Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Michigan’s Bovine Tuberculosis Program Update
James Averill, DVM, PhDState Veterinarian
Overview• Michigan’s Progress• Current Program• Affected herds in FY16• New developments in FY16• Summary
Overview• Michigan’s Progress• Current Program• Affected herds in FY16• New developments in FY16• Summary
1979 – 200 TB Zoning
• TB Free Status in 1979
• 1st bTB affected cattle herd in1998 (red)
• Entire state zoned Modified Accredited in June 2000
Keweenaw
Baraga
Iron
Houghton
Ontonagon
Gogebic
Marquette
Dickinson
Menominee
Alger
Delta
Schoolcraft
Luce
Chippewa
Mackinac
Emmet
Alpena
Cheboygen Presque Isle
Otsego
Charlevoix
Antrim
Leelanau
Montmorency
Kalkaska
Crawford
Oscoda
Alcona
Benzie
GrandTraverse
Roscommon
Missaukee
Wexford Manistee
Osceola
Lake
Mason
Iosco Ogemaw
Clare
Gladwin
Isabella
Mecosta Newaygo
Oceana
Arenac
Midland
Bay
Huron
Muskegon
Montcalm
Sanilac
Tuscola Saginaw
Gratiot
Kent
Ionia Clinton
Shiawassee
Genesee
Lapeer St. Clair
Eaton
Oakland
Macomb Barry
Allegan
Ottawa
Ingham Livingston
Van Buren
Kalamazoo
Calhoun
Jackson Washtenaw
Wayne
St. Joseph Branch
Hillsdale
Lenawee
Monroe
Cass
Berrien
2005 – 2011 TB Zoning• 15 counties moved to
TB Free status (green)o 18% of counties TB
Free
• 57 counties were rezoned MAAZ (yellow)
• 11 counties remained MAZ (orange)
2011 – 2014 TB Zoning• 57 counties moved
to TB Free Statuso 87% of Michigan’s
counties TB Free
• 7 MAZ counties move to MAAZ (yellow)
• 4 counties remain MAZ (orange)
2014 ‐ Present• 7 MAAZ counties
moved to TB Free statuso 95% of Michigan’s
counties TB Free
• 4 counties remain MAZ (orange)
Overview• Michigan’s Progress
• Current Program• Affected herds in FY16• New developments in FY16• Summary
Michigan’s TB Program
• Surveillance• Traceability• Response to Infection• Compliance• Wildlife Risk Mitigation
Wildlife Risk Mitigation Basics• Feed cattle safely• Water cattle safely• Store cattle feed safely
Overview• Michigan’s Progress• Current Program
• Affected herds in FY16• New developments in FY16• Summary
Herd #63• Alpena County beef herd – sold to custom
slaughter
• ~1 mile from Herd #61
• Area test (Sep.): 7 suspects of 81 testedo PCR positive – 12/22/15
• Removal test (Jan): 12 suspects of 74 tested
Herd #63, cont.• MDARD partially depopulated (Feb.)
• Remainder herd went to slaughter– 1 animal found at slaughter with lesions
• 15 culture positive (19% of herd - 34% of adults)
• MDARD working to improve farm’s biosecurity
Herd #64• Oscoda County beef herd – sold to
custom slaughter• Area test (Mar) - 4 suspects
– PCR positive – 4/6/16
• Index animal – purchased from previously infected herd
(Herd #27 – 2003) – 10 weeks prior to Area test– Animals negative on movement test (Dec.)
Herd #64, Cont.• Tested “Source Herd” and found positive (Herd #65)
• Whole genome sequencing:– Source herd animal not match index animal– Index animal matched 1998 deer 2 miles from source herd
– Additional animal had different genome
• TNR Herd ‐ no additional positives
• Next test at end of March 2017
Herd #65• Alcona beef herd – seldom sold animals
– Source Herd for Herd #64– Herd previously infected in 2003
• Trace/Area test (Apr) – 5 suspects of 57 tested, 4 γ-INF suspects
• One TB positive on PCR (May)
Herd #65, Cont.• Whole genome of positive animal:
– Did not match Herd #64 index animal – Did match 2003 infection
• TNR Herd – no additional positives
• Next test end of February 2017
Herd #66• Alcona beef herd – cow calf operation
• Movement test for county fair (Aug.)
• PCR positive (Aug.)
• Whole herd test (Sep.) – four suspects –necropsies pending
Overview• Michigan’s Progress• Current Program• Affected herds in FY16
• New developments in FY16• Summary
PRES
QU
E IS
LE
MO
NTM
OR
ENC
YO
SCO
DA
ALP
ENA
ALC
ON
A
Apparent TB Prevalence inWhite-tailed Deer
DMU 452
* Extrapolated from head-only apparent prevalence; Mandatory head testing.
Year Inside DMU452
5-County Outside DMU452
1995 4.9% (no testing)1996 2.5% 0.2%1997 4.7% 0.4%1998 2.7% 0.3%1999 2.4% 0.2%2000 2.5% 0.4%2001 2.3%* 0.5%2002 2.6% 0.5%2003 1.7% 0.2%2004 1.7% 0.2%2005 1.2% 0.1%2006 2.3% 0.3%2007 1.4% 0.2%2008 1.9% 0.3%2009 1.9% 0.4%2010 1.8% 0.2%2011 1.2% 0.1%2012 1.7% 0.3%2013 1.7% 0.2%2014 1.0% 0.2%2015 2.7% 0.3%
Apparent Prevalence of TB in WTD
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
4.5%
5.0%
96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15
Inside DMU452 5‐County Outside DMU452
TB Affected Herds per Year
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
# Infected Herds
Where are we going?
• Since 2012 we’ve wanted to enhance WRM
• In 2015 gained cattle industry support
• Began eWRM Project with a team‐epi approach– MDARD field veterinarian– Wildlife biologist– MSU Extension Agent– Local cattle producer
Community Approach
• 120 farms divided into 13 community clusters
• Clusters prioritized by risk
• Work on cluster 1 and 2
• Mitigation projects in cluster 1 done in Nov.
Overview• Michigan’s Progress• Current Program• Affected herds in FY16• New developments in FY16
• Summary
Summary
• Dealing with bTB since Dec. 1994
• Disease been contained to Michigan
• Established reservoir
• Implementing eWRM program– Community based approach
Michigan Departmentof Agriculture
@MichDeptofAg MIagriculture
Stay connected with MDARD
James Averill, DVM, PhDState Veterinarian
[email protected]‐284‐5667
