Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Report on the study of production and health
profiling in small-scale and subsistence pig
production in Mukdahan province, Thailand
LOA/RAP/2010/67
Suwicha Kasemsuwan, Kasetsart University
Pichai Jirawattanapong, Kasetsart University
Supoj Noopatama, Department of Livestock Development
ii
Table of Contents
List of Attachment ................................................................................... iii
List of abbreviations ................................................................................ iii
Executive summary .................................................................................. iv
1. Introduction ........................................................................................ 1
2. Specific objectives ............................................................................... 1
3. Implemented activities ......................................................................... 1
3.1. Background of study areas ....................................................................... 1
3.2. Develop and deliver 3 training courses for farmers and CAHV .................... 2
3.3. Conduct a cross-sectional study of influenza and other important infectious
diseases in pig population in 3 sub-districts of Mukdahan through the following
activities .......................................................................................................... 3
3.3.1. Collect and transport a maximum of 500 samples for serological and
virological laboratory testing, ........................................................................... 3
3.3.2. Collect data on pig production and health through questionnaires ....... 3
3.4. Conduct bi-weekly visits to all pig farms in the selected sub-districts of
Mukdahan province .......................................................................................... 3
4. Results ............................................................................................... 4
4.1. Develop and deliver 3 training courses for farmers and CAHV .................... 4
4.2. Conduct a cross-sectional study of influenza and other important infectious
diseases in pig population in 3 sub-districts of Mukdahan through the following
activities .......................................................................................................... 4
4.2.1. Collect and transport a maximum of 500 samples for serological and
virological laboratory testing, ........................................................................... 4
4.2.2. Collect data on pig production and health through questionnaires ....... 5
4.3. Conduct bi-weekly visits to all pig farms in the selected sub-districts of
Mukdahan province .......................................................................................... 7
5. Conclusion and recommendation ......................................................... 9
Acknowledgement .................................................................................. 12
Reference ............................................................................................... 12
iii
List of Attachment
Attachment 1: Sow card ........................................................................................ 13
Attachment 2: Sow performance logbook .............................................................. 14
Attachment 3: Pig clinical observation form........................................................... 15
Attachment 4: Questionnaire on pig production and health management .............. 16
Attachment 5: CAHV training agenda .................................................................... 22
List of abbreviations
CAHV Community Animal Health Volunteer
DLD Department of Livestock Development
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
KU Kasetsart University
M-PLO Mukdahan Provincial Livestock Office
NIAH National Institute of Animal Health
OTOP the One-Tambon-One-Product government project
PDR Lao People’s Democratic Republic
PRRS Porcine Reprodictive and Respiratory Syndrome
PRRSv Porcine Reprodictive and Respiratory Syndrome virus
S/p ratio Sample/positive ratio
iv
Executive summary
In 2009, a new strain of H1N1 virus, known as pandemic H1N1/2009, which
was a result of reassortment between human and animal influenza viruses caused a
fear for human pandemic worldwide. Pigs in some countries, for example Canada,
were reported to be infected by pandemic H1N1/2009 virus. Many cases of the
2009 pandemic flu in human were reported in Thailand. A few incidences of
infection in pigs were also reported. In better preparing for the adverse impact of
pandemic H1N1/2009 and other potential emerging diseases, formulation of
baseline knowledge in pig production and health profile, especially in those small-
scale and subsistence productions where they are at a higher risk, is of significant
importance. The objectives of this project was to study production and health
profiling, in support of the formulation of baseline knowledge, focussing in small-
scale and subsistence pig production
The study was implemented in 3 sub-districts, Dong Mu, Bang Sai Noi and
Wan Yai in Mukdahan province, Thailand. Training courses on sample collection and
data recording were conducted among community animal health volunteers (CAHV)
and famers to gather data on health and pig production. Nasal swab and blood
samples were collected and submitted to National Institute of Animal Health (NIAH),
Department of Livestock Development (DLD) for swine influenza virus and PRRS
virus detection. Bi-weekly farm visits in the selected sub-districts were conducted
to gather pig production data and evidences of swine influenza and PRRS in pig
poppulation.
The study was able to capture and record key production indices in the
subsistence and small-scale pig production, including gestation length, total
number of piglets born per sow, number of piglets dead before selling date per
sow, number of piglet sold per sow, and weaning to first service interval. This
information was crucial in establishing a benchmark for subsequent monitoring, for
example to detect abnormalities or to improve production.
Results from questionnaires provided very useful demographic information
of participating pig farms and farmers, which later were linked to laboratory results
for subsequent epidemiological analyses. The questionnaire results were also used
v
to provide recommendations to farmers and staff of DLD to improve production and
livelihood for the farmers.
Two hundred and eleven nasal swab samples and 118 serum samples were
collected. No laboratory evidence of swine influenza was found in our study, which
was in agreement with the results from clinical observations. Six samples were
serologically positive to PRRS. However, the s/p ratio suggested that this was not
due to active or recent infection. In addition to swab and serum samples collected,
the study also collected fecal samples to test for intestinal parasites as it was
reported to be problematic by farmers. Provisioned with one time antihelminthic
treatment, significant reduction in the prevalence of parasite infestation was
observed.
This study was the first study on influenza in subsistence pig population, and
the first pilot of syndromic surveillance concept. Results from laboratory diagnosis
together with clinical observation through routine bi-weekly visits led to the
conclusion that a swine influenza virus was not circulated in the studied population
during the time of the study. The syndromic surveillance provided an efficient and
robust platform for early disease detection and early warning. However, the
efficiency of the syndromic surveillance depended largely on the capacity of staff,
especially those at the frontline, and also cooperation from farmers. To improve its
implementation, enhance engagement of community using participatory
approaches should be explored.
1
1. Introduction
The activities implemented herein are envisaged under the Letter of
Agreement LOA/RAP/2010/67 signed between Kasetsart University (KU) and Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The implementation
entails coverage of activities under project TCP/RAS/3211(E), “Emergency assistance
for surveillance of novel influenza A subtype H1N1 viruses in pig and poultry
production sectors in high risk Southeast Asian countries.” The objective was to
study production and health profiling, in support of the formulation of baseline
knowledge, focussing in small-scale and subsistence pig production.
2. Specific objectives
1) Develop and deliver 3 training courses, including
a) Two (2) training courses for up to 30 participating farmers each on recording
of production and health data
b) One (1) training course for up to 20 animal health volunteers on techniques
for sample and field data collection and submission
2) Conduct a cross-sectional study of influenza and other important infectious
diseases in pig population in 3 sub-districts of Mukdahan through the following
activities
a) Collect and transport a maximum of 500 samples for serological and
virological laboratory testing,
b) Collect data on pig production and health through questionnaires
3) Conduct bi-weekly visits to all pig farms in the selected sub-districts of
Mukdahan province to gather records of pig production and evidences of swine
influenza and other important infectious diseases in pig population
3. Implemented activities
3.1. Background of study areas
This study was conducted in 3 sub-districts of Mueng district, Mukdahan
province, namely Dong Mu, Bang Sai Noi and Wan Yai. Mukdahan is located in the
northeastern part of Thailand along the border of Thailand and Lao People’s
Democratic Republic (PDR) separated by the Mae Kong River. The province is
subdivided into 7 districts with 53 sub-districts. Criteria for selection of study areas
2
included number and density of small-scale and subsistence pigs and farmers,
availability of community animal health volunteers (CAHV) to implement the
activities, and existence of other relevant pig production to cross-border activities.
The selection was also done in consultation with Mukdahan Provincial Livestock
Office (M-PLO). Figure 1 shows that, among the seven districts, Mueng district has
the largest share of subsistence pig population (native breed). Majority of the
production of native breed pig in Mueng district supplies a niche market in Bang Sai
Noi sub-district. Roasted piglets have been promoted by the province under the
One-Tambon-One-Product (OTOP) government project in an area called Kaeng
Kabao, and supplies came from surrounding areas. With the above considerations,
the aforementioned 3 sub-districts were chosen for this study.
Figure 1: Number of pigs in Mukdahan’s districts
3.2. Develop and deliver 3 training courses for farmers and CAHV
One day training course was provided to all CAHV who participated in this
project. The objectives of the course were to train the CAHVs on data and sample
collection using questionnaires, as well as disease monitoring, recording and
reporting. Subsequently, the CAHV and KU staffs provided the other 2 training
courses to farmers on record keeping of basic farm production on sow performance
using basic form called “sow card”. Information contained in the sow cards were
breeding date, repeat service history, farrowing date, total born litter size and
preweaning mortality. These 2 training courses were performed on-site in the field
so that farmers would understand clearer and be available to participate.
3
3.3. Conduct a cross-sectional study of influenza and other
important infectious diseases in pig population in 3 sub-
districts of Mukdahan through the following activities
3.3.1. Collect and transport a maximum of 500 samples for serological and
virological laboratory testing,
A cross sectional study of important pig diseases, such as PRRS, influenza
and internal parasites was conducted. Pigs older than one month were selected for
sample collection. Serum samples were collected to test for antibodies against PRRS
virus (PRRSv) [1]. Nasal swab samples were taken to detect Influenza virus [2].
These samples were submitted to National Institute of Animal Health (NIAH),
Department of Livestock Development (DLD) for laboratory testing. Fecal samples
were submitted to Diagnostic Laboratory Center, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine,
Kasetsart University for intestinal parasite detection.
3.3.2. Collect data on pig production and health through questionnaires
A set of questionnaires was developed to gather information on general
health condition of pigs, disease monitoring, pig production and trade system.
These included a sow card (Attachment 1), a sow performance logbook (Attachment
2), a pig clinical observation form (Attachment 3), and a questionnaire on pig
production and health management (Attachment 4). A sow performance form was
kept in a farm, and recording was done by farmer. CAHV conducted bi-weekly visits
to participating pig farms to collect sow performance information, and noted down
the information in a sow performance logbook. During the bi-weekly visits, CAHV
also conducted clinical observations, and recorded the information using a clinical
observation form. At the beginning of the study, CAHV interviewed all participating
farmers using a questionnaire on pig production and health management. The
interview questionnaires were administered simultaneously with sample collection.
The completed questionnaires were then submitted to M-PLO and KU staff for
analysis.
3.4. Conduct bi-weekly visits to all pig farms in the selected sub-
districts of Mukdahan province
Participating farmers were requested to regularly maintain records on pig
production and health status using the “sow card”. Every two weeks, the CAHV
visited the farms and gathered records of “sow card”. Concurrently, the CAHV also
4
made observations on evidence of signs of abnormality concerning health status of
pigs in the farms. Should suspicions arose, the CAHV would notify M-PLO staff for
further investigation. Staffs from KU also visited pig farms to provide backstopping
supports to CAHV and M-PLO staff monthly. Total village visits made by CAHV and
KU staff were 60 and 30 respectively.
4. Results
4.1. Develop and deliver 3 training courses for farmers and CAHV
One-day training course performed by staffs from KU was provided to 20
CAHV from 3 sub-districts, Dong Mu, Bang Sai Noi and Wan Yai. The agenda for the
training was shown in Attachment 5. The CAHVs were trained for disease
monitoring, basic record on sow performance, sample and data collection in the
morning. In the afternoon they practised blood sample collection. Interview with
some farmers to determine validity of a questionnaire, “sow card” and health status
recording was also done. Consequently, a questionnaire and recording forms were
adjusted to take into account the understanding of respondents and enable the data
to be obtained. All CAHV, then, were allowed to train farmers for production
performance and health status recording.
4.2. Conduct a cross-sectional study of influenza and other
important infectious diseases in pig population in 3 sub-
districts of Mukdahan through the following activities
4.2.1. Collect and transport a maximum of 500 samples for serological and
virological laboratory testing,
Nasal swab samples of 211 pigs were collected and submitted to NIAH to
detect swine influenza virus using standard protocols. All samples were found
negative in agreement with clinical observation in which no pig showed compatible
clinical signs of swine influenza. One hundred and eighteen serum samples were
also submitted to NIAH for PRRSv antibody detection using ELISA. Six samples (5 %)
were serologically positive against PRRSv. S/p ratio (which can be used to predict
stage of PRRSv-infection) of these sera were 0.537, 0.451, 0.623, 0.436, 0.575 and
0.544, respectively.
5
4.2.2. Collect data on pig production and health through questionnaires
In total, questionnaires were gathered from 79 farmers. Descriptive data
analysis was performed and results are shown in table 1 and 2.
Table 1: Quantitative data on the number of animals per household, age and price
of pigs
Parameters Mean Standard
deviation
Range (min-
max)
Median
Number of pigs 7.3 12.0 1-90 3
Number of chicken 19.5 24.9 0-200 12
Number of cattle 1.4 2.0 0-9 0
Number of dogs 1.1 1.1 0-4 1
Number of cats 0.3 0.7 0-3 0
Number of other animals 1.9 6.4 0-30 0
Sell age (all pigs) (days) 301.7 842.0 20-3,060 45
Sell age (age < 60 days)
(days)
37.6 10.4 20-60 45
Sell price (all pigs) (Baht) 801.2 1,417.0 300-7,500 350
Sell price (age < 60 days)
(Baht)
380.8 112.4 250-700 350
Buy age for new pig
(month)
10.6 14.2 1-60 5.3
Buy price for new pig
(Baht)
1,470.8 1,292.3 300-4,000 1,000
Table 2: Qualitative data on the general information: education, occupation, pig
rearing purpose and the experience, income, and persons to contact when pigs are
sick.
Parameters Percentage
Farmer education
Primary school
1st level high school
2nd level high school
Bachelor degree
Others
69.4
9.2
14.3
4.1
3.1
Rearing purpose
Income
Household consumption
Others
97.9
1.0
1.0
6
Parameters Percentage
Experience on pig rearing
< 1 year
1-3 years
3-5 Years
> 5 years
25.5
32.7
20.4
21.4
Main occupation
Rearing pig
Government officers
Plant/rice agriculturer
others
7.1
4.1
77.6
11.2
Training related to pig rearing
Never trained
Trained
Trained on pig diseases
Trained on pig farming
Trained on pig feeding
Trained on pig production
Trained on other issues
59.2
40.8
20.4
14.3
10.2
14.3
10.2
Family income (per month)
< 5,000 baht
5,000 – 10,000 baht
> 10,000 – 50,000 baht
46.9
40.8
12.2
Criteria for choosing pig to reara
No choice
Convenience
Fecundity
Other reasons
1.1
21.7
81.5
6.5
Criteria for selling piga
Aged
Request to buy
Not fecundity
Want to stop rearing
Others
77.8
12.5
26.4
1.4
2.8
Action for sick pigsa
Self recovering
Isolation
Treatment by owners
Treatment by others
1.3
41.0
48.7
62.8
Contact person for sick animalsa
7
Parameters Percentage
Not contact
Animal health volunteer
DLD officers
Village headman
Others
1.1
81.8
33.0
100.0
5.7
a respondents can choose more than one choice
4.3. Conduct bi-weekly visits to all pig farms in the selected sub-
districts of Mukdahan province
The basic farm production on sow performance was collected from 169
sows. Most of farmers, however, had never recorded this parameter before. Because
no prior data was available, some key sow performance indexes could not be
assessed, e.g. average litter size, repeated estrus, etcetera. The summary of sow
production performance, including gestation length, total number of pig born,
number of piglet dead before selling date per sow, and weaning to first service
interval, was shown in table 3. Gestation period was calculated from a length
between farrowing date (which was recorded during the project) and mating date
(which was recalled from farmers’ memory). Eight out of 169 sow cards (4.7%) were
mistakenly recorded. The mistakes were explained by having data recording in
wrong column (1 card), discrepancies between data recorded in syndromic form and
that in sow card (1 card), too short gestation length record (1 card), data recording
in advance (3 cards) and no identification number (2 cards). Backstopping missions
was conducted to immediately correct the problem and improve data recording
through discussion and on-site training with farmers and AHVs.
Table 3: Production parameters and the performances of pigs.
Production performance n Mean Standard
deviation
Range
(min-max)
Median
Gestation length (days) 26 112.4 5.63 102-121 113
Total number of pig born 54 9.2 3.49 2-21 9
Number of pig dead before
selling date per sow
17 2.4 1.77 1-8 2
Number of pig sold per sow 28 7.6 3.28 1-14 8
Weaning to first service
interval (days)
24
8
Health abnormality were reported from 4 villages (26.67%), involving 8
piglets and 3 adult pigs. Eight piglets showed signs of diarrhea with grey or white
color stool. Among these piglets, 4 of them were also found to be depressed. The 2
adult pigs had diarrhea with dark color stool; and the other showed sign of back
pain.
Fecal samples were randomly collected from 19 pigs in 8 households for
testing of intestinal parasite and coccidia infestation during the first visiting.
Results are shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Parasite egg count and oocyst count per gram of pig feces before
treatment.
Farmer No. Pig No. Egg count/gram Oocyst
count/gram Strogyloides Ascarids
1 1) 0 0 10,800
2) 50 0 10,800
2 3) 450 0 2,250
4) 0 1,600 26,800
5) 150 150 1,850
3 6) 50 0 150
4 7) 0 850 Not determined
8) 450 0 Not determined
9) 300 0 Not determined
10) 300 0 Not determined
5 11) 100 150 200
12) 200 0 38,750
13) 550 50 10,650
14) 750 50 3,000
6 15) 600 0 1,200
7 16) 0 0 850
8 17) 50 0 100
18) 0 0 250
19) 0 0 3,400
Fifteen pigs (79%) were infested with more than one types of worm eggs. All
pigs in 3 sub-districts were treated with antihelminth (Ivermectin) injection after the
first visit. During the last visiting, fecal samples were randomly taken from 16 pigs
9
from 10 households to determine effects of the treatment. Only 5 pigs (31%) were
found positive (Table 5). The significant reduction in the prevalence of parasite
infestration (z-value 2.498; p-value = 0.006) between pre- and post-treatment
demonstrated the effectiveness of antihelminthic program, even when only one
dose was given.
Table 5: Parasite egg count and oocyst count per gram of pig feces after treatment.
Farmer No.a Pig No.b Egg count/gram Oocyst
count/gram Strogyloides Ascarids
A a 150 1,400 200
B b 0 0 19,500
C c 200 0 11,800
d 0 0 29,300
e 0 0 1,900
f 350 1,000 150
D g 0 0 7,050
h 0 0 9,900
i 0 0 28,050
E j 0 0 20,050
F k 350 1,100 200
l 0 0 10,700
G m 50 1,300 100
H n 0 0 12,200
I o 0 0 10,100
J p 0 0 21,300
a farmers in the Table 5 are not identical to farmers in the Table4
b pigs in the Table5 are not identical to pigs in the Table4
Coccidial oocysts were demonstrated in fecal samples of all pigs during both
of the visits(Table 4 and 5). However, no anticoccidial drug was applied in these
pigs.
5. Conclusion and recommendation
All CAHV in 3 sub-districts joined the training course including blood
sampling practice. The one day training course was considered too short for the
CAHV to understand the subject and to perform the job without supervision.
10
Realizing the constraint in terms of the capacity of CAHV to uptake the knowledge,
the team of investigators provided hand-on training in the field on the following
day, and provided repeated trainings during the monthly visits. Some CAHV had
limited capacity in performing pig sample collection and could not collect sample
from large pigs. Therefore the number of samples collected was less than what was
originally planned. Getting more practices would give CAHV more experiences and
could have solved this problem.
Different dialect used by local farmers in Northeastern Thailand created
some level of communication challenges, including communication between the
team of investigators and CAHV. This problem impacted data collection using
interview questionnaires to some levels, especially on participants’ understanding
of the questions being asked. Community participatory approach where by allowing
CAHV or farmers to join questionnaire development process was suggested.
Almost 80% of farmers had less than 5 years of experience and about a
quarter entered into pig businesses for less than a year. 69.4% of the farmers’ level
of education only primary school. And around 59.2% had never received any
training related pig rearing. This would certainly influence farmers’ adoptions of
good agricultural practices (GAP) and proper biosecurity. Farmers also reported
that if there were any concerns regarding pig health, 100% and 81.8% of them
would contact village headmen and CAHC respectively. From these figures, village
headmen and CAHV served as a frontline of disease detection and reporting.
Therefore, animal health authorities should provide support in building the
capacities of village headmen and CAHV for the syndromic surveillance to be
successfully implemented.
Unexpectedly, some farmers were reluctant to join this project because of
their prior experiences with government projects. Specifically, they were afraid that
their animals would have to be kept in confinements for a few years in order to
receive incentives from projects. Attempts were made to include these farmers in
the project, but inevitably some farmers decided to drop out.
Gathering data from sow cards revealed that in subsistence pig population
some production indices in sow were lower than normal average[3]. Examples of
low production indices were a total number of pig born (litter size), an average
number of pigs sold per sow, and weaning to first service interval. However, the
data gathering in 2-month period might not be a clear indicator because complete
11
production cycles of pigs were not possible to monitor. Underestimations of the
sow performance parameters were possible.
Most of the pigs included in the study were infested by intestinal parasites
and coccidian. The infestation resulted in reduction in weight gained, poor feed
utilization, reduction in reproductive performances, and increased susceptibility to
other pathogens.
Potential in-breeding (mating of boars or sows with their own progenies)
were observed in some villages, without farmers’ awareness. The in-breeding would
hypothetically negatively impact production performances. This issue was
highlighted to livestock offices, and suggestions were made to instigate genetic
improvement program. This could be done by introducing boars and sows from
other sources or even considering artificial insemination. It was also suggested to
empower farmers’ knowledge through public education campaign. Nevertheless,
these recommendations would have to be implemented with care because some of
the farmers were contented with their current production and some even felt
rejection to have new boars introduced into their communities.
There were a few reports from Thailand on pandemic H1N1/2009 and other
influenza A viruses in pig population. The report all came from pigs raised in
confinements under commercial practices (commercial-breed pigs, commercial-
grade feeds, artificial insemination, and having routine health management
including vaccination and feed supplemental programs). This study was the first
study on influenza in subsistence pig production. Results from the cross-sectional
study showed that pandemic H1N1/2009 viruses and antibody to swine influenza A
was not found in pigs from these 3 sub-districts. The laboratory testing alone was
not sufficient to indicate presence or absence of viral circulation in pig population.
Nevertheless, the laboratory diagnosis together with clinical observation from the
routine visits made us believe that the pig population were free from influenza at
the time of the study.
Antibodies against PRRSv in 6 samples (5%) indicated exposure to the virus.
However, the low s/p ratio of those sera indicated that pigs might be infected with
PRRSv a long time ago. The low s/p ratio and low sero-prevalence in the population
suggested that the virus did not circulate the population. The low sero-prevalence
also highlighted the fact that the studied pigs were susceptible to PRRS infection if
the virus was introduced into the population. It was suggested that certain
12
prevention measures should be considered, for example, improved biosecurity,
quarantine of new-coming pigs, and farmer education.
In additional to viral diseases, intestinal parasites and coccidiosis appeared
quite frequently in pigs from the 3 sub-districts. Pigs seemed to be very responsive
to treatment with antihelminthic medicine (ivermectin®). Regular treatment with oral
antihelminth/anticoccidial drugs and keeping pigs on concrete would help
preventing infection and transmission with worms and coccidian, subsequently
improving production.
From interviews with some CAHV and farmers, many projects from several
organizations were provided to farmers in these 3 sub-districts. Some projects were
redundant and made farmers some confused. Collaboration between organizations
should be done before project provision. The other problem is that the information
on market for piglet product is still unclear. Until now demand for piglet products is
high whereas piglets for selling are in short supply. Gathering more information on
the marketing should be useful for other plans and supporting in the future.
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Dr. Waraporn Pimprapai and Dr. Narut Thanantong for
helping us during training courses and sample collection. Many thanks go to all
CAHV and farmers for their collaboration and grateful work. Finally, we thank staffs
from M-PLO for their help and support.
Reference
1. Collins J, Dee S, Halbur P, Keffaber K, Lautner B, McCaw M, Rodibaugh M, Sanford
E, Yeske P (1996) Laboratory diagnosis of porcine reproductive and respiratory
syndrome (PRRS) virus infection. 4 (1): 33-35
2. Sreta D, Kedkovid R, Tuamsang S, Kitikoon P, Thanawongnuwech R (2009)
Pathogenesis of swine influenza virus (Thai isolates) in weanling pigs: an
experimental trial. Virol J 6: 34
3. Udomprasert P (1999) Swine health and production management. Udomsuk
printing (1993) limited, Bangkok. 199pp. (printed in THAI)
13
Attachment
Attachment 1: Sow card
14
Attachment 2: Sow performance logbook
15
Attachment 3: Pig clinical observation form
16
Attachment 4: Questionnaire on pig production and health management
17
18
19
20
21
22
Attachment 5: CAHV training agenda
Emergency assistance for surveillance of novel influenza A subtype H1N1 viruses in
pig and poultry production sectors in high risk Southeast Asian countries
มกดาหาร
27-28 กนยายน 2553
27 กนยายน 2553
ผรบการอบรม สตวแพทย และ อาสาสตวแพทย
เวลา กจกรรม วทยากร
9.00-9.15 แนะน าโครงการ (หมอปน) น.สพ.สพจน
9.15-10.45 สอนเรองการสงเกตอาการและต าแหนงเจาะเลอด อ.พชย
10.45-11.00 พก
11.00-11.30 แนะน าเรองแบบสอบถาม สพ.ญ.พรรณพร
11.30-12.00 แนะน าเรอง sow card และ แบบบนทกอาการ อ.สวชา
12.00-13.00 พก
13.00-14.30 ฝกเจาะเลอด อ.พชย /อ.นรตม
14.30-15.00 ฝกตรวจไขพยาธ อ.วราพร
15.00-16.00 ทดสอบแบบสอบถาม (ใหอาสาฯ ตอบ) สพ.ญ.พรรณพร
28 กนยายน 2553 เปาหมายคนฟง: ชาวบานผเลยงหมก
วธการ: ขอใหอาสาฯ จดประชมเกษตรกร และใหการแนะน าแบบสอบถาม แบบบนทกอาการ แบบบนทก
ผลผลต (sow card)และใหชาวบานทดลองตอบแบบสอบถามไดเลย
เวลา กจกรรม วทยากร
ชวงเชา หมบานทหารผานศก อาสาสตวแพทย
ชวงบาย หมบานแกงกระเบา และ บานบางไทรนอย อาสาสตวแพทย