# Management of bovine tuberculosis in Michigan wildlife: UPDATE



## terry (Sep 13, 2002)

i ran across this and thought some of you might be interested...

kind regards,
terry



Management of bovine tuberculosis in Michigan wildlife: Current status and near term prospects 

References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Daniel J. OBriena, , , Stephen M. Schmitta, Scott D. Fitzgeraldb, c and Dale E. Berryd

a Wildlife Disease Laboratory, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 4125 Beaumont Road, Room 250, Lansing, MI 48910-8106, USA

b Diagnostic Center for Population and Animal Health, College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA

c Department of Pathobiology and Diagnostic Investigation, College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA

d Mycobacteriology Laboratory, Michigan Department of Community Health, 3350 N. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Lansing, MI 48909, USA

Available online 24 February 2011.

Abstract Surveillance and control activities for bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in free-ranging Michigan white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) have now been underway for over a decade. Significant progress has been made, lowering apparent prevalence in deer in the core area by >60%, primarily via reduction of deer densities through hunting, and restrictions on public feeding and baiting of deer. These broad strategies of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), implemented with the cooperation of Michigan deer hunters, halved the deer population in the bTB endemic area. However, as hunters see fewer deer, their willingness to sustain aggressive harvests has waned, and public resentment of control measures has grown.

During the past four years, apparent prevalence in core area deer has held approximately steady just below 2%. After bottoming out in 2004 at an estimated 1012 deer/km2, deer numbers have since rebounded by 30%. Public compliance with baiting and feeding restrictions has been variable. In general, hunters in the core area do not perceive bTB as a problem, in spite of 13 years of MDNR outreach. To date, MDNR has expended more than US$23 million on TB-related activities. Of late, a substantial portion of that funding has been diverted to support other programs which have suffered from budget shortfalls.

Livestock herd breakdowns continue to occur sporadically, averaging 34 per year 2005 to present. In total, 46 cattle and 4 captive deer herds have been diagnosed bTB positive statewide, the majority yielding only 1 positive animal. Five cattle herds were twice infected, one thrice. Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) policy emphasis has shifted towards obtaining producer support for wildlife risk mitigation and farm biosecurity. Funding has proven a limiting factor, with the majority of the US$63 million spent to date devoted to whole herd testing.

Nevertheless, some initiatives justify cautious optimism. Promising research to support eventual vaccination of wild deer continues. Some hunters and landowners have begun to recognize the costs of high deer densities and supplemental feeding. A peninsula-wide ban on baiting and feeding was enacted. Some cattle producers, recognizing their precarious circumstances, have begun work to change long-held prevailing opinions among their peers about farm biosecurity. Yet formidable challenges remain, and evidence suggests that eradication of bTB, if it can be achieved, will take decades, and will require greater public and political resolve than has been demonstrated thus far.

Keywords: Bovine tuberculosis; Mycobacterium bovis; Wildlife; White-tailed deer; Odocoileus virginianus


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378113511001234



Recent advances in the management of bovine tuberculosis in free-ranging wildlife 

References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Daniel J. OBriena, , , Stephen M. Schmitta, Brent A. Rudolphb, c and Graham Nugentd

a Wildlife Disease Laboratory, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 4125 Beaumont Road, Room 250, Lansing, MI 48910-8106, USA

b Rose Lake Wildlife Research Center, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 8562 E. Stoll Road, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA

c Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA

d Landcare Research Manaaki Whenua, PO Box 40, Gerald Street, Lincoln 7640, New Zealand

Available online 24 February 2011.

Abstract Established foci of Mycobacterium bovis (the causative agent of bovine tuberculosis [bTB]) in free-ranging wildlife are currently under various stages of management on three continents (Africa, Europe and North America) and in New Zealand. Other, as yet undiagnosed, foci seem likely to exist elsewhere. The complex roles that these wildlife foci play in the ecology of bTB remain among the greatest challenges facing bTB control globally.

Conceptually, management of bTB in free-ranging wildlife can be thought of as progressing from the discovery of an outbreak through frequently overlapping stages of epidemiological characterization, initial control, simulation and forecasting, focused control, and verification of eradication. Surveillance in its various forms remains a critical component of assessment throughout. Since the Fourth International M. bovis Conference in 2005, research on management of bTB in free-ranging wildlife has encompassed such areas as the human dimensions of wildlife management, mitigation of bTB risks from wildlife on cattle farms, vaccine biology, and epidemiology, with a major contribution from simulation modeling. In order to advance the actual field management of bTB, however, research must be sufficiently grounded to aid development of practical, affordable and politically defensible management interventions which stand a reasonable chance of being implemented.

The current management of two wildlife reservoirs of bTB, brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) in New Zealand, and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in Michigan, USA, serve as contrasting examples of different wildlife management strategies aimed at achieving a common goal. In New Zealand, the importance of agricultural export markets and the status of the possum as a non-native pest have facilitated direct, aggressive management of the disease reservoir, resulting in considerable progress towards bTB freedom since 1994. In Michigan, the relative importance of the hunting economy and of whitetails as a game animal have made such aggressive culling politically untenable. This has forced reliance upon publicly supported, and implemented, management tools, and so provided impetus to better understand social support for wildlife management policy, its limitations, and ways to employ it in disease control policy development.

Keywords: Bovine tuberculosis; Mycobacterium bovis; Free-ranging wildlife; Wildlife management



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378113511001039




Maintenance, spillover and spillback transmission of bovine tuberculosis in multi-host wildlife complexes: A New Zealand case study Purchase $ 31.50

References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Graham Nugent, a,

a Landcare Research Manaaki Whenua, PO Box 40, Gerald Street, Lincoln 7640, New Zealand

Available online 24 February 2011.

Abstract The causative agent of bovine tuberculosis (bTB; Mycobacterium bovis) has a broad host range. The role of each animal species in spreading the disease depends on how transmission occurs, on the abundance of each host, and on the interactions between hosts. This paper explores differences in the roles individual host species can play in allowing M. bovis infection to persist and spread within a multi-species complex, using New Zealand as a case study.

In New Zealand, four wild mammal species are frequently infected. Of these the brushtail possum is now regarded as the only true maintenance host. Red deer and ferrets can become maintenance hosts where their densities are exceptionally high, but more often they are spillover hosts, with most infection arising from moderately frequent inter-species transmission from possums. The latter situation is even more strongly the case for feral pigs. Spillover hosts may occasionally play a crucial epidemiological role by transmitting infection back to a potential maintenance host (spillback). Three key factors make spillback transmission far more epidemiologically important than its low frequency of occurrence might suggestamplification of the reservoir of bTB, far greater spatial spread than by the maintenance host, and greater persistence of bTB in long-lived spillover hosts extending the risk of spillback far into the future. The risk of spillback is undoubtedly low, but it nonetheless determines the nature, scale and duration of management required. Eradication of the disease may require management of both the infection in maintenance hosts and reduction or elimination of any risk of spillback.

Keywords: Bovine tuberculosis; Wild animals; Mycobacterium bovis; Multi-host pathogen; Spillover transmission



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378113511001040



Public acceptance as a determinant of management strategies for bovine tuberculosis in free-ranging U.S. wildlife Purchase $ 31.50

References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Michelle Carstensena, , , Daniel J. OBrienb and Stephen M. Schmittb

a Wildlife Health Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 5463-C West Broadway, Forest Lake, MN 55025, USA

b Wildlife Disease Laboratory, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 4125 Beaumont Road, Room 250, Lansing, MI 48910-8106, USA

Available online 24 February 2011.

Abstract When bovine tuberculosis (bTB) is detected in free-ranging wildlife populations, preventing geographic spread and the establishment of a wildlife reservoir requires rapid, often aggressive response. Public tolerance can exert a significant effect on potential control measures available to managers, and thus on the success of disease management efforts. Separate outbreaks of bTB in free-ranging white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in two midwestern states provide a case study.

In Minnesota, bTB was first discovered in cattle in 2005 and subsequently in deer. To date, 12 beef cattle farms and 26 white-tailed deer have been found infected with the disease. From 2005 to 2008, disease prevalence in deer has decreased from 0.4% (SE = 0.2%) to <0.1% and remained confined to a small (<425 km2) geographic area. Deer population reduction through liberalized hunting and targeted culling by ground sharpshooting and aerial gunning, combined with a prohibition on baiting and recreational feeding, have likely been major drivers preventing disease spread thus far. Without support from cattle producers, deer hunters and the general public, as well as politicians, implementation of these aggressive strategies by state and federal authorities would not have been possible.

In contrast, Michigan first discovered bovine bTB in free-ranging deer in 1975, and disease management efforts were not instituted until 1995. The first infected cattle herd was diagnosed in 1998. Since 1995, disease prevalence in free-ranging deer has decreased from 4.9% to 1.8% in the 1500 km2 core outbreak area. Culture positive deer have been found as far as 188 km from the core area. Liberalized harvest and restrictions on baiting and feeding have facilitated substantial reductions in prevalence. However, there has been little support on the part of hunters, farmers or the general public for more aggressive population reduction measures such as culling, and compliance with baiting and feeding restrictions has been variable and often problematic.

We compare and contrast the Minnesota and Michigan outbreaks with respect to temporal, social, economic, and logistical factors that shape public attitudes toward aggressive disease control strategies, the limitations these factors place on management, and the implications for bTB eradication from wildlife reservoirs in the U.S.

Keywords: Bovine tuberculosis; Mycobacterium bovis; Wildlife; White-tailed deer; Odocoileus virginianus

Article Outline

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378113511001271




Update on vaccination of cattle and wildlife populations against tuberculosis Purchase $ 31.50

References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Bryce M. Buddlea, , , D. Neil Wedlocka, Michel Denisa, H. Martin Vordermeierb and R. Glyn Hewinsonb

a AgResearch, Hopkirk Research Institute, Palmerston North, New Zealand

b TB Research Group, Veterinary Laboratories Agency, Addlestone, United Kingdom

Available online 24 February 2011.

Abstract In this review, the status of vaccination strategies to reduce bovine tuberculosis of cattle and wildlife reservoirs of the disease is discussed, with a focus on recent developments. Recent work in vaccines to protect humans against tuberculosis has been followed by a similar surge of interest in developing vaccines against bovine tuberculosis. The human vaccine, bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) affords protection against tuberculosis in cattle, but this protection is variable. In addition, vaccination with BCG compromises control strategies based on skin testing animals. In general, no single vaccine approach has shown itself to be significantly superior to BCG alone, however, vaccine combinations of BCG and vaccinating moiety such as adjuvanted subunit, virus vectored or DNA vaccines have been shown to induce protection superior to that achieved by BCG alone. Vaccinating wildlife species against tuberculosis is also an area which has been subjected to scrutiny. Recent work has focused on vaccinating wildlife orally, via the use of BCG formulated in baits consumed by these species. Results from trials in a number of animal species indicate that oral BCG vaccination can reduce disease severity following experimental challenge with Mycobacterium bovis and in a recent field trial, oral BCG vaccination was shown to prevent infection of wild possums following natural exposure to M. bovis. In conclusion, recent studies in cattle and wildlife have demonstrated the practicality and effectiveness of vaccinating animals against tuberculosis and provide much impetus for future use of vaccines.

Keywords: Bovine tuberculosis; Mycobacterium bovis; Vaccine; Cattle; Wildlife


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378113511001027




http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/issue/5190-2011-998489998-3247845



TSS


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

Inaccurate information and poor spelling of names-this is a scientific report? Those were the first documented reports of diseased cattle by the state but those cattle were not the first that had Btb in northeast Michigan by any stretch of the imagination. Compared with other remarks that Dr. Schmidt has made, this report is somewhat strange. Undoubtledly Btb exists in NE Michigan and also undoubtedly it will take decades, if then, to eliminate it. Also the prospect of utilizing a vaccine on domestic stock offers the best hope for protecting that industry.


----------



## 7mmsendero (Dec 2, 2010)

$63 million would by a lot of high fence for dairy operations. I noticed that was the reported amount of money spent on testing dairy herds, maybe we are missing the target here. Seems to me that money would be better spent buildng fences for farmers.

I just noticed that MDNR has spent an additional $23 million. Fences may not be pretty, but it would work. 

I wonder how much it would cost to build deer fences for every dairy farmer in Northern Lower Michigan? I think much less than $86 million.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Or maybe fences for the deer farmers.


----------



## 7mmsendero (Dec 2, 2010)

swampbuck said:


> Or maybe fences for the deer farmers.


Regardless, we should all be concerned about $86 million being spent and the problems are getting worse. If things are so bad in the NLP that it required the Disease Control Permit program, then why not help out the dairy farmers with fences? The shooting is already on where I hunt.

So what exactly does the face represent? Seems like an odd thing to include in a post. I guess I'm just too new to the whole "internets" thing.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

The point of a fence for the deer farmers is this.........

The primary reason for the decline in TB prevalance after it was discovered was a substantial reduction in the deer herd. Now the deer density and bTB are stagnant or creeping back up.

But heres the deal IMO.....The deer density on public land remains very low while many private landowners/clubs have decided over the years to manage the deer density for there benefit/a return on their investment. So now the public land guys are saying if they can do it so can we, so many are reducing their doe harvest. Want proof check out the disparity between public and private harvest numbers.

I do however agree that the cattle ranches could do more. There is a cost share program already available.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

7mmsendero said:


> $63 million would by a lot of high fence for dairy operations. I noticed that was the reported amount of money spent on testing dairy herds, maybe we are missing the target here. Seems to me that money would be better spent buildng fences for farmers.
> 
> I just noticed that MDNR has spent an additional $23 million. Fences may not be pretty, but it would work.
> 
> I wonder how much it would cost to build deer fences for every dairy farmer in Northern Lower Michigan? I think much less than $86 million.


MDA and USDA have had a program in place since 2008 that provides both some cost sharing and some other incentives for farmers in the TB zone that take preventative steps, including fencing, it's called the wildlife risk mitigation project. I believe the cost has been around $5K per farm for fencing. There are approx. 1,000 cattle & dairy producers in the bTB zone. Fencing has shown to be a very effective tool in bTB risk reduction efforts. As of this spring, around 600 farms have instigated some form of risk mitigation, the goal is to reach 1,000 in the MAZ, by the end of 2011 but not all of those will involve fencing.


----------



## e. fairbanks (Dec 6, 2007)

The Lab at MSU will be there to assist future generations of TB Eradicators in their efforts to combat the disease in both wild and domesticated animals


----------

