Kunjungan PC IMAKAHI UGM ke PDHI Jateng I

Kunjungan ke PDHI Jateng I dilaksanakan pada hari Minggu, tanggal 8 Mei 2011. Kegiatan ini merupakan salah satu realisasi program kerja Biro Informasi dan Komunikasi PC IMAKAHI UGM sekaligus memfasilitasi panitia Pengmasnas yang rencananya akan diadakan di Boyolali pada bulan September 2011.  Selain dari Pengurus cabang IMAKAHI , kunjungan ini dihadiri oleh PB IMAKAHI yang diwakilkan oleh Hizriah Alief Jainudin Selaku Ketua Departemen Informasi dan Komunikasi PB IMAKAHI dan M. Sahar Firdaus Selaku Sekjen PB IMAKAHI. Rombongan dari IMAKAHI disambut dengan hangat oleh pengurus PDHI Jateng I di Sekretariat Bakorluh Jawa Tengah, kompleks Tarubudaya Ungaran.

Dalam pertemuan ini, diawali dengan pembukaan dan sambutan dari drh. Harjuli Hatmono, selaku ketua I PDHI Jateng I sekaligus perkenalan dengan anggota PDHI Jateng I yang lainnya. Lalu dilanjutkan dengan penyampaian tujuan kunjungan oleh penanggung Jawab Cabang IMAKAHI UGM, Annisa Ulliyani serta perkenalan dengan rombongan dari UGM.

Dalam forum ini, dilakukan diskusi dan saling tukar informasi antara IMAKAHI UGM dengan PDHI Jateng I. Banyak info yang digali dari pertemuan ini, diantaranya pembagian wilayah PDHI di Jawa Tengah yang ternyata ada 6 wilayah. Untuk PDHI Jateng I sendiri wilayahnya meliputi Kendal, Kota Semarang, Kabupaten Semarang sampai Salatiga. Untuk jumlah anggota, pada 2010, tercatat 110 dokter hewan dan itupun masih banyak yang belum terdaftar. Sedangkan untuk kepengurusan masih ditangani oleh dokter hewan pemerintah.
PDHI Jateng I pun mendukung rencana kegiatan Pengmasnas dan siap memberikan bantuan teknis serta gambaran di lapangan. Disampaikan pula pengalaman dari pihak PDHI Jateng I yang pernah mengadakan kegiatan bakti profesi di Grobogan dengan bentuk kegiatan diantaranya : penyuluhan, pemutaran film, pengobatan massal, PKB, pasar murah dan sembako murah. Rencana kegiatan penyuluhan pun harus dapat memecahkan masalah dan mengubah perilaku, misalnya saja masalah klasik yaitu sanitasi. Diharapkan dengan kunjungan ini dapat menjadi inspirasi bagi panitia Pengmasnas.

Pemilihan wilayah di Boyolali juga dirasa cocok. Mengingat potensi ternak dan pengolahan hasil produksi yang perlu ditingkatkan serta dukungan dari pemerintah. Kegiatan Pengmasnas merupakan sebuah event besar, harus ada koordinasi yang baik dengan PDHI maupun dinas terkait. Selain itu perlu koordinasi yang baik serta sarana dan prasarana agar kegiatan ini berlangsung dengan baik dan hasilnya dapat dirasakan oleh seluruh pihak.

Pertemuan ini sekaligus menjadi ajang silaturahmi dan membina hubungan baik dengan PDHI Cabang. Terimakasih kami sampaikan kepada drh. Eko Sutarti, drh. Harjuli Hatmono, drh. M. Hamam, drh. Hermawan Setiadi serta pengurus PDHI Jateng I yang tidak bisa kami sebutkan satu persatu. Semoga dengan kunjungan ini dapat memperluas pola pikir pandang dan bermanfaat bagi semua. Viva veteriner!!!

Ditulis Oleh Ananda Tiarasani Departemen Informasi dan Komunikasi IMAKAHI UGM


Avian Influenza Reported in Indonesia

The first reported outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) type H5N1 in Indonesian poultry occurred in August 2003 and was confirmed in a report to the World Animal Health Organisation (OIE) in 2004. Since that time HPAI has spread across much of the country and has now been reported in 30 of 33 provinces. HPAI is now considered endemic in bird populations in much of the country. Human cases of H5N1 have been reported since mid-2005 and Indonesia now has the highest number of human fatalities worldwide (83 fatalities from 104 known cases of HPAI in humans as of 16 August 2007). Most human cases (~80% of all cases) have been reported from Western Java, consistent with the hypothesis of higher human-poultry densities being associated with higher risk of exposure of people to virus. According to government livestock statistics 2005, there are more than 286 million native chickens, 98 million broiler chickens and 34 million ducks in Indonesia in sectors 3 and 4. Poultry are distributed unevenly across Indonesia, with 60% in Java, 40% in Sumatra, 6%in Kalimantan and 4% in Sulawesi.

The distribution of birds closely follows the distribution of human population. Sixty percent of Indonesian households keep poultry for household consumption or for ready cash sale of birds and eggs. Eighty percent of poultry are sold in 13,000 live-bird markets across the country with little or no health inspection or biosecurity, representing an important risk for virus transmission between poultry and other birds including water birds. Hundreds of village hatcheries, most without biosecurity or health-inspection, distribute day-old chicks and ducklings to Sector 3 producers. Sector 1 and 2 commercial poultry farms and hatcheries generally practice a higher level of biosecurity than village chickens though their biosecurity practices are understood to be variable and health status remains largely unknown.

Approximately 10.5 million birds were culled in 2004 in an attempt to eradicate the disease from Indonesia. Indonesia started to vaccinate against HPAI early in 2004 and continues to use vaccine in outbreak or infected areas throughout the country. There are indications that there are insufficient vaccine stocks to ensure vaccination of all birds in all affected regions. DIC staff are involved in structured surveillance of birds to monitor for serological response to vaccination. Results appear to indicate that between 50-90% of sampled birds had no circulating antibody, indicating that vaccination is not currently achieving acceptable levels of protection. In some cases vaccine shortages mean that vaccination is limited to ring-vaccination around known outbreak locations. The estimated cost of the vaccine was Rp 300 per bird-dose. Larger commercial layer operations buy their own vaccine. Broiler operations generally do not vaccinate, mainly because their grow-out period is short enough to be associated with lower risk of exposure and diseaseand they may use an all-in all-out management. Indonesian government support provides compensation in the event of disease for village chickens. Over time reports of disease outbreaks have declined. Reporting appears to indicate that more outbreaks may be occurring in village chickens compared with commercial operations though it is understood that there are .

There were 454 confirmed HPAI outbreaks in Indonesia in 2006 with 247 (54%) of these occurring in Sumatra, 108 (24%) in Java, 53 (12%) in Sulawesi and 29 (6%) in Nusa Tenggara. The pattern of outbreaks closely follows the population density for birds and people. Positive test results were mostly reported from chickens (80%), ducks (6%), quail (5%), and also from a range of other birds. Of the positive results reported for chickens, 46% 5% broilers, 3% layers and the remainder were either unclassified or other types. Underreporting is acknowledged as a major problem and reported outbreak statistics may notaccurately represent actual disease occurrence.Government decentralization has had significant consequences for HPAI control. Since the central government shifted autonomy from the provinces to the districts, the latter are now in full charge of activities and budget allocation with central treasury funds being passed directly to districts and not to provincial level government. This shift in civil service administration has had varying and predominantly adverse consequences for the management and resourcing of district animal health services and for movement of data and reporting from local animal health agencies to central government.

There are also acknowledged deficiencies in the national legal and regulatory framework that interfere with the ability of government and private veterinary services to carry out and enforce emergency disease control measures. For example DGLS staff may not have sufficient regulatory power to complete a number of functions that may be considered critical to effective disease control including: entering poultry farms, destruction of poultry (unless by special decree), setting up roadblocks to control poultry movement, closing poultry markets etc. In an outbreak it is understood that official policy is to cull birds in affected villages within a defined in-contact area ranging from 100 metres to 1 km. There are compensation programs involving payment to owners for slaughter of in-contact birds though the level of compensation appears to be lower than the commercial value of a bird and the programs may not be implemented in all parts of Indonesia. As a result it appears to be common for farmers to conceal mortalities that may be due to HPAI and immediately sell or move surviving chickens from affected villages in order to salvage some income. This also means that birds dying from HPAI are disposed of in an ad hoc and indiscriminate way (tossed in the field) and may further contribute to spread of viruswas completed using a pseudo-random process ie 2 districts were selected from each province and farms then convenience sampled within selected districts. An important conclusion is that relatively small percentages of birds have circulating antibody (%positive is calculated based on the combination of low plus high serological response results). Between 50 and 90% of birds sampled had no detectable antibody levels meaning that they would be susceptible to circulating HPAI virus. These results indicate that it is very difficult to assess vaccine efficacy because of the low levels of serological response. Results may also be used to modify estimated impacts of circulating virus on levels of morbidity and mortality. There is considerable activity by Indonesian government agencies and international aid agencies focused on capacity for animal disease control and specifically for HPAI in bird populations. There is a National Committee for Avian Influenza Control and Pandemic Influenza Preparedness3, known as Komnas FBPI, that provides a coordination and facilitation role to the Indonesian government response to the H5N1 avian influenza virus. Komnas FBPI is advised by a panel of experts and is in consultation with the key animaland human-health professional associations in Indonesia. Komnas FPBI has six associated task forces that provide direction on: research and development, animal health, human health, vaccine and anti-viral medicines, and mass communication and public information.

A number of projects directed at avian influenza response and control have already been completed or are in progress. Laboratory capacity projects are in progress including equipping all DIC laboratories to BSL2 standard, with RIVS (Balitvet) serving as a national BSL3 HPAI reference laboratory. All DICs have been equipped with Real Time PCR, and selected Provincial Laboratories with diagnostic equipment. Bilateral cooperation with the Australian Government includes: technician training at Geelong; training in basic and molecular virology of 16 veterinarians; laboratory information networking; introduction of a laboratory QA programme and collaborative testing on virus isolates. A large-scale Integrated National Avian Influenza Control Project is understood to be in development currently under the management of the Ministry of Agriculture and FAO with a budget approaching $USD 150 million and involving support from multiple international aid agencies and an expansive set of objectives covering a full range of issues associated with HPAI control and eradication, including participatory surveillance, blanket vaccination of Sector 3 and sector 4 backyard poultry, surveillance and epidemiology, laboratory services, animal movement control and quarantine, attention to legislative and regulatory requirements for disease control, communications and public awareness, applied research into outstanding HPAI-related matters, and development of guidelines for poultry industry restructuring.

Data source : Australian  for International Agriculture Research 2006

IVSA Congress 60th South Korea Information

We as an exchange officer IVSA of Indonesia ( Pengurus Besar Ikatan Mahasiswa Kedokteran Hewan Indonesia) inform  the name of  Indonesian veterinary student that has been selected by the Organizing Committee (EO) IVSA 60th  Congress  South Korea (have an invitation letter) and is entitled to become participants in the congres. The names of delegation from Indonesia are :

1. Herinda Pertiwi ( University of Airlangga, Surabaya) as Local President IVSA of Indonesia

2. Frismana Rama Arge ( University of Airlangga, Surabaya) as Exchange Officer IVSA of Indonesia

3. Galuh Pawestri Prameswari( University of Brawijaya, Malang ) as Veterinary Student of Indonesia

4. Endah Mulia Ningsih ( Bogor Agricultural University, West Java) as Veterinary Student of Indonesia

5.  Adi Ningrum Kurniasari  (Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor) as Veterinary Student of Indonesia

6.  Lynn Kaat Laura K (Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor) as Veterinary Student of Indonesia

7.  Resnu Caesia R. Galunggung (University of Airlangga, Surabaya) as Veterinary Student of  Indonesia

8. Helmi Adhitya (University of Airlangga, Surabaya) as Veterinary Student of Indonesia

For those names that have not been listed here and have registered our apologizes for the limited quota of delegates from each Country which has been determined by the Orgainizing Committee (EO)  IVSA 60th Congress South Korea. This all information who can we submit  and please understand. Hope to see you at some other congress or  international veterinary student event.Thankyou very much .

Best Regards,

Exchange Officer IVSA of Indonesia

Antrax Reported In Indonesia

Anthrax is endemic in several provinces in Indonesia, including West Java, Central Java,Yogyakarta, South Sulawesi, Central Sulawesi, Southeast Sulawesi, and East Nusa Tenggara. It appears that animal deaths may not be well reported at all and that human cases of anthrax are more likely to be reported to health providers. Human cases are known to act as sentinels for animal health providers for example information from researchers at Balitvet indicated that investigations into animal cases of anthrax may be initiated following awareness of human cases in a particular area.Anecdotal information indicates that while human cases may occur following exposure to environmental spores they are more likely to occur following one or more animal cases.

Human cases may therefore be considered as indirect indicators of recent animal cases and may offer an alternative measure of prevalence at the outbreak level that is less affected by underreporting though still offering little information on numbers of animals affected in any outbreak.Human cases may be more likely to occur in association with Islamic festivals (Eid ul-Fitr and Eid ul-Adha) when animals (commonly small ruminants) may be killed and eaten incommunity celebrations. There are limited data available on numbers of cases. Ministry of Agriculture data presented indicate that over a 5-year period there were 26 confirmed cases in West Nusa Tenggara and 14 in South Sulawesi.. Data reported from Ministry of Health on human cases of anthrax in West Java within thelast 10 years indicated outbreaks occurred in the districts of Purwakarta, Subang, Bekasi and Karawang (1996), Purwakarta, Subang and Karawang (1997), Purwakarta, Subang and Bekasi (1999), Purwakarta (2000),Bogor district (2001), and Boyolali (2011)

The outbreaks in Bogor district in 2001 occurred in association with Islamic festivals Eid ul-Fitr and Eid ul-Adha. Anthrax cases in Bogor district have fluctuated between 2001 and 2006 with a peak of 30 human cases occurring in 2004 with 9 fatalities in a family following consumption of animal meat. Testing performed at the Yogyakarta DIC for Anthrax appeared to be almost all devoted to serological testing to confirm presence of an immunological response to vaccination in healthy animals. In addition some tests were performed on soil samples to examine forpresence of spores though results were not observed for such tests. Results werepresented for samples taken from sheep, cattle and goats but appeared to indicate 100%response, presumably meaning that all tested animals had been effectively vaccinated.
Information from Denpasar DIC indicated that Bali was historically free of anthrax.
Effective control (based on vaccination) has been established in Lombok island (last case in 1989) in West Nusa Tenggara (NTB) while nearby Sumbawa island is associated withdiagnosed cases of anthrax on an annual basis. In East Nusa Tenggara (Nusa TenggaraTimur or NTT), control has been established on Timor island (last case in 2003) and Sumba island (last case in 1980) while Flores island remains an endemic problem with cases reported every year.

Information on human cases has also been obtained and presented:

• March 1999: At least one person died and 267 others have been hospitalised in a suspected anthrax outbreak in Indonesia’s eastern island of Flores after a meal of water buffalo. The buffalo had died suddenly and was then consumed. No confirmatory testing on the animal was performed.

• Feb 2001: Anthrax has infected 20 residents of Tajur Tapos hamlet in Hambalang subdistrict, Citeureup over the past month, 2 of whom have died. The local residents have been suffering from bleeding ulcers, which is identified as a specific symptom of anthrax, after reportedly eating either goat meat or beef.

• March 2002: A suspected anthrax outbreak was reported in several regencies in Central Java after one villager died in the town of Boyolali. Head of the provincial health office Krishnajaya reported that there had been at least 126 human cases of anthrax in the province, with 20 fatalities in the 1990-2001 period. At least 18 of the deaths were recorded in 1990 alone from 90 cases in Teras.

• August 2002: At a cattle-breeding farm in Bogor, West Java, 5 workers were infected with anthrax after being exposed to cow’s blood. The breeder said he slaughtered the cow after noticing it was sick and sold the meat at a local market.

• Jan 2003: 8 residents of Bima, West Nusa Tenggara (NTB) on the island of Sumbawa died last month after consuming goat meat allegedly infected with anthrax. A spokesperson from the Bogor health agency in West Java also confirmed that there were 7 residents in the Bogor area who were suffering anthrax after eating goat meatat a party held by their neighbour.

• Jan 2003: Promed mail reported summary statistics on human and animal cases of anthrax in Indonesia over several years with the comment that years where no data were reported did not mean that no cases had occurred but may equally have represented variability in reporting.

• Jan 2004: 3 residents of Pisang village, Karadenan subdistrict, in the Bogor district were confirmed to have been infected with anthrax. The 3 had been infected in Dec 2003, after consuming meat from a sick goat that was slaughtered for consumption. The infected man had refused to have the goat vaccinated against anthrax despite recommendations that livestock in the area be vaccinated every 6 months. The affected man was quoted as admitting that he slaughtered the sick goat and distributed the meat to 3 families, totalling 15 people. It was not clear whether the 12 others had fallen ill.

• October 2004: An anthrax outbreak caused by consuming goat meat or entrails, left 6 people dead (and other people affected) in the Bogor district.

• November 2004: Information from an anthrax outbreak on the island of Sumbawa, Indonesia indicated that about 22 cattle had died and that 6 human cases of cutaneous anthrax were being treated through the local health office.

• Nov 2005: An anthrax outbreak near Bogor, West Java claimed 6 lives and may have affected as many as 65 people. Ministry of Health officials reported that infected goat meat was the cause.

• Nov 2005: An anthrax outbreak was reported in Makassar (Ujungpadang) in which 29 cattle and water buffaloes died. There were 6 human cutaneous cases associated with the outbreak.

• Oct 2006: An anthrax epidemic was declared in Gowa, South Sulawesi, with cows in 3 villages reported by villagers to have been sick or dying and confirmation of anthrax following necropsy & sampling of some animals. Two possibly infected cows had been slaughtered before the disease was detected and their meat sold to the public.

• April 2007: An anthrax outbreak was reported in West Sumba resulting in 8 people dead from two villages. The deaths occurred after consuming beef. Health officials were treating 6 additional people and monitoring approximately 90 families in the 2 villages in the West Sumba regency, East Nusa Tenggara. The families had eaten the meat of cows and water buffaloes believed to have been infected.

• Feb 2011: 8 residents of Boyolali, Central Java after consuming and parting a carcass of bovine infectedby antrax

Vaccination is highly effective at controlling anthrax. There are two sources of vaccine: Pusat Veterinaria Farma or Pusvetma, a DGLS facility located in Surabaya; and a private pharmaceutical company in Bogor. The current recommendation is that all animals in endemic areas should be vaccinated every 6-mounths. The Sterne vaccine contains live, avirulent B. anthracis and may cause adverse reactions in some vaccinated animals. Reactions are relatively uncommon and mild in cattle and sheep but may be severe in goats, alpacas and horses.

There are a number of issues that appear to be interfering with vaccination of at-risk

animals:

• use of a modified live vaccine with a consequent witholding period before product (meat etc) from vaccinated animals can be sold

• requirement for repeated vaccination

• limited vaccine production capacity resulting in shortages of available vaccine

• post-vaccination reactions observed primarily in small ruminants (goats more than sheep) where vaccinated animals appear to show signs consistent with anaphylactic shock (shivering, ataxia, recumbency) and where a number of animals may die.

• other less serious post-vaccinal reactions including lumps and abscessation at vaccination sites

Reports of post-vaccinal reactions and deaths in goats (and to a lesser extent in sheep), were repeated by several people in discussion. Reviews of published literature did not identify any detailed scientific information on the topic of anaphylactic reaction in sheep and goats to the use of the anthrax vaccine though there was mention in the AUSVETPLAN manual on anthrax of the possibility of severe reactions to vaccination in goats, alpacas and horses and that enforcement of vaccination in these species therefore needed careful consideration. Anecdotal reports appear to be inferring that the adjuvant may be responsible for the reactions but there is no information to substantiate this report. There are apparently attempts to modify the vaccination protocol for small ruminants including the use of half-dose vaccine to try and eliminate the risk of post-vaccine reaction.

However, it is not known whether this might result in reduced vaccine efficacy. Culture stocks used for vaccine production are apparently based on seed cultures maintained over decades and there may have been changes in the properties of the seed cultures over this time. There appears to be a need for research into the current vaccine including immunogenicity and factors associated with risk of post-vaccinal reaction. Thereis also an opportunity to explore the development of a new vaccine that may be based on sub-unit technology and produce long-lasting immunity from a single injection with elimination of side effects. There may also be variable and even cyclical levels of awareness about anthrax, risks to health and methods of prevention. In response to an outbreak among animals and people the level of awareness and compliance with vaccination and other recommendations is reported to be high initially and then over time as cases are not reported awareness of anthrax declines, and high risk behaviours occur once again including refusal to vaccinate and killing and eating animals that may be sick due to anthrax or that have died suddenly.

A report from the Human Health Agency for Research and Development (2002) indicated that the coverage of anthrax vaccination for goat and sheep populations in the Bogor district increased from 12.6% to 66.3% in 2002, presumably in response to an outbreak and subsequent activity associated with awareness and vaccination campaigns. However, the level of protection in 2002 reached only 16%. The study also said that the community objected to the vaccination program conducted by the local livestock services office, because they thought the program was not economical and caused unexpected side effects such as sudden death, post vaccination shock and pustules at the injection site. These comments were supported by staff at DGLS (Jakarta), Balitvet and at DICs in Yogyakarta and Denpasar. People are commonly exposed to anthrax through dressing and eating animals that have died from anthrax and through handling skins and other animal products. In most cases DIC staff indicated that human cases are generally cutaneous and that people in anthrax affected regions are likely to recognise cutaneous anthrax and notify health  order to obtain treatment. In a small number of cases there was anecdotal mention of development of severe disease and fatality associated with anthrax, presumably due to high levels of exposure and development of pulmonary or systemic disease in people. Issues relevant to anthrax that were identified in the course of discussion and review of literature and other sources of information include:

• Contextual or adaptive research aiming to better understand why communities in endemic districts continue to suffer from human and animal cases of what is in many countries a very preventable disease. There are existing education and awareness programs with planned activities timed to coincide with high risk events such as Islamic festivals, an existing vaccination program for endemic areas, and variable levels of ante- and post-mortem inspection of animals killed for consumption. Improving prevention and control of this disease will require an ability to adapt these and other awareness measures to ensure they are effectively implemented within the context of the local communities in endemic districts.

• Investigation of the immunogenicity and side effects associated with the current vaccine.

• Development of a new anthrax vaccine based on sub-unit technology and producing a long-lasting immunity following a single vaccination with no side effects.

• Potential value of a rapid test that could be applied in the field to blood samples from a sick or dead animal in an attempt to diagnose or rule out the presence of anthrax.

Information and Communication Departement IVSA of Indonesia (PB IMAKAHI)

Fakta Dibalik Penetapan Kejadian Luar Biasa Antraks di Boyolali, Jawa Tengah

Antraks merupakan salah satu penyakit yang bersifat zoonotik ( Penyakit yang menulur dari hewan kemanusia), penyakit ini disebabkan oleh bakteri bukan virus pesepsi salah dimedia masa mengenai antraks adalah virus merupakan salah satu bentuk bahwa masyarakat Indonesia belum mengenal lebih jauh tentang bakteri ini. Antaks disebabkan oleh bakteri spesies Bacillus antracis.Dapat menyerang manusia dan hewan dalam bentuk akut maupun perakut, pada ruminansia (Sapi, Domba, dan Kambing) merupakan hewan yang paling rentan terkena antarks dan kejadianya pada hewan bersifat perakut yaitu ditandai dengan adanya kematian mendadak pada hewan tersebut ditandai dengan keluarnya darah berwarna kehitaman pada berbagai lubang alaminya.

Bakteri dapat menginfeksi dalam bentuk cutaneus, respirasi, digesti, dan meningitis , tetapi kejadianya pada manusia lebih banyak bersifat cutaneus yang disertai dengan lesi carbuncele yang ada di kulit dan bakteri ini mampu mebentuk spora pada kondisi yang tidak cukup untuk perkembang biaknya, dan baik membentuk spora ketika mendapatkan oksigen bebas, bakteri antraks menurut penelitian yang telah dilakukan mampu bertahan selama 60 tahun didalam tanah.

Di Indonesia kejadian antraks dilaporkan sejak tahun 1884 di daerah Telukbetung (sekarang: Bandar Lampung) menyerang kerbau, tahun 1885 di Buleleng (Bali), Rawas (Palembang) dan Lampung. Kemudian pada tahun 1886 di Banten, Padang Barat, Kalimantan Barat dan Timur, Roti, Krawang, Madura, Tapanuli, Palembang, Bengkulu dan Probolinggo (Mansjoer 1961). Kejadian antraks di peternakan sapi perah di Boyolali (1990) menunjukkan gejala penyakit yang tidak khas, baik di hewan maupun di manusia, sehingga didiagnosa sebagai penyakit lain. Setelah itu kejadian di Citeureup, Bogor pada tahun 2001 dan antraks pada burung unta di daerah Karawang, Jawa Barat, pada tahun 2002 menunjukkan bahwa daerah endemis antraks di Jawa Barat pada khususnya dan Indonesia pada umumnya masih tetap ada dan akan tetap merupakan ancaman bagi kesehatan ternak dan manusia. Dan saat ini muncul tahun 2011 di Boyolali, Jawa Tengah. Kejadian antraks yang berada di Boyalali bukanlah merupaka kejadian yang baru, karena pada waktu 1990 kejadian serupa sempat terjadi daerah Boyolali. Boyolali merupakan salah satu sentra peternakan yang besar di Indonesia.

Karena disana terdapat banyak peternakan sapi perah yang mengjhasilkan susu perah yang berkualitas lebih tepatnya di daerah Musuk dan Mojosongo, dan daerah inilah yang memberikan pasokan susu ke perusahaan besar pengelolahan susu . Selain itu Karanggede terdapat pasar hewan yang terbesar di Jawa Tengah dimana banyak hewan yang dipasok disana yang didatangkan dari berbagai wilayah di Jawa Tengah dan sekitarnya untuk diperdagangkan disana.

Tetapi sangat disayangkan ketika alur lalu lintas hewan yang berasal dari berbagai daerah disana hanya terdapat 2 petugas kesehatan hewan dari dinas pertanian setempat yang bekerja disana dan pengontrolan tentang kesehatan hewan disana tentunya terabaikan karena ketidak sediaan petugas medis veteriner.

Kejadian antraks baru – baru ini terjadi di daerah Karangmojo dan Simo, di Karangmojo terdapat satu sapi yang positive terserang antraks sedangkan di Simo ada satu ekor sapi dan satu ekor kambing yang positif antraks. Dan sejumlah 9 warga masyarakat di satu desa di daerah Karangmojo terjangkit antraks cutaneous berdasarkan hasil diagnosa Rumah Sakit YARSI yang berada di daerah Solo, Jawa tengah. Disinyalir oleh dinas peternakan setempat bahwa sapi yang terinfeksi antraks saat itu merupakan sapi PO (Peranakan Ongol) yang dibeli dari pasar hewan Karanggede yang berasal dari Sragen. Kemudian sapi yang beberapa hari tersebut beberapa hari menujukan gejala lesu, dan kemudian pada hari ke empat tiba – tiba sapi tersebut ambruk, dan oleh pemiliknya sapi tersebut disembelih dan kemudian dibagi – bagikan kepada seluruh warga di satu desa tersebut, hampir sekitar 80% warga di desa tersebut memakan daging sapi tersebut, dan 9 orang yang terinfeksi antraks merupakan orang yang melakukan parting bagian karkas sapi tersebut. Sebelumnya hanya 5 orang yang terinfeksi oleh bakteri antraks, tetapi bertambah 4 orang, sehingga jumlah total warga yang terserang antraks adalah 9 orang . Petugas peternakan disana telah melakasanakan vaksinasi ke ternak milik warga di daerah yang terancam bahaya tetapi banyak warga yang menolak untuk melakukan vaksin oleh petugas dinas peternakan setepat alasanya karena banyak warga yang mengeluhkan bahwa apabila hewan ternak mereka divaksinasi biasanya akan mati.


Oleh pemerintah setempat kejadian antraks ini dinyatakan sebagai Kejadian Luar Biasa (KLB) berdasarkan hasil sampel tanah yang diambil di daerah Boyolali. Kejadian luar biasa dapat didefinisikan sebagai timbulnya atau meningkatnya kejadian kesakitan atau kematian yang bermakna secara epidemiologis pada suatu daerah dalam kurun waktu tertentu . Kriteria tentang Kejadian Luar Biasa mengacu pada Keputusan Dirjen No.451/91, tentang Pedoman Penyelidikan dan Penanggulangan Kejadian Luar Biasa. Menurut aturan itu, suatu kejadian dinyatakan luar biasa bila terdapat unsur:

  1. Timbulnya suatu penyakit menular yang sebelumnya tidak ada atau tidak dikenal
  2. Peningkatan kejadian penyakit/kematian terus-menerus selama 3 kurun waktu berturut-turut menurut jenis penyakitnya (jam, hari, minggu)
  3. Peningkatan kejadian penyakit/kematian 2 kali lipat atau lebih dibandingkan dengan periode sebelumnya (jam, hari, minggu, bulan, tahun).
  4. Jumlah penderita baru dalam satu bulan menunjukkan kenaikan 2 kali lipat atau lebih bila dibandingkan dengan angka rata-rata perbulan dalam tahun sebelumnya.

Yang menjadi sorotan adalah penetapan tentang status kejadian luar biasa oleh pemerintah Boyolali diangap kurang tepat untuk peternak disana karena selain menurunkan hasil pendapatan dari peternak yang ada disana karena harga daging dan hewan ternak disana sangat menurun tajam sesudah diberlakukanya ketetapan ini, padahal seperti yang kita ketahui bersama bahwa dalam departemen pertanian tidak mengenal kata kejadian luar biasa, dan yang mengeluarkan status daerah sebagai kejadian luar biasa adalah kementerian kesehatan, dalam departemen pertanian hanya berhak untuk mengumumkan sebuah penyakit yang berasal dari hewan dapat menular ke manusia (bersifat zoonotik) dan mengkordinasikan hal tersebut pada bagian kesehatan bukan pertanian. Karena ditetapkannya setatus kejadian luar biasa adalah kejadian yang berakibat kematian banyak terhadap manusia bukan kepada hewan.

Fakta lain yang mengukapkan bahwa kejadian tersebut belum layak untuk dijadikan kejadian luar biasa adalah pengambilan keputusan yang dilayangkan oleh Bupati Boyolali bahwa penetapan status antraks tersebut berdasarkan sample tanah yang diambil di Boyalali dan dinyatakan positive antraks oleh Balai Besar Veteriner, Wates. Kita ketahui bersama kejadian antraks di Boyolali bukan merupakan kejadian yang pertama kalinya karena diwaktu yang lalu wabah ini sudah merambah di wilayah Boyolali, dan tentunya dalam tanah masih menyisakan spora antraks, dan apabila diambli sampel tanah dari wilayah ini tentunya akan menunjukan hasil positive, sampel antraks seharusnya diambil dari organ hewan yang terjangkit antraks bukan berdasarkan spesimen tanah yang diambil.

Hal ini tentunya menjadi kajian kita bersama bahwa apakah penetapan kejadian luar biasa ini sudah tepat sasaran atau belum, seharusnya penetapan KLB mempertimbangkan berbagai unsur , tentunya penetapan KLB ini menimbulkan kontra produktif dikalangan masyarakat, apakah pemerintah menetapkan kejadian ini untuk melindungi masyarakat Boyolali dari kejadian endemik antraks, ataukah adakah hal lain dibalik penetapan status KLB tersebut, yang harus diperhatikan oleh pemerintah dalam pengambilan regulasi adalah pemerintah bukan melihat hal ini sebagai kepentingan pribadi atau golongan saja tetapi harus mempertimbangkan akibat bagi perekonomian masyarakat kecil di Boyolali, dan dalam pengambilan regulasi harus sesuai dengan birokrasi yang sesuai proseduralnya sehingga tidak menimbulkan banyak permasalahan dikemudian (AL).

Sumber :

1. Imron Rosyadi (Mahasiswa Koasistensi FKH UGM di daerah Boyolali, Jawa Tengah) dalam presentasi “Peran Mahasiswa Dalam Penangulangan Antraks” .Diskusi Antraks, Departemen Kastrat, Ikatan Mahasiswa Kedokteran Hewan Indonesia. Pada 08 April 2011. Yogyakarta.

2. Alfarisa Nurrozi ( Asisten Laboratorium Mikrobiologi FKH UGM) dalam presentasi “Bakteri Antraks”. Diskusi Antraks, Departemen Kastrat, Ikatan Mahasiswa Kedokteran Hewan Indonesia. Pada 08 April 2011. Yogyakarta

3. Data kunjugan Departemen Informasi dan Komunikasi IMAKAHI Cabang UGM di Balai Besar Veteriner, Wates. Pada 04 April 2011. Yogyakarta.

Ditulis Oleh : Hizriah Alief Jainudin

Departemen Informasi dan Komunikasi PB IMAKAHI masa bakti 2011 – 2012

Diskusi Peran Pemerintah dan Kontribusi Mahasiswa terhadap Penanganan Anthrax

Pada hari Jumat, 8 April 2010 Departemen Kajian Strategis IMAKAHI Cabang UGM mengadakan diskusi dengan tajuk “Peran Pemerintah dan Kontribusi Mahasiswa terhadap Penganganan Anthrax” bertempat di Ruang Seminar 2 gedung V4 FKH UGM. Diskusi ini bersifat terbuka, selain dihadiri pengurus IMAKAHI Cabang UGM, juga dihadiri oleh perwakilan PB IMAKAHI, BPI IMAKAHI, UKM di FKH UGM, ISMAPETI serta mahasiswa FKH UGM. Dalam diskusi ini dihadirkan 2 pembicara yaitu Alfarisa N. dan M. Imron Rosyadi.

Pembicara pertama, yaitu Alfarisa N, sekretaris jendral IMAKAHI periode 2010-2011 dan asisten laboratorium mikrobiologi. Dalam kesempatan ini beliau menyampaikan tentang Bacillus anthracis, yaitu bakteri penyebab penyakit anthrax, meliputi etiologi, penyebaran dan pathogenesisnya. Bakteri ini sesuai namanya, berbentuk batang, gram Data positif, tidak tahan terhadap suhu tinggi, mampu membentuk spora dan tidak tahan terhadap suhu tinggi. Untuk epidemologinya, data kasus antraks baik pada hewan (data Departemen Pertanian) maupun pada manusia (data Departemen Kesehatan) terutama sejak tahun 1965–2004 menunjukkan bahwa ada empat propinsi yang dapat dinyatakan sebagai daerah endemis antraks, di mana penyakit terjadi secara berulang dalam selang waktu tertentu. Keempat provinsi tersebut adalah Jawa Barat, Jawa Tengah, Nusa Tenggara Barat (NTB), dan Nusa Tenggara Timur (NTT). Beliau juga menyampaikan tentang penularan dari anthrax diantaranya : kontak langsung dengan spora anthrax (tanah, rumput, hewan sakit, darah, daging, dll), melalui kulit yang lesi, menkonsumsi hewan sakit dan sebagainya. Biasanya, yang menyerang manusia ada 3 bentuk yaitu gastrointestinal, cutaneus dan pernafasan.

Pembicara kedua adalah M.Imron Rosyadi, mahasiswa program profesi yang juga pernah menjabat sebagai Ketua BEM FKH UGM. Dalam forum ini, beliau mengawali dengan share pengalaman ketika menjadi mahasiswa koasistensi di Boyolali. Juga dipresentasikan tentang topografi wilayah Boyolali dengan kecamatan yang paling riskan terhadap anthrax. Disampaikan pula tentang potensi ternak di Boyolali yang luar biasa, meliputi sapi potong maupun sapi perah. Kejadian anthrax dianggap sebagai KLB oleh pemerintah. Namun sebelum itu perlu dipahami apa sebenarnya KLB itu. Untuk penanganan kasus anthrax juga dibumbui dengan aroma politik dan polemic pendanaan, tidak kalah dengan kasus lain yang sedang menjadi trend di negeri ini. Isu lain seperti pendapatan asli daerah dan pengawasan lalu lintas ternak juga harus dikritisi dan dibenahi jika ingin meminimalkan serangan anthrax.

Acara pun dilanjutkan dengan diskusi terbuka. Jika menitikberatkan tentang peran pemerintah, sebaiknya jangan terlalu memandang wabah sebagai sarana politisasi dan komersialisasi. Seperti tulisan sebelumnya, “penyakit tidak mengenal holiday dan public system”. Birokrasi yang terlalu berbelit-belit serta transparansi sekali lagi harus benar-benar dibenahi. Penempatan kepala departemen beserta stafnya di dinas terkait juga harus sesuai dengan bidangnya. Intinya adalah harus dilakukan pembenahan secara internal dari dalam tubuh pemerintah, dalam hal ini pemerintah daerah pada khususnya. Jangan terlalu munafik dengan mengedepankan aroma politik dan uang. Perlu dianggarkan pula dalam APBD yaitu dana untuk wabah, terutama untuk daerah endemic anthrax. Jangan sampai daerah dengan potensi ternak yang baik harus menjadi korban dari invasi anthrax yang merugikan baik dari segi kesehatan maupun sosial ekonomi.

Tentang peran mahasiswa, harus benar-benar mengoptimalisasi peran sebagai jembatan penghubung antara pemerintah dan masyarakat. Bentuknya di antara lain kampanye, aksi simpatik, edukasi dengan bekerjasama dengan dinas terkait. Langkah konkretnya seperti pembentukan FMTZ (Forum Mahasiswa Tanggap Zoonosis), relawan zoonosis, pusat studi zoonosis dan forum-forum lain yang dapat membantu pemerintah dan masyarakat melawan invasi zoonosis.

Viva veteriner!!!

Ditulis oleh Ananda Tiarasani Departemen Informasi dan Komunikasi IMAKAHI cabang UGM