FELASA recommendations for the health

monitoring of mouse, rat, hamster, gerbil,

guineapig and rabbit experimental units
Report of the Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science
Associations (FELASA) Working Group on Animal Health accepted
by the FELASA Board of Management, November 1995

FELASAWorking Group on Animal Health: C. Rehbinder (Scand-LAS) Convenor;

P. Baneux (SFEA); D. Forbes (LASA); H.Van Herck (NVP); W. Nicklas (GV-SOLAS);
z. Rugaya (Balt-LASA); and G.Winkler (SGV)
FElASA, BCM Box 2989, london WC1N 3XX, UK

Contents
Introduction 193
Section I General considerations 194
Section IT Monitoring animals from external sources 195
Section ill Monitoring animals kept in an experimental unit 195
Section IV Detection of previously undetected infections 197
Section V Microorganisms to be monitored 197
Section VI Methodology 197
Section vn Health monitoring report 197
References 197
FELASA-approved health monitoring report forms 199

Introduction dUring experiments. The term 'unit' is here

used for a self-contained microbiological
Animals which are standardized as far as entity.
possible are important prerequisites for Depending on the judgement of the
reproducible animal experiments. manager the total facility may be consid-
Monitoring those standards is necessary ered as multiple units or a single unit. For
not only in breeding colonies but also in example, an isolator can be controlled
experimental units. In addition, the status of strictly by the careful introduction of
animals must be redefined in the user's animals and materials of known microbio-
facility at regular intervals after receipt. Only logical status so that each isolator may be
systematic and careful monitoring in experi- considered a separate unit within the
mental units will give useful information facility.
about the quality of laboratory animals It should be remembered that animals are
usually infective before showing clinical
signs and certainly before producing anti-
Note: Reprints of this Report are available free of charge
(while stocks last) from the Secretary, FELASA, BeM Box
bodies. Therefore personnel or equipment
2989. London WC1N 3XX, UK moving within the unit, i:e. between rooms
Laboratory Animals (1996) 30,193-208
194 FELASAWorking Group on Animal Health

or other sub-units of the whole unit, can act I. General considerations

as 'vectors' or the source of an infection
before there is any indication of its It must be emphasized that these recom-
presence. mendations contain only minimal require-
Most infections in rodents are subclini- ments for health monitoring.
cal, and modi6.cations of research results The methods used in the FELASA recom-
due to natural infections often occur in the mendations for health monitoring in breeding
absence of clinical disease. Thus the colonies (Kraft et al. 1994) should be
absence of clinical manifestations of infec- employed for experimental units. Therefore,
. tion has only limited diagnostic value. the present recommendations concentrate on
Hence prevention of infection, and not only aspects which have to be considered specif-
prevention of clinical disease, is essential. ically in experimental units. In addition, in
In addition to infections, other exogenous these present recommendations the gerbil has
(e.g. environmental) factors may influence been included for monitoring, as is the
the suitability of an animal for research. hamster.
The design of individual monitoring pro- Monitoring laboratories should follow the
principles of Good Laboratory Practice (GLP).
grammes in experimental units is dependent
on research objectives and numerous other
factors such as housing conditio~s (conven- Risk of introducing unwanted
tional, isolator, barrier housed, micro isola- microorganisms
tors), the type of experiment (long-term, The risk of introducing unwanted microor-
short-term), frequency of introducing animals ganisms (viruses, bacteria, fungi, parasites) or
and other biological materials, and the other detrimental factors into experimental
importance of a specific pathogen or the units is much higher than in breeding
likelihood of interference with research. colonies. This is mainly due to the following
Specific tests for particular pathogens might factors:
be necessary in a unit if it is thought that
their presence would interfere significantly
with the research. Animals Many experimental units contain
In addition to welfare considerations , the a variety of animal species and strains
main aim of health monitoring before and originating from various breeding units. It is
during experiments is to define the biological recommended that animals introduced into
status of the animals in order to take into experimental units are supplied from breeders
consideration the presence or absence of who follow at least the FELASA health
certain microorganisms, lesions and other monitoring recommendations for breeding
alterations as experimental variables. Ani- colonies (Kraft et al. 1994). It is expected that
mals and other biological materials, particu- the increasing use of specific strains of
larly when introduced from external sources , transgenic animals and their exchange be-
must be monitored to prevent the introduc- tween establishments will present a serious
tion of transmissible agents which could challenge for experimental units in the
influence the health of humans (zoonotic future. Such animals are usually available
agents) or other animals or the results of exclusively from certain experimental
animal experiments. sources and the health status of the animals
The cost of .health monitoring in experi- may be unknown.
mental units may seem high, but as a
proportion of the total cost of the experi- Experimental materials Materials which
ments (purchase and maintenance of the cannot be sterilized are frequently needed for
animals, research materials and staff costs experiments. The risk of introducing patho-
etc.) the authors consider it a justified gens, unwanted microorganisms, or other
means of. enhanc~g the reliability of the detrimental factors may arise particularly
experiments and the data generated from from the use of biological materials such as
them. . cells or sera.
FELASAWorking Group on Animal Health 195

Personnel It is usual for more personnel to Biological materials of animal and

have access to animals in experimental units human origin
than in breeding colonies, which increases As with animals of unknown microbiological
the risk of personnel introducing infections. It status, biological materials should also be
is thus desirable to maintain the same regarded as infected until their status has
precautions in experimental units as in been defined. Transplantable tumours repre-
breeding colonies. Therefore the adoption of sent a special problem of high risk (Lussier
adequate entry systems through barriers 1988). It is strongly recommended that all
should be emphasized in order to keep the biological materials (transplantable tumours,
risk to an acceptable minimum. blood, serum, intact animal cells, ascitic
fluid, etc.) be demonstrated free of pathogens
by appropriate testing before entry into an
II. Monitoring animals from external experimental unit.
sources Some microorganisms which are found only
rarely in animals (e.g. LDV) have to be
Animals with a health certificate expected in biological materials. For this
Most commercial breeders have screening reason, it is recommended that biological
programmes and supply their test results. material be monitored for bacteria, fungi and
Even if they indicate'that the animals are free mycoplasmas by cultural examination (steri-
from specific pathogens, rechecking of ran- lity testing) and for all viruses listed in the
dom samples is recommended directly upon recommendations for breeding colonies. The
receipt to reduce the risk of introducing MAP/RAP testis recommended for the
hitherto undetected microorganisms. demonstration of the presence or absence of
In some circumstances it might be neces- rodent viruses and mycoplasmas. Nucleic acid
sary to introduce animals into multipurpose probes which can confirm the presence of
experimental units before monitoring results infection in animals or tissues are becoming
are available. The risk of introducing patho- available.
gens is reduced when direct transfer is
restricted to animals coming from sources of
known microbiological status, provided they III. Monitoring animals kept in an
are transferred in appropriate containers experimental unit
under adequate conditions (e.g. filter-cages I. A range of experiments may be performed in
(See Guidelines for the care of laboratory one unit when it consists of several separate'
animals in transit 19921. animal rooms. As in breeding colonies,
results of the monitoring are presumed to be
valid for all animals of the same species
Infected animals and animals of within the same unit.
unknown microbiological status If a unit contains more than one species,
Animals coming. from sources of unknown each species must be screened separately.
microbiological status should be regarded as The whole unit should be declared positive if
infected and should be quarantined and kept a pathogen is identified or if antibodies are
isolated until their status has been defined by detected. When unexpected serological posi-
health monitoring. tive reactions are obtained it is also recom-
If animals are found to carry microorgan- mended that they be confirmed by
isms that are not acceptable in the experi- monitoring additional samples and if possible
mental unit, unless these animals are to be be checked by another method or another
discarded and replaced, they should be laboratory.
retained in quarantine, preferably in isola- It is recommended that serological and
tors, until measures have been taken to histopathological samples should be retained
allow their introduction in the experimental pending'a possible positive result in order to
unit. allow a repeat and/or alternative method of
196 FELASAWorking Group on Animal Health

testing to be done on the original sample for sufficient amounts of antibodies to give
validation purposes. reliable test results and are therefore not
suitable for serological testing. Instead,
immunocompetent animals (e.g. heterozy-
Sentinel animals gous litter mates) should be used. However,
In some units, there may not be a sufficient immunodeficient animals are well suited for
number of animals in an experiment for some bacteriological and parasitological investiga-
to be available for health surveillance. A tions.
sentinel programme may then be considered, The sentinel stock should be tested thor-
which guarantees that monitoring can be oughly before being introduced into the
performed according to these recommenda- experimental unit and prior to being used.
tions. The tests performed should be the same as
Sentinels are animals obtained from a tho.se used for the health monitoring pro-
breeding colony of known microbiological gramme.
status that are introduced into an experi-
mental laboratory animal population where Sample size and frequency of monitoring:
they act as surveillance substitutes for the schedule of testing
experimental animals. The number of animals sampled and the
Even when sentinel animals are used, frequency of the investigations should, in
samples and relevant data from experimental general, be the same as recommended for
animals should also be submitted and breeding colonies. Every 3 months 10 animals
reported when possible. Because the health from the sentinel animal population, selected
surveillance of animals used in individual in such a way as to be representative of the
experiments can be much more laborious unit (Lindsey et a1. 1991, Rehbinder &
than routine monitoring of the whole unit, it Hansen 1993) should be subjected to a full
is essential to make all monitoring data from microbiological and pathological examina-
a unit available to all investigators with tion. However, due to the higher risk of
responsibility for experiments within that infections in experimental animal popula-
unit. tions than in closed breeding colonies, more
Sentinels are put into open cages (without frequent monitoring may be necessary
Rlter tops) among the experimental popula-
tion throughout the unit in places where the Experimental animals In an experimental
possible exposure to infectious agents is unit any animal which shows clinical signs
known or thought to be maximal. The umelated to the experiment should be sub-
transmission of infectious agents may be jected to a microbiological examination as
further enhanced by transferring the sentinels part of the necropsy procedure.
into dirty cages vacated by the experimental
animals. In exceptional cases sentinels may Age of animals and time of exposure Ani-
be mixed in the same cage with animals of mals of a predetermined age as recommended
the principal population. for breeding colonies will not always be
As a general rule, health monitoring is done available for monitoring and it is not abso-
best using animals of the same species as the lutely necessary that they be used.
resident population. Strains that are particu- Sentinel animals used for microbiological
larly prone to specific infections may be used monitoring should be at least 10 weeks old
as a means of enhancing detection. Sentinels and should have been housed within the unit
could be of the same strain and from the same for a minimum of 4 weeks. When animals
breeding unit as the principal population. used for monitoring are of external origin, the
Alternatively, other microbiologically time they have heen in the unit (exposure
defined animals, preferably isolator bred, can time) is more important than their age. After
be used. longer periods of time the probability of
Immunosuppressed or immunodeficient detecting an infection by antibody testing
animals (e.g. nude mice) do not produce increases. Therefore, it is advisable to
FELASAWorking Group on Animal Health 197

monitor animals of different age and expo- VII. Health monitoring report
sure time as well as long-term sentinels.
Animals that have been bred in the same The main purpose of health monitoring is to
unit in which they are used should, when supply experimenters with data on variables
health monitored, be sampled according to that might influence the outcome of an
the FELASArecommendations for breeding experiment. These data are part of the
colonies. experimental work and have to be considered
during the interpretation of the experimental
results by the experimenter and by the reader
of a publication. Results of health monitoring
IV. Detection of previously
should, therefore, be included in scientific
undetected infections publications.
If a previously unnoticed infection is detected While FELASAcannot accept responsibil-
during monitoring procedures, a sufficient ity for tests or their implication, breeders or
number of the experimental animals should users of laboratory animals who are reporting
be examined for verification. The number of on health monitoring of their animal colonies
animals submitted for microbiological exam- may use the words 'in accordance with
ination has to be decided upon by the person FELASArecommendations' only where this
in charge of the experimental unit. is in fact the case. The use of a common
In addition, remaining sentinel animals report form will eventually result in con-
may be examined and the cumulative data formity between laboratories concerning
used to assess the incidence of the infection tests and their extent and quality. In addition
in the population. it will make it possible for researchers to
It is important that the information be compare more easily health monitoring
reported to all those who have used animals reports from different breeders and
in the intervening period since the last laboratories.
monitoring results. The problem of publishing the health
monitoring scheme in a materials and
methods section is easily solved with a
V. Microorganisms to be monitored common report format, as one has only to
refer to the FELASArecommendations. The
The list given in the recommendations for results of the health monitoring are presented
breeding colonies should be consulted for in due order in the materials and methods
guidance. section of a publication as part of the animal
It should be noted that since publication of specification.
the list, parvoviruses and pasteurellaceae
have been identified which interfere with the
interpretation of current diagnostic methods. This document was compiled using the
Positive results for parvoviruses and pasteur- combined expertise of theWorking Group
ellaceae species should be reported as such and information contained in the following
and should be identified by the specific name key references:
when possible. Attention should be paid to Bhatt PN, Jacoby RO, Morse He ill, New AE, eds
the fact that Helicobacter sp. is frequently (1986) Viral and Mycoplasmal Infections of
found in mice. Laboratory Rodents. Effects on Biomedical
Research. New York: Academic Press
Hamm TE Jr, ed. (1985) Complications of Viral and
Mycoplasmal Infection in Rodents to Toxicology
VI. Methodology Research and Testing. London: McGraw-Hill
Kraft V, Deeny AA, Blanchet HM, Boot R, Hansen AK,
The methods recommended by FELASAfor
Hem A, von Herck H, Kunst-yr I, Milite G, Needham
breeding colonies should be used. (Kraft et al. JR, Nicklas W, Perrot A, Rehbinder C, Richard Y, De
1994). In the present recommendations the Vroey G (1994) Report of the FELASA Working
gerbil has been included under the same Group on Animal Health: Recommendations for the
monitoring scheme as the hamster. health monitoring of mouse, rat, hamster, guineapig
198 FELASAWorking Group on Animal Health

and rabbit breeding colonies. Laboratory Animals antibodies with rodent viruses. Laboratory Animal
28, 1-12 Science 43, 296-300
Guidelines for the care of laboratory animals in transit Rehbinder C, Hansen AK, eds. (19931 The importance
(19921. Laboratory Animal Breeders Association of of health monitoring in laboratory animals.
Great Britain Limited (LABA) and Laboratory Scandinavian Journal of Laboratory Animal
Animal Science Association (LASA). Laboratory Science 20 no. 1, special issue on health monitoring
Animals 27, 93-107
Smith ALI Jacoby RO, Johnson EA, Paturzo F, Bhatt
Lindsey JR, Boorman GA, Collins MJ, Hsu CK, Van
PN (1993) In vivo studies with an orphan parvovirus
Hoosier GL Jr, Wagner JE (1991) Infectious Diseases
of mice. Laboratory Animal Science 43 175-82
of Rats and Mice. Washington DC: Committee of 1

Infectious Diseases of Mice and Rats; Institute of Spiegel A, Erichson S, Solleveld HA (19801 Animal
Laboratory Animal Resources, Commission of Life Quality and Models in Biomedical Research, 7th
Sciences, National Research Council, National ICLAS Symposium, Utrecht, (1979). Stuttgart, New
Academic Press. . York: Gustav Fischer
Lussier G (1988) Potential detrimental effects of Working Committee for the biological characteriza-
rodent viral infections on long-term experiments. tion of laboratory animals GV/SOLAS (1985).
Veterinary Research Communications 12, 199-217 Guidelines for speCification of animals and hus-
Nicklas W, Kraft V, Meyer B (19931 Contamination of bandry methods when reporting the results of
transplantable tumors, cell lines and monoclonal animal experiments. Laboratory Animals 19, 106-8
FElASAWorking Group on Animal Health 199

FELASA-APPROVED HEALTH MONITORING REPORT

Name and address of the breeder:

Date of issue: Unit No: latest test date: Rederivation

Species: Mouse Strain:

HISTORICAL lATESTTEST
results results
pos/tested pos/tested lABORATORY METHOD

BACTERIAL
AND FUNGALINFECTIONS

Clostridium pi/iforme
Bordetella bronchiseptica
Citrobacter freundii (4280)
Corynebacterium kutscheri
leptospira spp.
Serotype: ---
Serotype:---
Mycoplasma spp.
Biotype: ----
Biotype: ---
Pasteurella spp.
Biotype: ----
Biotype: ----
Salmonellae
Serotype: ---
Serotype: ---
Streptobacillus moniliformis
p-haemolytic streptococci
Lancefield grp: ---
lancefield grp: ----
lancefield grp: ----
lancefield grp: ----
Streptococcus pneumoniae
Other microorganisms associated
with lesions

PATHOLOGICAL
lESIONSOBSERVED

Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------

Strain: ----- lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------

ABBREVIATIONS FOR LABORATORIES

Standard operational procedures can be obtained from

200 FELASAWorking Group on Animal Health

FELASA-APPROVED HEALTH MONITORING REPORT

Name and address of the breeder:

Date of issue: Unit No: Latest test date: Rederivation

Species: Mouse Strain:

HISTORICAL LATEST TEST

results results
pos/tested pos/tested LABORATORY METHOD

VIRAL INFECTIONS
Hantaan virus
Lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus
Parvovirus
Mouse hepatitis virus
Pneumonia virus of mice
Reovirus type 3
Sendai virus
Theiler's encephalomyelitis virus
Ectromelia virus
lactic dehydrogenase virus

PARASITOLOGICAL INFECTIONS
Arthropods

Gastrointestinal helminths

Giardia spp.

Entamoeba muris
Other flagellates
Eimeria spp.

Klossiella spp.

Encephalitozoon cuniculi
Toxoplasma gondii
Spironuc/eus spp.

PATHOLOGICAL LESIONS OBSERVED

Strain: ----- lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- lesions: ------------------------------

ABBREVIATIONS FOR LABORATORIES

Standard operational procedures can be obtained from

FELASAWorking Group on Animal Health 201

FELASA-APPROVED HEALTH MONITORING REPORT

Name and address of the breeder:

Date of issue: Unit No: Latest test date: Rederivation

Species: Rat Strain:

HISTORICAL LATEST TEST

results results
pas/tested pas/tested LABORATORY METHOD

BACTERIAL AND FUNGAL INFECTIONS

Clostridium piliforme
Bordetella bronchiseptica
Citrobacter freundii (4280)
Corynebacterium kutscheri
Leptospira spp.
Serotype: ----
Serotype: ----
Mycoplasma spp.
Biotype: ----
Biotype: ---
Pasteurella spp.
Biotype: ----
Biotype: ----
Salmonellae
Serotype: ----
Serotype: ----
Streptobacillus moniliformis
/3-haemolytic streptococci
Lancefield grp: ----
Lancefield grp: ----
Lancefield grp: ----
Lancefield grp: ---
Streptococcus pneumoniae
Other microorganisms associated
with lesions

PATHOLOGICAL LESIONSOBSERVED

Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------

Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------

ABBREVIATIONS FOR LABORATORIES

Standard operational procedures can be obtained from ...--------------------

202 FELASAWorking Group on Animal Health

FELASA-APPROVED HEALTH MONITORING REPORT

Name and address of the breeder:

Date of issue: Unit No: Latest test date: Rederivation

Species: Rat Strain:

HISTORICAL LATEST TEST

results results
pos/tested pos/tested LABORATORY METHOD

VIRAL INFECTIONS
Hantaan virus
Parvoviruses
Pneumonia virus of mice
Reovirus type 3
Sendai virus
Sialodacryadenitis/Rat corona virus
Theiler's encephalomyelitis virus

PARASITOLOGICAL INFECTIONS
Arthropods

Gastrointestinal helminths

Trichosomoides crassicauda
Giardia spp.

Entamoeba muris
Other flagellates
Eimeria spp.

Klossiella spp.

Encephalitozoon cuniculi
Toxoplasma gond;;
Spironudeus spp.

PATHOLOGICAL LESIONS OBSERVED

Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------

ABBREVIATIONS FOR LABORATORIES

Standard operational procedures can be obtained from

FELASAWorking Group on Animal Health 203

FELASA-APPROVED HEALTH MONITORING REPORT

Name and address of the breeder:

Date of issue: Unit No: Latest test date: Rederivation

Species: Hamster/Gerbil Strain:

HISTORICAL LATEST TEST

results results
pos/tested pos/tested LABORATORY METHOD

BACTERIAL AND FUNGAL INFECTIONS

Clostridium pili forme

Bordetella bronchiseptica
Pasteurella spp.
Biotype: ----
Biotype: ----
Salmonellae
Serotype: ---
Serotype:---
Other microorganisms associated
with lesions

VIRAL INFECTIONS

Lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus

Pneumonia virus of mice
Reovirus type 3
Sendai virus
Simian virus 5

PATHOLOGICAL LESIONSOBSERVED

Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------

Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------

ABBREVIATIONS FOR LABORATORIES

Standard operational procedures can be obtained from

204 FELASAWorking Group on Animal Health

FELASA-APPROVED HEALTH MONITORING REPORT

Name and address of the breeder:

Date of issue: Unit No: Latest test date: Rederivation

Species: Hamster/Gerbil Strain:

HISTORICAL LATEST TEST

results results
pos/tested pos/tested LABORATORY METHOD

PARASITOLOGICAL INFECTIONS

Arthropods

Helminths

Giardia spp.

Entamoeba muris
Other flagellates
Eimeria spp.

Encephalitozoon cuniculi
Toxoplasma gondii
Spironuc/eus spp.

PATHOLOGICAL LESIONS OBSERVED

Strain: ----- Lesions: ----------------------------

Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------

ABBREVIATIONS FOR LABORATORIES

Standard operational procedures can be obtained from

FELASAWorking Group on Animal Health 205

FELASA-APPROVED HEALTH MONITORING REPORT

Name and address of the breeder:

Date of issue: Unit No: Latest test date: Rederivation

Species: Guineapig Strain:

HISTORICAL LATEST TEST

results results
pos/tested pas/tested LABORATORY METHOD

BACTERIAL AND FUNGAL INFECTIONS

Clostridium pilitorme
Bordetella bronchiseptica
Dermatophytes
Biotype: ----
Biotype: ----
Pasteurella spp.
Biotype: ----
Biotype: ----
Salmonellae
Serotype:---------
Serotype:---------
Streptobacillus monilitormis
{:I-haemolytic streptococci
Lancefield grp: ------
Lancefield grp: ------
Lancefield grp: ------
Lancefield grp: ------
Streptococcus pneumoniae
Yersinia pseudotuberculosis
Other microorganisms associated
with lesions

PATHOLOGlCAL LESIONS OBSERVED

Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------

Strain: ----- lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------

ABBREVIATIONS FOR LABORATORIES

Standard operational procedures can be obtained from

206 FELASAWorking Group on Animal Health

FELASA-APPROVED HEALTH MONITORING REPORT

Name and address of the breeder:

Date of issue: Unit No: Latest test date: Rederivation

Species: Guineapig Strain:

HISTORICAL LATEST TEST

results results
pos/tested pos/tested LABORATORY METHOD

VIRAL INFECTIONS
Guineapig adenovirus
Lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus
Pneumonia virus of mice
Reovirus type 3
Sendai virus
Simian virus 5

PARASITOLOGICAL INFECTIONS
Arthropods

Helminths

Giardia spp.

Entamoeba muris
Other flagellates
Eimeria spp.

Klossiella spp.

Encephalitozoon cuniculi
Toxoplasma gondi;
Ciliates

PATHOLOGICAL lESIONS OBSERVED

Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------

ABBREVIATIONS FOR LABORATORIES

Standard operational procedures can be obtained from

FELASAWorking Gro·up on Animal Health 207

FELASA-APPROVED HEALTH MONITORING REPORT

Name and address of the breeder:

Date of issue: Unit No: Latest test date: Rederivation

Species: Rabbit Strain:

HISTORICAL LATEST TEST

results results
pos/tested pos/tested LABORATORY METHOD

BACTERIAL AND FUNGAL INFECTIONS

Clostridium pili forme

Bordetella bronchiseptica
Pasteurella spp.
Biotype: ----
Biotype: ----
Salmonellae
Serotype:---------
Serotype:---------
II-haemolytic streptococci
Lancefield grp: -------
Lancefield grp: ----
Lancefield grp: ----
Lancefield grp: ----
Other microorganisms associated
with lesions

VIRAL INFECTIONS
Pneumonia virus of mice
Rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus
Rabbit pox virus (myxomatosis)
Rabbit rotavirus
Sendai virus
Simian virus 5

PATHOLOGICAL LESIONSOBSERVED

Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------

Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------

ABBREVIATIONS FOR LABORATORIES

Standard operational procedures can be obtained from

208 FELASAWorking Group on Animal Health

FELASA-APPROVED HEALTH MONITORING REPORT

Name and address of the breeder:

Date of issue: Unit No: Latest test date: Rederivation

Species: Rabbit Strain:

HISTORICAL LATEST TEST

results results
pos/tested pos/tested LABORATORY METHOD

PARASITOLOGICAL INFECTIONS

Arthropods

Helminths

Giardia spp.

Entamoeba muris
Other flagellates
Eimeria spp.

Encephalitozoon cuniculi
Toxoplasma gond;;

PATHOLOGICAL LESIONS OBSERVED

Strain: ----- lesions: ------------------------------

Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ----------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------
Strain: ----- Lesions: ------------------------------

ABBREVIATIONS FOR LABORATORIES

Standard operational procedures can be obtained from