Personally, the E. coli nightmare is a de-ja vu story. Twenty years ago, we came close to losing a granddaughter who contracted E. coli O157:H7. The source: a one-half square inch of Gouda cheese handed out as a sample at a well-known weekend market in Edmonton by a family dairy that processed Gouda cheese from unpasteurized milk. After seeing Genoa three times that day, and at my insistence, a young resident in an emergency ward looked at E. coli as a potential cause of Genoa’s severe cramps and diarrhea. Long story short: Genoa spent five days receiving whole blood and narrowly dodged kidney dialysis. Her mother also contracted the infection as did two other young patients who developed HUS (hemolytic uremic syndrome). The dairy farm went out of the cheese business after several cows were found to be shedding E. coli O157:H7. No one died. 

Escherichia coli is a rod-shaped Gram-negative bacterium that inhabits the gut of warm-blooded animals. The bacteria are ubiquitous and generally harmless. E. coli’s hardiness, versatility and ease of handling have made it the most intensively studied and best- understood organism on the planet. Research made the bacteria a model organism. The bacteria are widely used as experimental workhorses for DNA manipulation and protein production, such as insulin. 

Unfortunately, some strains can be pathogenic to humans, wreaking havoc with the gut and urinary system. Harmful strains, such as STEC (Shiga toxin-producing E. coli) and O157:H7 stand out as E. coli “bad boys.” 

Preventing E. coli infections depend on four primary rules: 

• Strict attention to cleanliness
• Keeping food ingredients separate
• Proper cooking
• Proper refrigeration

The major pediatric outbreak of E. coli in Calgary appears to have originated in a kitchen that makes meals for nursery children. There are now 348 lab-confirmed cases of E. coli in the city following an outbreak at Calgary daycares, Alberta Health Services said in an update. Those figures include 27 lab-confirmed secondary cases (human-to-human spread). 

The reservoir of this pathogen is often cattle. In addition, other ruminants such as sheep, goats and deer are considered significant reservoirs. Other mammals such as pigs, horses, rabbits, dogs and cats, and birds such as chickens and turkeys, have been found infected. E. coli O157:H7 is transmitted to humans primarily through consumption of contaminated foods, such as raw or under- cooked ground meat products and raw milk. Fecal contamination of water and other foods, as well as cross-contamination during food preparation from contaminated surfaces are also means of transmitting infection. Examples of foods implicated in outbreaks of E. coli O157:H7 include undercooked ham- burgers, dried cured salami, unpasteurized fresh-pressed apple cider, yogurt and cheese made from raw milk, and leafy vegetables irrigated with contaminated water. 

Up to 350 cases were associated with the Calgary outbreak. At one point, nine patients were hospitalized with hemolytic uremic syndrome. At least seven daycares are under closure orders. Deficiencies noted to date include: 

• Sanitation issues
• Pest (cockroach) infestations 
• Partisan decisions made by inspection staff 
• Transport of food from the central kitchen to daycares around the city at unsafe temperatures 
• Breakdown in public health inspections with little or no record of compliance 

Person-to-person contact is an important mode of transmission through an oral-fecal route. Asymptomatic carriers have been reported. The duration of excretion of STEC is about a week or less in adults but can be longer in children. Visiting farms and other venues where the general public might come into direct contact with farm animals has also been identified as an important risk factor for STEC infection. 

The first hint of what information samples collected during the massive Calgary outbreak might have yielded about the pathogenic strain of E. coli came via late-night news in late September. “Public health investigators and scientists in Alberta are working like detectives,” said Dr. Siyun Wang, an associate professor of food safety engineering at the University of British Columbia. “Scientists continue to gather evidence and are awaiting lab test results. 

“If you find the same DNA fingerprinting in the crime scene and on the suspect, then that’s the most straightforward link — the smoking gun.” 

Wang and other experts say definitive answers may be hard to come by. Investigators tentatively indicated the source of E. coli in the Calgary outbreak was “meatloaf ” prepared in the main kitchen. 

Note: At time of writing in late September, 21 children were still in hospital, with 20 having hemolytic uremic syndrome, a complication affecting the blood and kidneys. Seven patients were on dialysis at Alberta Children’s Hospital.

The post How did the E. coli outbreak happen in Calgary’s daycares? appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Ensuring the segregation of healthy bighorn sheep populations from Movi-infected reservoir hosts is crucial to prevent new disease outbreaks, but often unavoidable when the ranges of the two overlap. It may be possible to develop Movi vaccines, providing better and more effective management of domestic flocks. Targeted research would provide key epidemiological information thereby reducing the impact of this devastating disease on bighorn sheep and eliminating carriers in their domestic cousins.

Although considered a pathogen, Movi is a bacterial species commonly found in the nasal cavity and sinuses of apparently healthy sheep and goats. Pneumonia often appears because of other disease syndromes. Movi is transmitted to wild sheep and goats (bighorn sheep, thinhorn sheep and mountain goats) through nose-to-nose contact and, less commonly, aerosol/droplet transmission.

Thinhorn sheep are considered a subspecies of Dall sheep and are historically valued for the quality of their meat. In bighorn sheep, and very likely thinhorn sheep, Movi has been associated with large die-offs due to pneumonia. It affects all ages. According to wildlife researchers, die-offs are often followed by years of lower lamb birth and survival rates. Overall, Movi can have devastating effects on wild populations of sheep and goats. Presently, sound control efforts are inadequate because needed epidemiological information is missing.

READ MORE: Bighorn deaths attributed to sheep contacts

In many areas, especially along the east slope of the Rockies, interactions between domestic and wild populations occur throughout the year. These occurrences increase during times of wild sheep rut where the range of domestic sheep and wild flocks tend to overlap. Increasing popularity of packing into wilderness areas using goats as pack animals represents another opportunity for domestic stock to transmit Movi to wild populations. There are laws limiting packing goats to specific trails or banning them altogether in certain jurisdictions along the West Coast from Washington to Alaska.

Although Movi has been reported to affect species of Caprinae (sheep, goats and muskoxen), recent studies have identified the bacterium in species other than Caprinae, again demonstrating gaps in our basic knowledge of Movi. For example, Movi has been identified in Beira antelope (African species), caribou, moose, mule deer, white-tailed deer and domestic cattle. The prevalence and epidemiology of Movi are unknown for most of these species, especially white-tail and mule deer, which roam widely between domestic sheep flocks and cattle. With information missing about species’ susceptibility to disease, and which species might carry Movi commensally (mutual, non-threatening), transmission between species remains a big question mark. In the U.S., high death losses of bighorn sheep associated with Movi come with many questions including the role other respiratory pathogens played, such as lungworms (Protostrongylus species), Fusobacterium necophorum, Trueperella pyogenes and members of the Pasteurella bacterial family.

In 2011, a USDA National Animal Health Monitoring System study detected Movi by PCR test in one or more domestic sheep on 88.5 per cent (401/453) of sheep premises and 29.4 per cent (1,199/4,073) of individual sheep tested. An unpublished Alaskan study detected Movi in 57 per cent (4/7) of Alaskan domestic sheep premises and 7.6 per cent (13/171) of domestic sheep, which suggests that the prevalence varies significantly between regions.

Attempts by government wildlife agencies and volunteer groups to protect wild flocks from Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae include several untested initiatives and programs. Protecting these majestic animals remains an honourable goal, but difficult because so many pieces of the puzzle remain missing.

Advances in controlling the troubling realities of Movi in wild sheep and goat populations rest in a compilation of regulatory proposals sitting in books of government and volunteer factions in Washington state, Idaho, B.C. Alberta, Alaska, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Key amongst them:

• Understanding the significance and threat of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae in domestic flocks of sheep and goats, realignment of producer responsibilities and better assessment of conservation actions.
• Finding ways to ensure segregation of healthy bighorn sheep populations from Movi-infected reservoir hosts (crucial) including restriction of goats as “pack animals” where it makes sense to do so.
• Research on and development of effective Movi vaccines.
• Although epizootics and high death losses of bighorn sheep associated with Movi were first described in 2008, the epidemiology of this bacterium in bighorn sheep remains unclear. This must change.
• Ongoing support of groups like the Wild Sheep Society of British Columbia, the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the Wild Sheep Working Group Initiative.
• Acute change to the control and elimination of Movi from domestic flocks (test and cull, flock depopulation). The groups may want to open the book on Brucella elimination in Canadian cattle.

The post Vet Advice: Disease control ineffective when puzzle pieces missing appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

The limits come after top supplier Abbott Laboratories in February recalled some baby formula including Similac made at its plant in Michigan over complaints of bacterial infections in infants who consumed the products.

CVS said it last month limited in-store and online purchases of the products to three per order, while Walgreens issued a similar cap in March. Kroger has a limit of four products per customer and Target has had restrictions on online sales for weeks.

Abbott said on Tuesday it was “doing everything” it can to address the shortage, including prioritizing production of the products and air shipping them from its U.S. drug regulator-approved facility in Ireland.

The company is also working closely with the Food and Drug Administration to restart operations at its Michigan facility, a spokesperson said. No formula that has been distributed has tested positive for bacteria, according to the company.

Similac, whose listed ingredients include skim milk, whey powder and soy and sunflower oils, was also subject to a recall in the Canadian market effective Feb. 17.

The product was also sold nationally in Canada but the federal health department said, at the time, that while cases of illness have been reported in the U.S., none had yet been reported in Canada.

The recalls are based on the potential risk of contamination with salmonella and Cronobacter sakazakii. The latter is “not commonly linked to human illness (but) in rare cases it can cause serious or fatal infections,” Health Canada said.

Abbott is the leading supplier of milk formula in the U.S., with a market share of about 42 per cent in 2021, followed by British consumer goods firm Reckitt Benckiser with a nearly 38 per cent share, according to Euromonitor data.

About 40 per cent of baby formula products were out of stock across the U.S. last month, said Ben Reich, the chief executive of data firm Datasembly.

Supply chain snags, product recalls and historic inflation have compounded the shortage, he added.

— Reporting for Reuters by Deborah Sophia, Manas Mishra and Leroy Leo in Bangalore; additional reporting by Richa Naidu in London. Includes files from Glacier FarmMedia Network staff.

The post Major U.S. retailers limit infant formula purchases on shortage appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Lab results on Wednesday confirmed anthrax as the cause of death of one animal in a flock of sheep in the R.M. of South Qu’Appelle, about 50 km east of Regina, the provincial ag department said.

The bacterial disease remains the suspected cause of death of four other sheep on the same premises, the province said in a release Thursday.

The pathogen, Bacillus anthracis, can survive in spore form for decades in soil and those spores can build up on pastures due to changes in soil moisture, whether from flooding or drying, the province said.

Animals are at increased risk of exposure to anthrax in drier years when areas normally known to be sloughs or potholes dry up and become accessible, or when ground is excavated or sees excessive runoff.

Infections occur when forage contaminated with spores is eaten by livestock; ruminants such as bison, cattle, sheep and goats are known to be “highly susceptible.” Affected animals are usually found dead without any signs of illness.

Horses can also be infected, the province said, while swine, birds and carnivore species are more resistant to infection. That said, farm dogs and cats should be kept away from carcasses, the province added.

Producers in regions known to have had anthrax outbreaks are “strongly encouraged” to vaccinate their animals each year, the province said, particularly if a neighbour’s animals are confirmed to have been infected.

Saskatchewan’s most recent previous confirmed case of anthrax infection in livestock was in bison in the nearby R.M. of Chester in 2019.

People are at “minimal” risk of exposure from infected animals but can be infected through direct contact with sick animals or carcasses, the province said. People who believe they have been exposed to an infected animal should contact a doctor or the local health authority.

Carcasses of animals suspected to have been infected shouldn’t be disturbed, but should be protected from scavenger animals such as coyotes or ravens, to avoid spreading spores in the environment.

Anthrax is a reportable disease, meaning veterinarians and labs must report all positive test results to the province’s chief veterinary officer within 24 hours. A producer who suspects anthrax in livestock should contact a local veterinarian immediately.

While anthrax is also still federally reportable, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency stopped actively investigating cases of anthrax in livestock in 2013.

Saskatchewan in 2014 set up a provincial anthrax response strategy, intended to help affected producers in protecting animal and public health. — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Anthrax kills southeastern Saskatchewan sheep appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

“Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing” (or ESBL) E. coli are a major concern in human medicine. These bacteria are resistant to many antibiotics used in both human and veterinary medicine. Ordinary E. coli can cause urinary tract or bloodstream infections in people. They’re usually quite easy to treat with antibiotics. But if ESBL E. coli are responsible, the infection can’t be easily treated with antibiotics, and the illness can be much worse or even fatal.

E. coli rarely causes disease in feedlot cattle. But ESBL E. coli are still a concern because antibiotic resistance genes are often located on “mobile genetic elements” that bacteria can trade with each other, even with completely unrelated bacteria. So antibiotic-resistant BRD bacteria such as Mannheimia, Pasteurella or Histophilus can spread their antibiotic resistance genes to each other, or possibly to E. coli. That’s like a border collie developing horns after a day of herding Herefords.

Dr. Tim McAllister and other researchers from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the University of Manitoba, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, Feedlot Health Management Services and the University of Calgary looked for ESBL E. coli in feedlot environments and compared them to ESBL E. coli isolated from human environments. The results of this Beef Cluster study were published earlier this year (Whole Genome Sequencing Differentiates Presumptive Extended Spectrum Beta-lactamase Producing Escherichia coli along Segments of the One Health Continuum, doi:10.3390/microorganisms8030448).

What they did: Over two years, 7,325 E. coli isolates were collected at four southern Alberta feedlots (pen floor feces, catch basin water and surface streams), a packing plant (hides, washed carcasses, conveyor belts, trim, whole muscle cuts and ground beef), sewage treatment plants (Calgary and Medicine Hat) and human patients (Calgary Laboratory Services). Suspect ESBL E. coli from feedlot and packing plant samples were rare and could only be found after they were exposed to multiple antibiotics. In contrast, ESBL E. coli could be easily found in samples from sewage plants or humans without using multiple antibiotics to suppress other E. coli.

Next, all remaining E. coli isolates were tested for resistance to 11 different classes of antibiotics to confirm their ESBL status. Overall, 750 potential ESBL E. coli from all sources were identified, and 162 of these were DNA-sequenced to identify antibiotic resistance genes, assess how closely related they were and find mobile genetic elements.

What they learned: ESBL E. coli were found in cattle-associated, beef-processing and human-associated samples. However, only four ESBL E. coli isolates were found in the beef-processing samples, suggesting that carcass washes, cleaning steps and other interventions used to combat food safety pathogens in packing plants help impede the potential movement of ESBL E. coli from cattle to humans.

All the ESBL E. coli carried genes for resistance to multiple antibiotics. But DNA sequencing revealed that different antibiotic resistance genes predominated in ESBL E. coli from different environments. Of the 13 antibiotic resistance genes that differed between ESBL E. coli from cattle- and human-associated samples, 11 were more common in ESBL E. coli from the human-associated samples. This seems to suggest that the ESBL E. coli that prevailed in sewage and human samples probably didn’t originate from cattle.

Three main “families” emerged when genetic relatedness was compared among the ESBL E. coli isolated from the different sources. Those isolated from feedlot pens, catch basins and streams were closely related to each other, those from the packing plant were closely related to each other, and those from clinical patients and municipal sewage were closely related to each other. But there was very little genetic overlap between the three groups. Like other bacteria, E. coli evolve to fit their environment, and it can be difficult for an E. coli from one environment to thrive in another.

Integrative conjugative elements (ICE), one group of mobile genetic elements bacteria use to carry and trade antibiotic resistance genes, are rarely found in ordinary E. coli. But ICE were found in all 162 of the ESBL E. coli isolates in this study. Genetic analyses revealed that most of these ICE likely originated from different bacteria such as Vibrio, Pseudomonas, Salmonella or Yersinia. Although environmental challenges and food safety interventions all help to prevent ESBL E. coli from moving from cattle to people, bacteria may still be able to “bucket brigade” their antibiotic resistance genes from one environment to another.

What it means: This study adds to a growing body of evidence that antibiotic resistance in bacteria associated with beef cattle likely doesn’t drive antibiotic resistance associated with bacteria in humans.

But it also emphasizes the importance of appropriate antibiotic use. When bacteria manage to assemble multiple antibiotic resistance genes on the same ICE element, the stage is set for rapid spread of multi-drug resistance among a lot of different bacteria, whether on the farm or in the hospital.

The Beef Cattle Research Council is funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, provincial beef industry groups and governments to advance research and technology transfer supporting the Canadian beef industry’s vision to be recognized as a preferred supplier of healthy, high-quality beef, cattle and genetics.

The post Do cattle bacteria contribute to antibiotic resistance in human medicine? appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

The warnings about the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s first update of inspection procedures at hog slaughterhouses in more than 50 years come after several high-profile recalls in the meat sector.

USDA earlier on Tuesday published a final version of rules that will eliminate limits on how fast companies such as Tyson Foods and WH Group’s Smithfield Foods can slaughter pigs — a change long sought by meatpackers.

The companies can instead determine their own slaughter speeds based on their ability to prevent fecal contamination and minimize bacteria, according to the rules.

Packers can also have employees, rather than USDA workers, remove meat with certain defects from the slaughtering process. Government inspectors will continue to check all live animals before they are killed as well as meat products after slaughter.

The changes could contribute to food contamination, said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of advocacy group Food + Water Watch.

“The implementation of the rule will result in the fox guarding the henhouse,” Hauter said.

Tyson Foods, the biggest U.S. meat producer, slowed chicken processing to protect food safety this year after it recalled millions of pounds of poultry products over concerns they contained extraneous materials like rubber and metal.

Tyson and Smithfield did not immediately respond to requests for comment on USDA’s new rules. The North American Meat Institute, which represents the packers, said companies will continue to produce safe pork.

Slower processing leads to higher costs for companies and limits profits, but advocates say extra caution protects workers.

“Increasing pork plant line speeds is a reckless corporate giveaway that would put thousands of workers in harm’s way as they are forced to meet impossible demands,” said Marc Perrone, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International union, which represents slaughterhouse employees.

USDA ran a pilot program for the new rules that was announced in 1997. Participating slaughterhouses do not operate significantly faster than the current maximum speed of 1,106 pigs per hour, according to the agency.

The pilot program showed the rules are unlikely to cause a higher prevalence of salmonella on pork and may reduce the prevalence of salmonella, USDA said. Under the new rules, the agency will require hog slaughterhouses to establish procedures to prevent meat from being contaminated by certain pathogens and fecal material.

“This regulatory change allows us to ensure food safety while eliminating outdated rules and allowing for companies to innovate,” USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue said.

— Tom Polansek reports on agriculture and ag commodities for Reuters from Chicago.

The post Safety advocates sound alarm over new U.S. hog slaughter rules appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Human infection occurs sporadically throughout the continental U.S. Historically, cases have been concentrated in the south-central states, but distribution of human tularemia cases in the U.S. has moved progressively northward since 1965. The disease is now endemic in Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming, enhanced by increased rainfall promoting vegetation growth, pathogen survival, and increased rodent and rabbit populations. Disease trends are independent of changes in human population and reflect shifts in environmental factors and arthropod vector abundance. Tularemia cases have doubled and tripled in the above states.

Tularemia is a classic zoonosis, capable of being transmitted by aerosol droplets, direct contact, ingestion, or through bites of arthropods — primarily ticks. Inhalation of aerosolized organisms can produce a pneumonic form. Direct contact with or ingestion of infected carcasses of wild animals (such as rabbits) can produce swollen glands (lymph nodes) and ulcers. Systemic infections (typhoid form) are common. Ingestion of contaminated water can result in infection in aquatic animals. Ticks maintain infection through their different life stages, which makes them an efficient reservoir for infection as well as a vector. Recognized tick vectors include Dermacentor andersoni (wood tick), Amblyomma americanum (lone star tick), and Dermacentor variabilis (dog tick). Large biting flies like deer flies also transmit infection.

Tularemia is highly infectious, with as few as 10 organisms needed to cause disease. Humans can develop severe and sometimes fatal illness but do not transmit the disease to others. The typical incubation period is three to five days, with a range of one to 14 days.

F. tularensis is considered a category A bioterrorism agent. F. tularensis is highly infectious, occurs widely in nature, and can be isolated and grown in quantity in the laboratory. During the Second World War, the Japanese conducted research on F. tularensis as a biological weapon. During the 1950s and 1960s, the United States developed weapons that could deliver aerosolized F. tularensis organisms. The United States government stockpiled weaponized tularemia until stockpiles were destroyed in 1973. The former Soviet Union also weaponized F. tularensis; the Soviet program included development of antibiotic and vaccine-resistant strains. In 1969, the World Health Organization estimated that an aerosol dispersal of 50 kg of virulent F. tularensis over a metropolitan area with five million inhabitants in a developed country would result in 250,000 illnesses, including 19,000 deaths.

Although tularemia is uncommon, physicians, laboratory staff, public health workers and veterinarians should be alert to the possibility of disease caused by F. tularensis. The disease is endemic in British Columbia and other parts of Canada. Most cases are likely acquired in rural areas. Skin lesions, often accompanied by swollen regional lymph nodes, are the most common clinical signs.

In endemic areas, members of the public and individuals who handle wild animals should be aware of the disease. An unexpected case of tularemia diagnosed in rural B.C. in October 2006 led to a review of reported cases in the province to further define the clinical and public health importance of this infection. Laboratory results confirmed tularemia in an adult resident in the Greater Sudbury area (2015), the first human case of tularemia in Sudbury since 2003. It is believed the Sudbury case resulted from contact with wild game. Elsewhere, there have been several reports of tularemia in humans following bites from infected domestic cats.

There are a number of clinical presentations and diagnosis may be difficult.

Although tularemia is a potentially serious and life-threatening disease, treatable with appropriate antimicrobial agents, early clinical suspicion and appropriate diagnostic testing are required. Serology and culture are used to diagnose tularemia. F. tularensis is commonly isolated in culture or detected by polymerase chain reaction from patients’ blood specimens, but can also be identified in specimens from skin lesions, spinal fluid, lymph nodes, and respiratory secretions. Specimens suspected of containing F. tularensis should be handled safely. Biosafety level 3 containment is recommended when handling live cultures.

F. tularensis can be recovered from contaminated water, soil, and vegetation. It can persist for weeks under ideal environmental conditions. F. tularensis can also be found in amoebas (small waterborne organisms) which become airborne in some settings, and represent a significant environmental reservoir for this bacterium.

Typically, humans become infected through:

• Bites or licks of an infected animal.
• Handling or cleaning the carcass of an infected animal, especially through contact with the skin or meat.
• Eating inadequately cooked wild game.
• Wound infections with contaminated soil.
• Contaminated water.
• Bites of an infected tick or deer fly.
• Small domestic pets like hamsters have been a source of tularemia for humans.

Hunters are at higher risk of exposure because of the handling of wild game carcasses. Transmission of tularemia from person to person has not been reported.

The clinical presentation of tularemia depends on the route of exposure. The onset of tularemia is usually abrupt, with fever, headache, chills, and generalized body aches (often prominent in the low back), coryza (inflammation of the mucous membranes lining the nasal cavity), and sore throat. Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may occur. Sweats, fever, chills, progressive weakness, malaise, anorexia, and weight loss characterize chronic illness. Gentamicin, doxycycline, ciprofloxacin and streptomycin are used to treat humans.

Dr. Ron Clarke prepares this column on behalf of the Western Canadian Association of Bovine Practitioners. Suggestions for future articles can be sent to Canadian Cattlemen (gren@fbcpublishing.com) or WCABP (info@wcabp.com)

The post Tularemia, a potentially serious and life-threatening disease appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

This month North Dakota Department of Health has posted blue-green algae advisories for four lakes. In addition, several water samples associated with the death of cattle and other animals that were submitted to the North Dakota State University Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory have tested positive for cyanobacteria.

• Read more: Testing livestock water quality critical during drought

“The growth of this bacteria is facilitated by the high temperatures common in July and August,” says Miranda Meehan, NDSU Extension livestock environmental stewardship specialist. “Blue-green algae often occurs in stagnant ponds or dugouts with elevated nutrient levels, forming large colonies that appear as scum on or just below the water surface. Live cyanobacterial blooms can be green, but also red or yellow, and often turn blue after the bloom dies and dries on the surface or shoreline.”

Some species of cyanobacteria can be toxic when livestock and wildlife ingest them. Toxicity is dependent on the species consuming the water, the concentration of the toxin or toxins and the amount of water ingested.

Cyanobacteria can produce neuro- and liver toxins. Signs of neurotoxin poisoning can appear within five minutes to up to several hours after ingestion. In animals, symptoms include weakness, staggering, muscle tremors, difficulty in breathing, convulsions and, ultimately, death.

Animals affected by liver toxins may exhibit weakness, pale-coloured mucous membranes, mental derangement, bloody diarrhea and, ultimately, death. Typically, livestock are found dead before producers observe symptoms. If cyanobacterial poisoning is suspected as the cause of death, producers should check the edges of ponds for dead wildlife.

Prevention

• Reduce nutrient levels entering the water source by implementing a nutrient management plan or establishing buffer strips with perennial plant species.
• Create a designated drinking area where the risk of cyanobacteria is minimal. Fence off the pond and pump water from the pond to the water tank. Use water from other sources following periods of hot, dry weather.
• Add copper sulphate to the water if the source has a history of algae blooms. Apply two pounds of copper sulphate per acre-foot of water, which is equal to a rate of eight pounds per one million gallons. Livestock must be fenced out of treated water sources for at least 10 days.

The post Hot weather increases livestock-poisoning risk appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Shedding of salmonella bacteria in both beef and dairy cattle often occurs in the absence of clinical signs — sometimes for extended periods. Once infections are established, treatment and elimination of infection is often difficult. Latent (subclinical) infections often become evident during periods of stress, like calving season.

Salmonellosis in humans is typically self-limiting and most people recover within one week, but they too can become asymptomatic carriers, excreting large numbers of bacteria in their feces and contaminating food and water sources. What first appears as a simple, perhaps unusual event in the calving barn, may be the precursor to a major disease outbreak affecting both humans and animals.

Salmonella organisms spread directly from contaminated surfaces and instruments, from an infected animal or human, or through food. Food contamination is not limited to products of animal origin. For example, fruits and vegetables irrigated with contaminated water are important sources of salmonella, if not washed properly or cooked prior to consumption.

Salmonella resistance to antimicrobials is a serious concern in severe infections when they are called for. Multi-drug resistance complicates and narrows treatment options.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) conducted the Beef 2007-08 study, capturing information on beef cow-calf health and management practices in 24 states representing nearly 90 per cent of U.S. beef cows. The 2007-08 study paralleled a similar survey from 1997. Approximately, 10 per cent of the herds had at least one positive cow. Nearly one per cent of animals tested were shedding salmonella. The results suggest that salmonella, though not very common in beef cow-calf operations, exist undetected on a significant number of farms.

Biosecurity remains the single most important tool in reducing the risk of salmonella and other important calving shed zoonoses from gaining a foothold.

In September 2012, nearly 50 people in nine states became ill from eating ground beef tainted with salmonella enteritidis, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2013, salmonella typhimurium in ground beef was linked to more than 20 human illnesses in six states.

Drug-resistant strains

Through 2016 and 2017, CDC, state governments, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) investigated a multi-state outbreak of multidrug-resistant salmonella Heidelberg infections. A total of 54 people infected with outbreak strains of Salmonella Heidelberg were reported from 15 states. Thirty-five per cent of those infected required hospitalization. Thirty-three per cent of people involved were children under the age of five. No deaths were reported.

Epidemiologic and laboratory investigations linked ill people in this outbreak to contact with calves, including dairy calves. Ongoing surveillance in veterinary diagnostic laboratories showed that calves in several states continue to get sick with the outbreak strains of multi-drug resistant salmonella.

Information collected earlier in the outbreak indicated that a majority of calves came from Wisconsin. Investigation on new cases continues. Antibiotic resistance testing conducted by CDC on clinical isolates from ill people show that isolates were highly resistant to a broad spectrum of antimicrobials.

Through the years, salmonella outbreaks in Canadian beef and dairy herds have been reported. A 2003 Alberta study in dairy herds found the prevalence of salmonella similar to that found in the U.S.

Raw or undercooked poultry account for a large percentage of salmonella outbreaks in Canada.

Salmonella bacteria are found naturally in the intestines of domestic animals, reptiles and birds. The bacteria are most-often transmitted to people through contaminated foods or by handling animals shedding the organism. Contaminated foods often come from animal sources, like poultry, beef, milk or eggs, but also include fruits, vegetables, and herbs.

“It was always our working assumption that E. coli interventions [for cattle] should be controlling salmonella,” said James Marsden, a professor of animal science at Kansas State University. “E. coli is transferred from the beef hide to the carcass and works its way through the system. We thought this is what salmonella did as well. The incidences of E. coli have dropped sharply over the past 10 years, but salmonella isn’t dropping, which is perplexing,” Marsden added. “And some strains of salmonella that have been observed in beef are drug-resistant strains, so they pose a public health problem.”

Researchers at Texas Tech University now believe that, unlike E. coli, salmonella resides in the lymphatic system of cattle. “In 2010, the industry was in a position to start asking questions,” said Guy Loneragan, professor of animal science and lead researcher at Texas Tech University. “We started looking at the lymph nodes, which are internal and exempt from current prevention techniques.”

An August 2013 article published by the Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting by Sam Robinson, as part of a series titled “Cracks in the System,” called salmonella-tainted ground beef a major challenge facing the industry. Scientists have realized they may have misidentified the source of salmonella in beef cattle.

They now realize it may be in the lymphatic system of cattle, making it harder to prevent than E. coli.

Basic biosecurity precautions when working with livestock involve:

• Washing your hands thoroughly with soap and water after touching or treating livestock, handling equipment, or leaving areas where animals are housed. Adults should supervise handwashing for young children. Use hand sanitizer if soap and water are not readily available.
• Do not eat or drink in the areas where livestock are handled.
• Do not allow toys, pacifiers, spill-proof cups, baby bottles, strollers, or similar items in livestock areas.
• Use dedicated clothes, shoes, and work gloves when working with livestock.
• Keep and store these items in a separate area.

Biosecurity precautions are especially important in households with children under age five and around people with compromised immune systems.

Work with your veterinarian to develop animal health and biosecurity protocols.

Suspect salmonella cases involving adult cattle, or beef and dairy calves, especially those associated with human illness, should be reported to provincial government animal health or public health agencies. Salmonellosis is a notifiable/reportable disease in many provinces.

In the case of suspect salmonella infection, fecal samples are typically collected and submitted to a provincial or university veterinary diagnostic laboratory for culturing and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) testing.

Clients should talk to their veterinarian about reducing the risk of transmission of salmonella and other zoonotic diseases from livestock to their family.

Follow good food-handling practices (keep raw food away from other food while shopping, storing, preparing and serving foods; wash fresh fruits and vegetables before eating them, clean counters and cutting boards and wash hands regularly).

Keep pets away from food storage and preparation areas. Wash your hands well with soap and water after handling pet treats, pet food and pet toys, or after playing with or cleaning up after your pet.

The post Lapses in biosecurity create long-standing risks appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

These encouraging words come from Dr. Andrew Potter, CEO at the University of Saskatchewan’s VIDO-InterVac (Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization-International Vaccine Centre) where the research group started work on developing the two vaccines about a year and a half ago.

“People have been trying for decades to develop vaccines for these diseases without much success, so we started with no preconceived ideas. We are testing everything these bacteria produce as potential candidates,” he says.

JD is caused by Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis (MAP) and bTB is caused by Mycobacterium bovis.

“They each produce several hundred potential proteins that are potential targets for the immune system of cattle, primarily those located on the surface of the bacteria and are therefore ‘visible’ to the host upon infection,” Potter explains.

The group is working with specific individual proteins to produce sub-unit vaccines. In 1991, VIDO’s vaccine against shipping fever caused by Mannheimia haemolytica was a world-first vaccine of this type, but this approach hasn’t been used in the past for developing bTB and JD vaccines.

Vaccines against bTB and JD available in other countries are killed or live whole-cell vaccines. The main drawback of live whole-cell vaccines is that they can’t be used in animals being treated with antibiotic because the antibiotic kills the vaccine as well. Some countries have banned whole-cell JD vaccines because they interfere with diagnostic tests for bTB.

A new approach since 2000 called reverse vaccinology is being used to develop the new subunit vaccines. It begins with sequencing the genome of the pathogen. Bioinformatics software then identifies components that could be potential antigens to trigger the animal’s immune system to produce antibodies. The antigens are then cloned for testing one by one in cattle (or animal models as is the case when developing vaccines for use in people). The most suitable antigen that produces the best immune response is formulated into a vaccine prototype to be field-tested for effectiveness and safety before commercialization.

This project also involves developing a companion test for each vaccine to differentiate between vaccinated animals and those infected naturally. Potter says this won’t be difficult to do once they identify the candidates.

As a research institute, VIDO-InterVac only produces enough vaccine for the field tests and licenses its patented technologies to commercial partners who work with regulators to register the vaccines in their target markets.

“These vaccines won’t necessarily go to the highest bidder,” Potter adds. “We will carefully select our commercial partner because the vaccines must be available to Canadians first because they are the ones who paid for it.”

This project has received $7.5 million in funding through multiple sources including Genome Canada, Genome Prairie, Genome British Columbia and the Government of Saskatchewan. Animal and lab work was done at VIDO-InterVac with the University of British Columbia undertaking some of the lab work and the universities of Saskatchewan and Calgary looking after the social and economic work.

Why farmers vaccinate

Dr. Albert Ugochukwu and professor Peter Phillips with the Centre for the Study of Science and Innovation Policy, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy at the University of Saskatchewan, explored the livestock industry’s responsiveness and farmers’ attitudes toward animal vaccines.

Starting with a review of the global prevalence, surveillance and control programs for bTB and JD in Europe, the U.S., Australia and Canada, they report that these two diseases are among the most prevalent endemic bovine diseases worldwide. Both are slow, progressive diseases that erode production efficiencies, profits, competitiveness and public confidence. Both pose human health risks, although that of JD has not yet been proven.

Last winter, they surveyed Canadian beef and dairy producers in search of answers to the overarching question, “what motivates farmers to use vaccines?”

The voluntary survey was carried out through dairy and beef producer associations across Canada and 234 producers responded. Of those, 105 were from the dairy side and 129 were beef producers (77 cow-calf, 25 backgrounders, 22 feedlot, and five other).

The first question identified an impediment to uptake of the new subunit vaccines given that approximately one-quarter of the respondents figured their herds weren’t at risk of getting a JD or bTB infection. Of the 75 per cent who acknowledged some risk, fewer than seven per cent viewed JD as a serious risk and fewer than two per cent viewed bTB as a serious risk.

Another question red-flagged an issue for veterinarians and producer associations to tackle because they came to the top as the sources producers most often turn to for information about vaccines at 80 per cent and 11 per cent, respectively.

The antibiotics, Draxxin and Bio-Mycin, were listed by some producers as vaccines they have used. Other than that, it was encouraging to learn that all respondents have used vaccines at one time or another because uptake of vaccines currently available suggests their acceptance of and willingness to spend money on vaccines. Most commonly they vaccinate against breeding, respiratory, clostridial, and scours diseases.

Disease prevention, at 52 per cent, is by far the main reason why producers use vaccines. Disease control and because their veterinarians recommend that they use the vaccine are neck in neck around 17 per cent. Only 5.7 per cent vaccinate to try to eliminate disease and 4.8 per cent vaccinate on the recommendation of buyers.

Almost 79 per cent of respondents participate in quality-assurance programs, such as Verified Beef Production and Canadian Quality Milk. Sixty per cent of those who participate in these programs have more than 250 cows. Of those, 37 per cent indicated that they would be interested in vaccines for JD and bTB.

Combining producers’ strong interest in quality assurance with the reasons why they use vaccines, Ugochukwu and Phillips suggest that beef and dairy farmers are most interested in disease prevention and control as a liability management response. They say this looks like a good signal for the uptake of the subunit vaccines as a complementary approach to disease prevention and control.

Willingness to pay seems to depend on interest in quality-assurance programs and herd size. Approximately 65 per cent of those willing to pay around the $15.50 mark per cow per year for a JD vaccine have herds averaging 750 dairy cows. Eighty-five per cent of those who said they’d pay more than $20 per cow have more than 1,000 dairy cattle.

Overall, 12 per cent of respondents were not willing to spend more than $5 per cow per year for a JD vaccine and 27 per cent were not willing to spend more than that for a bTB vaccine. At the opposite end of the spectrum, 10 per cent would pay more than $20 per cow per year for a JD vaccine and seven per cent would pay more than $20 for a bTB vaccine.

Most are in the middle at about 49 per cent and 44 per cent, respectively, and are willing to pay an average of $7.50 per animal per year for JD and bTB vaccines. Another 29 per cent and 23 per cent, respectively, are willing to pay an average of $15 per cow per year for JD and bTB vaccines.

As the current Alberta-Saskatchewan bTB investigation and Manitoba PED situation prove, disease outbreaks can be cumbersome and very costly to manage.

Ugochukwu and Phillips maintain that costs of dealing with outbreaks could be reduced with the use of effective and safe vaccines. The subunit JD and bTB vaccines, with companion diagnostic tests to distinguish between naturally infected and vaccinated animals, could offer an effective and profitable disease prevention, control and management option and reduce international trade distortions arising from disease outbreaks.

Economic theory has it that any situation that creates a negative externality potentially requires public-sector investment to develop effective control mechanisms. Producers may not be able to make the investment needed to provide effective control, especially when market signals aren’t there. Public-sector incentives for producers to adopt any new subunit vaccine might go a long way to encourage its use, thereby reducing long-term cost burdens and improving health and safety.

The post The search continues for TB and JD vaccines appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.