Diagnosis and Control of Johne's Disease (2003) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4. Control Principles and Programs
4. Control Principles and Programs
Pages 66-98
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 66... ...
transmission, enough detail is known that the essential control program components for dairy herds were proposed almost a half-cenh~ry ago (Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, 1956) and reiterated more recently (Moyle, 1975~.
|
From page 67... ...
The possibility of eradication of ID in the United States should be evaluated after significant progress in control programs is attained. Environmental Factors in Infection Control Practices In most, if not all, affected species, Map is believed to be transmitted primarily in a fecal-oral cycle shed in the feces of infected animals and then ingested by susceptible animals.
|
From page 68... ...
. Unfortunately, many dairy producers have not adopted long-advocated practices for either, and many are largely unaware of JD and its associated preventive measures (National Animal Health Monitoring System tNAHMSi, 1996b, 1997a)
|
From page 69... ...
The efficacy of these control program components has been reported in an extensive literature from experimental studies and field trials beginning in the mid-1960s (Neave et al., 1969~. There are likely any number of reasons for low producer awareness of JD and poor adoption of biosecurity practices, but one factor could be a general failure on the part of livestock veterinarians to educate their clients.
|
From page 70... ...
Thus, providing additional information to dairy producers that includes the economics of subclinical Map infection is likely to have far less influence on their adoption of Map control practices than will a market price signal even when the unobserved losses are greater than the drop in market price. At least in the cattle industries, a major weakness of current biosecurity programs is the failure of producers to adopt well-established control practices, not a lack of scientific support for such programs.
|
From page 71... ...
Subclinical infection is the next-mostprevalent and economically important manifestation, followed by clinical disease, which is least common and economically least important. In this modern paradigm, the excessive incidence or prevalence of a controllable infectious disease is more correctly viewed as a sign that one or several major risk factors are at work, and that the risk factors work in concert to present an opportunity for other infectious agents to flourish, as well.
|
From page 72... ...
Because the largest risk factor for acquiring most communicable infectious agents is the purchase of a subclinically infected animal, and given the demonstrated lack of knowledge on the part of producers about disease biosecurity, such recommendations must be placed within an integrated disease biosecurity program that considers other infectious agents of concern. Another Map control recommendation that can increase the risk of acquiring other infectious agents is contract rearing of heifers off-site (Groenendaal and Galligan, 1999)
|
From page 73... ...
Single-agent control programs also commonly overlook the on- and off-farm economies of integrating multiple control programs. For example, the fecal and serum samples taken during a Map control program also could be used for surveillance for other infectious agents.
|
From page 74... ...
If the starting point is, for example, how to manage the control points of a set of common risk factors for enteric infectious disease rather than understanding the control details of the infectious agents themselves, producer compliance is likely to be higher. Ultimately, the control program must motivate most producers to change their behavior when such a change is needed.
|
From page 75... ...
Many states have adopted control programs for Map test-positive herds and status programs for test-negative herds. Control programs should be tailored to the individual herd, but working within state program standards will allow recognition of control progress or test status and could be necessary for access to state laboratory and technical resources.
|
From page 76... ...
Veterinarians and other consultants who work with dairy farmers to implement Map control programs should promote management recommendations that adapt recognized control principles to specific situations. Most control measures fall into one of three generally accepted categories of Map control (Rossiter and Hansen, 2000; Rossiter et al., 1998; Sockett, 1994~: 1.
|
From page 77... ...
Elements to consider in developing a strategy for elimination of Map from infected herds include identification and removal of infected animals, reduction in the rate of new infections in susceptible animals through improved sanitation and kid-rearing techniques, and vaccination to increase host resistance to new infections (Smith and Sherman, 1994~. Zoos and Game Farms A recent workshop addressed control programs for zoos accredited by the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (Proceedings of the Workshop on Diagnosis, Prevention and Control of Johne's Disease in Non-Domestic Hoofstock, 1998~.
|
From page 78... ...
released for comment draft program standards for a voluntary control program. The National Milk Producers Federation has developed a federally funded program to provide reimbursement for producers with JD-related expenses.
|
From page 79... ...
The program will be designed to protect the public and animal health, reduce the economic burden upon producers and bring about a uniform approach for control, herd certification, and eventual eradication of this insidious and costly disease in the United States. (approved 419195, Colorado Springs, Colorado; USAHA, 2002~.
|
From page 80... ...
The four levels differ primarily by the number of herd animals tested and the types of diagnostic tests performed (Tables 4-1, 4-2~. Previously infected herds and JD-vaccinated herds can enter the program after infected animals are removed or vaccination is discontinued and the number of nonvaccinated animals meets the testing criteria.
|
From page 81... ...
Voluntary Johne's Disease Herd Status Program for Cattle Level Criteria 2 4 Fast-track program entry requirements have been met, and negative ELISA results have been obtained on a statistical subset test of second- or higherlactation animals. The herd has met requirements for Level 2 fast-track and has negative fecalculture test results on 30 second- or higher-lactation animals.
|
From page 82... ...
Administratively, the USDA program mandates the appointment of a qualified designated state JD coordinator who assists producers, health officials, and veterinarians in combating JD through training, interpreting results, and helping to review and develop herd management plans. The coordinator also advises and informs other federal and state animal health officials, specifically USDA's JD program officials and a mandated state JD group, about JD activities and issues.
|
From page 83... ...
Herd testing and classification is the third element of the USDA draft control program. An initial screening test on a random sampling of a herd determines whether the herd will enter the test-positive or the test-negative track of this third element.
|
From page 84... ...
SOURCE: USDA, 2001a Table 4-4. Standard-Track Test-Negative Components from the Uniform Program Standards for the Voluntary Bovine Johne's Disease Control Program Level Criteria 2 The herd owner has developed a herd management plan and agreed to abide by the requirements of the test-negative component.
|
From page 85... ...
SOURCE: USDA, 2001a Laboratory Approval Laboratories that are being used for JD testing must have official approval specifically for JD testing. Private, university, state, and federal laboratories can participate, but state animal health officials must be able to audit them.
|
From page 87... ...
Virology-Serology Laboratory No AHLB-Alberta Agriculture Lothbridge Palliser Animal Health Laboratories No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes (continues)
|
From page 88... ...
acterio lo gy/Myc o logy United States Alabama Auburn Charles S Roberts Veterinary No No Yes Diagnostic Laboratory Alabama Department of Agriculture Arkansas Little Rock Arkansas Livestock & Poultry No No Yes Arkansas State University Arizona Tucson Arizona Veterinary Diagnostic No No Yes Laboratory California Davis California Animal Health & Food Yes No Yes Safety Laboratory University of CA, Davis Fresno California Animal Healtl~ & Food Yes No Yes Safety Laboratory University of CA San Bernadino California Animal Health & Food Yes No Yes Safety Laboratory University of CA Colorado Denver Rocky Mountain Regional Animal Yes Yes Health Laboratory CO Department of Agriculture Fort Collins Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory Yes No Yes CO State University Rocky Ford Colorado State University No No Yes Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory Rocky Ford Branch Delaware Dover Delaware Department of AgricultureNo No Yes Florida Kissimmee Animal Diagnostic Laboratory No No Yes FL Department of Agriculture Live Oak Live Oak Diagnostic Laboratory No No Yes Georgia Tifton Veterinary Diagnostic and No No Yes Investigations Laboratory University of GA Iowa Ames Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory Yes No Yes IA State University Diagnostic Bacteriology Laboratory,No No Yes NVSL USDA/APHIS/VS National Animal Disease Center Yes USDA-ARS Diagnostic Bacteriology Laboratory, Yes NVSL USDA/APHIS/VS No No No No (continues)
|
From page 89... ...
State/Province City Laboratory Fecal PCR Serology United States Idaho Boise Idaho Bureau of Animal Health No No Yes Laboratories Caldwell Caine Veterinary Teaching Center No No Yes University of Idaho Illinois Centralia Animal Disease Laboratory Yes No Yes Illinois Department of Agriculture Galesburg Animal Disease Laboratory Yes No No Illinois Department of Agriculture Urbana Labs of Veterinary Diagnostic Yes No Yes Medicine College of Veterinary Medicine Indiana Dubois Animal Disease Diagnostic Yes No No Laboratory West Lafayette Animal Disease Diagnostic Yes Yes Laboratory Purdue University Kentucky Hopkinsville Breathitt Veterinary Center Yes No Yes Murray State University Lexington Livestock Disease Diagnostic Yes No Yes Center University of Kentucky Maryland College Park Animal Health Diagnostic No No Yes Laboratory Maryland Department of Agriculture Frederick Animal Health Diagnostic Yes No No Laboratory Maine Westbrook IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. No Yes Yes Michigan East Lansing Animal Health Diagnostic Yes Yes Yes Laboratory Michigan State University Laboratory Division Yes NO Michigan Department of Agriculture a~lsmg Biostar Research, Inc.
|
From page 90... ...
State/Province City Laboratory Fecal PCR Serology United States Jefferson City Animal Health Laboratory Yes No Yes Missouri Department of Agriculture Springfield Missouri Veterinary Diagnostic No No Yes Laboratory Missouri Nepal lenient of Agriculture Mississippi Jackson Mississippi Veterinary Diagnostic No No Yes Laboratory Montana Bozeman Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory No No Yes Montana Department of Livestock North Carolina Raleigh Rollins Animal Disease Diagnostic No No Yes Laboratory North Dakota Fargo Nebraska Lincoln New Jersey Trenton North Dakota State Veterinary Yes No Diagnostic Laboratory North Dakota State University Veterinary Diagnostic Center University of Nebraska, Lincoln Division of Animal Health Laboratory New Jersey Department of Agriculture Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes New York Ithaca Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratories Yes No Yes New York State College of Veterinary Medicine Ohio Reynoldsburg Animal Disease Diagnostic Yes Laboratory No Yes Ohio Department of Agriculture Oklahoma Stillwater Oklahoma Animal Disease Yes No Yes Diagnostic Laboratory Oklahoma State University Oregon Salem Animal Health Laboratory Yes No Yes Oregon Department of Agriculture Pennsylvania Harrisburg Pennsylvania Veterinary Laboratory Yes Yes Department of Agriculture Kennett Square Johnes Research Laboratory Yes University of Pennsylvania Quakertown South Carolina Columbia South Dakota Brookings Tennessee Nashville Texas Amarillo No Quakertown Veterinary Clinic Clemson Veterinary Diagnostic Center Clemson University AnimalDisease Research& Yes Yes Yes Diagnostic Laboratory South Dakota University C.E. Kord Animal Disease Laboratory Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory Texas A&M University No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes (continues)
|
From page 91... ...
State/Province City Laboratory Fecal PCR Serology United States Washington Olympia Pullman Wisconsin Barron Madison Madison West Virginia Charleston College Station Texas Veterinary Medical Yes Yes Yes Diagnostic Laboratory Texas A&M University Washington State Department of Agriculture Lab Services Washington An~malDisease Yes No Yes Diagnostic Laboratory Washington State University Wisconsin Veterinary Diagnostic Yes No No Laboratory Wisconsin Animal Health Yes No Yes Laboratory Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Johnes Testing Center University of Wisconsin, Madison Animal Health Division No No Yes West Virginia Department of Agriculture Yes No Yes Yes No Yes SOURCE: USDA, 2002 NMPF 2002 Proposal The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) has recommended plans for JD management and testing.
|
From page 92... ...
Johne's Disease State Control Programs, January 2002 SOURCE: USDA, 2003a
|
From page 93... ...
Cer1111ca110n Herd Status Programs 25 States No Cer1111ca110n/Herd Status Programs i~1 D`eloplng Cer1111ca110n/Herd Status Programs Figure4-2.Jobnc'sDiscascStatc Cc~iAcadonandSta~sProgran~,January2002 SOURCE:USDA,20~b avow Commence _bUshed 40 S_ avow Commoner net Shed Cans for an Mason Committee P1gure4-3.Joboc'sDiscascStatc Advisory Con~Uccs,January2002 SOuRCE USDA,2003c
|
From page 94... ...
In 2001, the New York Animal Diagnostic Laboratory adopted a liquidmedium Trek system for fecal culture of Map, enabling a much reduced turnaround time (NYSCHAP, 2001~. More than 400 New York herds are currently participating in some form of control program (Dr.
|
From page 95... ...
. The following classifications have been established: Entire eligible herd tested or test 30 eligible animals or 10 percent of the eligible animals, whichever is greater; no test positives Entire eligible herd tested; fewer than 5 percent test positive Entire eligible herd tested; 5-15 percent test positive Entire eligible herd tested; more than 15 percent positive or 30 eligible animals or 10 percent of the herd tested; one or more positives No testing done; maximum risk Herd owners may elect one of three testing options: Random herd test Thirty eligible animals or 10 percent of eligible animals, whichever is greater Entire herd test All eligible animals tested at one time Split herd test With a state Department of Agriculture approved plan, test all eligible animals over a period not to exceed one year Testing may be by fecal culture or by serum ELISA in cattle, or by fecal culture in goats (Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, 2000~.
|
From page 96... ...
SOURCE: NYSCHAP, 2001; Pennsylvania Bureau of Animal Health and Diagnostic Services, 2000; Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, 2000 Non-U.S. Programs Few regional or national JD programs have been established outside the United States because of legal, political, and economic issues (Table 4-9~.
|
From page 97... ...
SOURCES: Kennedy and Allworth, 2002; Benedictus et al., 1999; USAHA, 1998; USDA, 2001a. PRINCIPLES OF CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION National-government-funded animal health programs typically are directed to exotic-disease exclusion and to the control or eradication of specific diseases of widely recognized economic or public-health importance.
|
From page 98... ...
The federal government establishes minimum animal health requirements for interstate movement, including the requirement that animals be certified by a federally recognized veterinarian as free of any visible signs of infectious or communicable disease. This is of little benefit in controlling the spread of JD however, because most Map-infected animals are subclinically affected.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.