 0.68% 1.31% not sampled 0.00% not sampled CZ n=1065 n=0 n=983 n=0

16603 71 0.43% 1.28% 0.00% 0.15% 0.00% DE n=4058 n=49 n=12369 n=65

1188 4 0.34% BU

no info no info no info no info

1506 2 0.13% 0.00% not sampled 0.16% not sampled SK n=267 n=0 n=1239 0

7096 1 0.01% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% UK n=4291 n=364 n=2420 n=21

TOTAL* 46975 591 1.2% * EU member states which reported birds positive for Avian influenza + Bulgaria

Legend No statistically

significant difference to total proportion

Statistically significantly lower

than total proportion p<0.05

Statistically significantly higher

than total proportion p<0.05

In most MS higher proportion of H5N1/ H5 HPAI positives in the surveillance of dead and diseased risk species

Results Results –– Risk speciesRisk speciesble 7 Number sampled and number positive of risk species (SANCO 2006, EFSA 2006) Total = EU24 + Bulgaria)

mber sampled 1/ 20 Those tested positive are shown as number positive/ number sampled ** Totals exclude Switzerland AI H5/ H5N1 positive * Those member states, which tested positive for avian influenza where all subtypes, were ‘8’ (no subtype info/ not determined)

Other positive Member States** Species AT BE BU CY CZ DK EE FL FR DE EL HU IE IT LV LT LU MT NL PL PT SK SL SE CH UK

**HPAI H5

+ves

**Total other +ves

**Total Birds Sampled

Anas acuta 3*/ 37 3 5 15 2 3*/ 27 1*/7 3/ 197 1/ 3 2 1*/ 266 1 11 564

Anas clypeata 1 3*/ 20 4 1/ 9 8*/ 76 13*/ 24 1/ 50 1 16 0 26 201

Anas crecca 8 8 3 4 4 4/ 266 1 1*/ 116 49 13 1*/ 67 26/ 384 11*/ 43 3 5*/ 108 1 2 6/ 88 3 32/ 694 0 86 1862 Anas penelope 2 1 2 7*/ 537 1 99 24 36 8/ 282 2*/ 23 15*/ 1076 1/ 94 2 3/ 251 0 36 2428

13/ 1773 53/ 4428 103/ 1964 8/ 336 123/ 1850 4/ 243 as platyrhynchos

27/ 1773 5/ 214 8/ 66 11/ 28 732 8/ 234 47 261/

3217 3/ 4428

70 1/ 758 7*/ 111 1/ 1964

11/ 138 34 74 1 322/ 7064 6/ 651 2/ 465 226

1/ 336 1/ 1850 2/ 243 48/ 3806 34 989 28287

Anas querquedula 1 2 1 4*/ 64 28 4 1 4*/ 34 5*/ 11 1 1 4 2 2 0 13 156

lbifrons albifrons 4/ 734 0 4 734 2*/ 452 Anser anser 1/ 73 4 1 12 1/ 146 19 47 1/ 452

10 1 1 1 2*/ 502 61 2 96 5 2/ 172 3 6 1600

r brachyrhynchus 155 1 2/ 103 2/ 108 0 4 367 Anser fabalis 3 12 7*/ 350 9 3/ 132 68 1 3/103 1 0 13 679

Aythya ferina 57 3 1 1/ 40 38 24 2 1*/ 67 11 5 1/ 4 1 2 6/ 109 46 1 2 301 1*/ 132 25/ 96 Aythya fuligula 4 129 20 26/ 41 1 3/ 132

1 3 6 1*/ 24 1/ 9 1/ 1 19/ 96

6/ 150 30 48 29 497

Branta bernicla 11 15 4 1/ 89 2 43 0 1 164 2/ 199 ranta canadensis 596 123 4 1/ 9 219 1 3/ 71 1/ 199

2*/ 647 2 7 1869

Branta leucopsis 326 1 4 171 45 2053 3 1 28 0 0 2631

Branta ruficollis 1 1/ 4 1/ 1 1 1 6

nus columbianus 1 2 2 1/ 39 7 0 1 51 2/ 213 9/ 445 7/ 439 Cygnus cygnus 3/ 213

47 66 39/ 445

3/ 404 1/ 8 2 6 9 3 7 1/ 89 1/439

44 22 1738

3*/ 565 5*/ 292 4/ 282 3*/ 1576 3/ 125 4*/ 216 Cygnus olor 81/ 565

18 1 14/ 358 4/ 292

14 14/ 282 45/ 1576

28/ 329

57/ 177 1*/ 190 16/ 161 1 112 43 7/ 828 67/ 832 119

42/ 125 4/ 216 1/ 125 14*/ 1935 372 44 8174

Fulica atra 4*/ 248 108 3 1*/ 19 92 29 1 1*/ 90 3/ 1158 50 1/ 48 1 2*/ 200 2 10 1 269 33 17 4 4/ 211 1 11 2492 Larus canus 6 2*/ 510 14 74 86 24 48 162 36 1 1/ 10 16 0 3 987

Larus ridibundus 2 66 4 92 320 16 23 78 2/ 342 8 1/ 28 9 8*/ 205 14 10 3 7 3/ 2793 60 7 19 8/ 48 12 80 1 21 4234

Limosa limosa 1 1 0 0 2

Netta rufina 13 144 1 20 0 0 178

omachus pugnax 3 1 32 1 5 1 5 5 0 0 53

Pluvialis apricaria 102 75 3 1*/ 60 0 1 240

Vanellus vanellus 13 32 182 19 2 32 4 1*/ 66 2 4 3 1 0 1 357

H5N1/HPAI H5 positives H5N1/HPAI H5 positives -- Genus Genus CygnusCygnus

Cygnus olor was sampled in 20 MS of which 12 found H5N1/ H5 HPAICygnus olor was sampled in 20 MS of which 12 found H5N1/ H5 HPAI positivespositives

Around 70% of all H5N1/ H5 HPAI positive birds were swans, almosAround 70% of all H5N1/ H5 HPAI positive birds were swans, almost 90% of these swans t 90% of these swans were mute swans (Cygnus olor)were mute swans (Cygnus olor)

Proportion of mute swans amongst all positives H5N1/ H5 HPAI varProportion of mute swans amongst all positives H5N1/ H5 HPAI varied in MS from relatively ied in MS from relatively low (SE 10% and DK 9%) to very high (over 90% of positives in Clow (SE 10% and DK 9%) to very high (over 90% of positives in CZ, EL, PL and SI)Z, EL, PL and SI)

Mute swans: varying proportion of tested positive ( I.e. around Mute swans: varying proportion of tested positive ( I.e. around 5% in CZ, DK, DE to around 5% in CZ, DK, DE to around 30% in HU and SE)30% in HU and SE)

S p e c i e s S a m p l e d P o s i t i v eP r o p o r t i o n

P o s i t i v e H 5 N 1 / H 5 H P A I

C y g n u s o l o r 5 3 2 6 3 7 2 7 %

C y g n u s c y g n u s 7 1 8 4 4 6 %

C y g n u s s p . 8 2 4 4 0 . 4 9 %

C y g n u s c o l u m b i a n u s

9 0 0 % Number of swans sampled and proportion positive for H5N1/H5 HPAIFeb- May 2006

H5N1/HPAI H5 positives H5N1/HPAI H5 positives -- Genus Genus AythyaAythya

Cases of H5N1/H5 HPAI in A. fuligula were found in Denmark (26),Cases of H5N1/H5 HPAI in A. fuligula were found in Denmark (26), Germany (3) and Sweden (19)Germany (3) and Sweden (19)

All positives (4/8) of A. marila occurred in Sweden, hardly sampAll positives (4/8) of A. marila occurred in Sweden, hardly sampled (2 UK and 1 SI) led (2 UK and 1 SI)

In Denmark and Sweden Tufted Ducks accounted for 60% and 45% of In Denmark and Sweden Tufted Ducks accounted for 60% and 45% of the total H5N1 cases in those the total H5N1 cases in those countries respectively countries respectively

Species Sampled Positive Proportion

Aythya marila 11 4 36%

Aythya fuligula 244 48 20%

Aythya ferina 118 1 0.8%

Aythya nyroca 24 0 0%

Aythya sp. 2 0 0%

H5N1/HPAI H5 H5N1/HPAI H5 -- SummarySummary

In the case of H5N1infections, testing of dead birds, especially swans, diving ducks and mergansers was the most likely way of detecting infection with this subtype

Active surveillance of live Active surveillance of live or hunted birds appears to or hunted birds appears to result generally in a higher result generally in a higher proportion of positives for proportion of positives for subtypes other than H5N1 subtypes other than H5N1 HPAI than passive HPAI than passive surveillance of dead or surveillance of dead or diseased birdsdiseased birds

Targeting risk species, Targeting risk species, especially dabbling ducks especially dabbling ducks resulted, with a few resulted, with a few exceptions, in a higher exceptions, in a higher proportion of LPAI proportion of LPAI positives than not positives than not targeting hightargeting high--risk speciesrisk species

Other subtypesOther subtypes

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Other Genus 7 24 0 2 2 25 5 58

Tadorna 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 17

Somateria 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4

Podiceps 0 4 0 1 0 2 0 0

M ergus 5 8 0 0 0 0 5 0

Larus 4 1 0 1 0 35 0 51

Falco 0 3 0 0 0 4 2 0

Cygnus 138 282 0 2 0 20 4 50

Buteo 3 11 0 0 0 0 0 0

Branta 0 3 0 0 0 5 2 2

Aythya 40 14 0 1 2 2 24 12

Anser 1 4 0 4 0 12 0 47

Anas 4 36 0 122 12 279 28 778

HPAI H5

HPAI H5N1

HPAI H7

LPAI H5

LPAI H7

LPAI Other

Subtype Pending

No subtype

info/

Main Findings and ConclusionsMain Findings and Conclusions

Overall most birds (54%) in the EU were tested between February Overall most birds (54%) in the EU were tested between February and and May. May.

Most MS increased the active surveillance of live and hunted birMost MS increased the active surveillance of live and hunted birds in ds in the course of the year and 62% of all live or hunted birds were the course of the year and 62% of all live or hunted birds were sampled between September and Decembersampled between September and December

Passive surveillance significantly decreased in numbers and Passive surveillance significantly decreased in numbers and proportion of the total sampled birds in most MS and 84% of deadproportion of the total sampled birds in most MS and 84% of dead and and diseased birds were tested between February and May 2006diseased birds were tested between February and May 2006

Overall the proportion of risk species amongst the sampled birdsOverall the proportion of risk species amongst the sampled birdsincreased in the course of the yearincreased in the course of the year

Main Findings and ConclusionsMain Findings and Conclusions

A large heterogeneity occurred between MS in respect to theirA large heterogeneity occurred between MS in respect to theirsurveillance programmes and the number of birds tested.surveillance programmes and the number of birds tested.

While some Member States focused on the active surveillance of lWhile some Member States focused on the active surveillance of live ive live birds, others did focus on passive surveillance of dead or live birds, others did focus on passive surveillance of dead or diseased diseased diseased birds. diseased birds.

The degree of targeting of risk species and sample types are The degree of targeting of risk species and sample types are also also variable between Member States.variable between Member States.

As these factors impact on the probability of obtaining As these factors impact on the probability of obtaining positive results, positive results, the proportion of birds that were found to the proportion of birds that were found to be positive for avian influenza cannot be directly be positive for avian influenza cannot be directly compared either between species or countriescompared either between species or countries

Main Findings and ConclusionsMain Findings and Conclusions

The positive proportions cannot be interpreted as The positive proportions cannot be interpreted as indicating prevalence of avian influenza in a indicating prevalence of avian influenza in a country or species due to the following reasonscountry or species due to the following reasons::

The inability to assess whether the sampled population is The inability to assess whether the sampled population is representative of the wild bird population, representative of the wild bird population, the existence of the mentioned heterogeneity of the surveillancethe existence of the mentioned heterogeneity of the surveillancemethodologies between Member States, methodologies between Member States, a generally nona generally non--equal probability of a bird to be selected for sampling equal probability of a bird to be selected for sampling and to be positive and and to be positive and the fact that this population of wild birds is dynamic. the fact that this population of wild birds is dynamic.

Main Findings and ConclusionsMain Findings and ConclusionsConclusions:Conclusions:

For detection of H5N1, passive surveillance through the testing For detection of H5N1, passive surveillance through the testing of of dead and diseased birds, especially swans, diving ducks and dead and diseased birds, especially swans, diving ducks and Mergansers has been shown to be the most valuable surveillance Mergansers has been shown to be the most valuable surveillance source, and almost all H5N1 outbreaks were discovered through a source, and almost all H5N1 outbreaks were discovered through a positive test result of dead swans. Consequently the maintenancepositive test result of dead swans. Consequently the maintenance of a of a good functional passive surveillance system appears very importagood functional passive surveillance system appears very important nt for the early detection of H5N1.for the early detection of H5N1.

AI infections were detected in several raptor species such as BuAI infections were detected in several raptor species such as Buteo, teo, Falcons and Owls. Since these birds get infected through Falcons and Owls. Since these birds get infected through contqctcontqctwhile feedingwhile feeding on dead or diseased infected birds they are also a on dead or diseased infected birds they are also a potentially valuable additional surveillance source for avian inpotentially valuable additional surveillance source for avian influenza fluenza

For the detection of other subtypes, the surveillance of live orFor the detection of other subtypes, the surveillance of live or hunted hunted birds, especially of dabbling ducks appeared to be the best birds, especially of dabbling ducks appeared to be the best surveillance source.surveillance source.

Preliminary Findings of EU Wild Bird Preliminary Findings of EU Wild Bird Surveillance for Avian Influenza in the first Surveillance for Avian Influenza in the first Quarter 2007Quarter 2007

Passive surveillance in sampled birds Memb

er State

Feb - May 2006

Jun - Aug 2006

Sep - Dec 2006

Jan - Mar 2007

AT 2978 253 114 63 BE Na Na Na 7 BU* 0 0 0 34 CH 1075 42 65 41 CY 137 44 48 56 CZ 2048 121 68 46 DE 16427 2660 1148 978 DK 1163 141 52 133 EE 0 6 15 4 EL 1430 125 54 90 ES NI NI NI 874 FL 131 59 6 3 FR 2655 355 278 170 HU 3119 0 36 98 IE 518 113 92 104 IT 442 457 550 132 LT 576 20 23 21 LU 374 25 65 23 LV 122 1 22 4 MT 16 0 0 2 NL 10261 71 182 198 PL 1387 17 14 75 PT 766 298 257 144 RO NI NI NI 47 SE 519 29 43 45 SK 1506 99 16 28 SL 564 47 23 18 UK 6711 1327 588 818 EU 53850 6268 3694 4215

* No data supplied on origin of birds sampled for 2006

Active surveillance in sampled birds Memb

er State

Feb - May 2006

Jun - Aug 2006

Sep - Dec 2006

Jan - Mar 2007

AT 577 45 349 70 BE 226 943 648 643 BU* 0 0 0 116 CH 0 0 347 237 CY 26 9 22 0 CZ 0 0 0 0 DE 114 1078 5613 4150 DK 207 1017 3411 450 EE 0 0 87 0 EL 165 107 248 143 ES NI NI NI 1887 FL 312 26 2 0 FR 588 1720 1657 0 HU 0 0 2646 391 IE 0 0 192 172 IT 884 697 2639 2670 LT 2 0 0 22 LU 200 0 0 0 LV 17 239 45 0 MT 21 0 21 30 NL 4099 2436 7404 6087 PL 596 50 1010 140 PT 278 275 948 387 RO NI NI NI 311 SE 485 1087 2159 31 SK 21 93 10 SL 57 91 214 12 UK 385 365 2942 1433 EU 9239 10206 32350 19155 * No data supplied on origin of birds

sampled for 2006

Total Number of samples EU 27 Total Number of samples EU 27 2397923979

Only 5 countries tested more than Only 5 countries tested more than 1000 birds 1000 birds

11 MS tested less than 100 birds 11 MS tested less than 100 birds overall in the first quarter of 2007overall in the first quarter of 2007

Active surveillance compared to Feb Active surveillance compared to Feb ––May 06 almost doubled, compared May 06 almost doubled, compared to Septo Sep--Dec around half the number Dec around half the number of birds tested overall of birds tested overall

Passive surveillance compared to Passive surveillance compared to FebFeb--May 06 is 6% of the number of May 06 is 6% of the number of birds sampled, compared to Sepbirds sampled, compared to Sep-- Dec Dec also slight decrease overall also slight decrease overall

Number of birds sampled by time period(excl records with no information on origin of birds)

Number and Proportion of sampled birds by origin and MSNumber and Proportion of sampled birds by origin and MS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

No info origin 5 0 6 0 37 0 272 0 0 0 181 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 11 0 0 91 0 1 4 0 0 0 609

Found dead 61 7 34 38 30 46 967 133 4 63 795 2 136 98 104 126 21 6 4 2 198 75 144 37 45 0 17 818 4011

Hunted&Diseased 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 24

Diseased 1 0 0 1 5 0 11 0 0 0 46 1 34 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 1 0 112

Hunted&Healthy 5 179 17 22 0 0 195 0 0 95 4 0 0 263 172 1883 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 306 0 0 12 139 3314

Live&Healthy 64 464 99 215 0 0 3951 450 0 48 1882 0 0 128 0 783 0 0 0 30 6087 140 387 5 17 10 0 1294 1605

Injured 1 0 0 2 21 0 0 0 0 27 33 0 0 0 0 4 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 133

AT BE BU CH CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FL FR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SK SL UK EU

Positives First Quarter 2007Positives First Quarter 2007

In total 220 birds tested positive for AI in 11 MS In total 220 birds tested positive for AI in 11 MS

No HPAI was detectedNo HPAI was detected

H5 LPAI was found in 9 birds in 5 MS: 1 Mallard (H5 LPAI was found in 9 birds in 5 MS: 1 Mallard (Anas platyrhynchosAnas platyrhynchos) ) and 1 and 1 Anser albifronsAnser albifrons in Germany, 1 Mallard and 1 in Germany, 1 Mallard and 1 Anser albifronsAnser albifrons in in the Netherlands, 2 black swan (the Netherlands, 2 black swan (Cygnus atratusCygnus atratus) in Italy 1 mute swan ) in Italy 1 mute swan and 1 and 1 Anas acutaAnas acuta in the UK and 1 in the UK and 1 Anas creccaAnas crecca in Irelandin Ireland

H7 LPAI was detected in 3 birds in 3 MS: 1 H7 LPAI was detected in 3 birds in 3 MS: 1 Cygnus spCygnus sp. in Germany, 1 . in Germany, 1 mallard (mallard (Anas platyrhynchosAnas platyrhynchos) in Italy and 1 ) in Italy and 1 Cygnus olorCygnus olor in Hungaryin Hungary

32 other LPAI infections were found and for 174 birds that teste32 other LPAI infections were found and for 174 birds that tested d positive the subtype information was not available. positive the subtype information was not available.

ReferencesReferences

Migratory birds and their possible role in the spread of HPAIMigratory birds and their possible role in the spread of HPAI”” adopted by adopted by the Animal Health and Welfare Panel of EFSA on 12the Animal Health and Welfare Panel of EFSA on 12thth May 2006 and May 2006 and the work carried out by ORNIS committee and contractors to DG the work carried out by ORNIS committee and contractors to DG Environment (Source: SANCO/10268/2006).Environment (Source: SANCO/10268/2006).

Thanks for the photos to:Thanks for the photos to:

Andrew Dunn : Andrew Dunn : http://http://www.andrewdunnphoto.comwww.andrewdunnphoto.comAdam Adam KumiszcaKumiszcaAndy Bright: Andy Bright: http://http://www.digiscoped.comwww.digiscoped.comwww.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/hokkaido/images/legswa.jpegwww.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/hokkaido/images/legswa.jpegLukasz LukasikLukasz Lukasik