A2O- Lancaster Farming, Saturday, May 14, 1994
Efforts Under
(Continued from Pago Al)
practicing dairy veterinarian,
many hopes of an aggressive, pre
ventative animal health program
depend on how well cooperation
and funding continue to support
the young program.
The benefits of such an under
taking are many and the implica
tions for human health are great.
The reason for the need of such a
program are evident.
Background
During the mid-80s, there were
several disease problems that were
identified in the state. The one that
had the niost impact was avian
influenza, according to Card.
“And then it became apparent
that there was a fairly high inci
dence of Johne’s disease in cattle,”
he said. “Prior to that, we had a
problem with tuberculosis, actual
ly it was avian T.B. but it was
affecting swine. Then psuedora
bies in swine. All of these diseases
are relatively difficult to control,
without good laboratory diagnosis
and continued testing and
surveillance.
“At the time, I was at Penn State,
department head of veterinary sci
ence, and several of us had made
the suggestion at that time
inlcuding the faculty, the dean of
the vet school at the University of
Pennsylvania and said we
should really pull together these
resources we have, because we had
people up there at Penn State who
were good at various types of diag
nostic activities.
“(University of Pennsylvania)
had people who were good at vari
ous types of diagnostics, and of
course Summerdale has a some
what different approach, because
they do a lot of import and export
testing and a lot of regulatory test
ing, so they do a lot of high volume
tests that are done rapidly,” Card
said.
“So each lab had a different
emphasis
“Suggestions were made and I
think a white paper was written at
New Bolton that suggested that
was a way that we might go to
make more effective the resources
present m the state.
“And that’s what happened. So
the act was written, passed in 1988,
as legislation, and was enacted in
1989, signed into law
“At that time, they appointed
commissioners six farmers,
three vets, tour legislators (the
political minority and majority
chairmen of the Senate and House
Agricultural and Rural Affairs
committees), and the secretary of
agriculture as the designated chair
of the Animal Health Commission.
“The verbiage in the enactment
was that they wanted to develop a
tripartite lab system, pulling
together or integrating the resour
ces of the Penn State Univesrtiy,
University of Pennyslvania and
Summcrdale (the PDA diagnostic
lab). That was the main objective
when I came here almost two years
ago,” Card said.
“Secondly, they wanted to deve
lop a stronger research focus on
animal disease by trying to attract
external funding, from other than
the state line funding that comes
from PDA, they wanted an integra
tion of research activities, evalua
tion of results and dissemination of
information.
“So, what they wanted really
was a system that would look at
research in animal health in the
state and make it more available to
people who could use it, and thus
provide more knowledge for
farmers.
ay To Build Animal Disease Fighting Ability
field investigations and disease
surviellance,” Card said.
According to the director, the
law also called for the develop
ment of a “cadre” of scientists
from Penn State, University of
PDA Publishes Johne’s Disease Pamphlet
VERNON ACHENBACH
JR.
Lancaster Fanning Staff
HARRISBURG (Dauphin
Co.) While the Animal
Health and Diagnostic Com
mission of- the state Depart
ment of Agriculture is
attempting to bring the animal
diagnostic laboratory system
up to a modem level, it is also
actively working to combat
animal disease now.
This week a pamphlet was
printed by the PDA that com
bines information about one of
the most worrisome diseases
to the dairy industry, Johne’s
Disease.
The text of the pamphlet,
distributed by the PDA, was
prepared by R.H. Whitlock,
L.J. Hutchinson, and R.W.
Sweeney, of the Pennsylvania
Johne’s Research Team, and
C. Rossitcr, of Cornell Uni
versity in November last year.
According to the text, the
disease is caused by Mycobac
terium paratuberculosis, and it
was first identified by Dr.
Heinrich Albert Johne. It is
slow-growing, requiring 14
weeks to grow under ideal
conditions and it affects cattle,
sheep, goats, deer, llamas,
buffalo and other ruminants,
such as whitetail deer.
It can be carried without
symptoms for two to several
years after infection. Infection
can come from birth or an
infected environment.
Calves can get it from dams
while in the uterus, from
ingesting pieces of manure, or
from the teat or udder of a
cow.
If one shows signs of it
normal appetite, but weight
loss and diarrhea the
authors of the pamphlet state
that, “15-20 other animals arc
likely mlcclcd The clinicl
case represents only the ‘tip of
the iceberg’ ol Johnc’s infec
tion However, only 40-50
percent ol all mlcctcd cattle
can be detected with even our
most sensitive (lest).
According to the experts, if
25 to 30 animals arc lest posi
tive on a single herd lest of 100
adults, it suggests that probab
ly 50 percent or more arc
infected.
Estimates arc that it may
cause a loss of about $5.8 mil
lion per year to the Pennsylva
nia dairy industry, and it is
also prcvclant in other large
dairy slates, according to
researchers.
And while calves bom with
it would only show the disease
after they are at least two years
old, and can represent a signif
icant economic loss to dairy
farmers, the researchers state
that having it discovered on a
farm doesn’t necessarily mean
the end of business.
The following is that por
tion of the pamphlet that tells
about managing a herd for
Johne’s control. The full pam
phlets should be available
through the state Department
of Agriculture, and also
Penn, or Summerdale to
“intervene on a more scheduled
basis in disease crisis.”
“They wanted us to become
awarp of disease processes that
were going on in domestic animals
through the local extension
office soon.
Managing Johne’s
How is Johne’s disease con
trolled on the farm?
The general strategy: There
is no treatment for Johne’s
disease.
The key to preventing, con
trolling and eliminating
Johne’s in a herd is
MANAGEMENT.
Testing is a valuable tool to
evaluate the extent of the
infection, to identify infected
animals, determine the inten
sity of a control program, and
to monitor progress of control
efforts.
The general strategy for
controlling infection is to
identify and adopt appropriate
management and sanitation
procedures for the farm that
will best accomplish three
main goals:
1. Prevent highly suscepti
ble newborn calves and young
animals from ingesting man
ure from infected adults, be it
from the dam, the environ
ment, or the feed (or water).
2. Prevent all other suscep
tible animals from the gesting
low levels of infected manure,
especially by contamination
of feed and water.
3. Reduce the total farm
exposure level to Microbac
terium paratuberculosis by
removing the bacteria from
the environment and reducing
the number of infected ani
mals that are shedding the
bacteria.
Goals one and two are
achieved by sanitation and
accepted good management
practices, which benefit the
farm as a whole.
Goal three is accomplished
by more rigorous sanitation
and testing and culling specifi
cally lor Johnc’s disease.
For a given level of infec
tion, detecting and culling
infected animals early in die
disease will speed the rale at
which Johnc’s is reduced or
eliminated from a herd.
Specific recommendations:
The specifics and intensity of
a Johnc’s disease control
strategy in cattle will vary
with the individual farm situa
tion. To be relevant and effec
tive it must be designed to fit
the immediate and future
goals of the farm, and avail
able resources.
Many specific methods can
be used to accomplish the
three main goals, but the most
effective and practical mea
sures to break the cycle are
outlined.
• Management of new
born calves and young ani
mals is critical and is the
most effective place to put
the effort:
Calves should be bom in an
area that is dry, clean of man
ure, and well bedded. Areas
used only by one or a few ani
mals at a time and for materni
ty ONLY should be the goal.
Clean tests and udders are a
must.
in the state, and then to intervene
on a planned basis rather than
reactionary.”
There were three major respon
sibilities, according to Card. He
said the goals were to first
The most effective control
measure is to remove newborn
calves from the dam and
maternity area immediately,
thus ELIMINATING the
chance to ingest manure in
attempts to find the udder and
nurse.
Feed newborns colostrum,
ideally within one to two
hours, from only healthy
appearing dams, who are less
likely to pass M. paratubercu
losis into the udder and milk.
Milk replacer eliminates the
nsk of possible infection from
feeding whole or pooled milk
to calves. Replacer should be
seriously considered especial
ly in herds with significant
infection.
Young calves and heifers
should be housed separate
from adults and should have
no direct contact with manure
from adult cattle. Separate
facilities are ideal but sections
protected by partitions, dry
alley-ways or buffer zones, or
low traffic zones are effective.
Do NOT contaminate feed
or feed mangers with manure
from feet or equipment.
• Management to prevent
low levels of exposure in all
older animals is important:
Prevent manure contamina
tion of feed and waterers. IX)
NOT use the same loader or
equipment to clean manure
and to load feed.
DO NOT walk in the feed
bunks. Eliminate or fence ani
mals out of natural water sour
ces that they drink, that also
are slow moving or stagnant,
and collect run-off containing
manure that animals stand in.
• Identifying and remov
ing infected animals and
their manure is necessary to
reduce the risk of continued
exposure for ALL animals:
Test the herd to identify
infected animals that arc, or
probably will be shedding the
bacteria. Based on evaluation
of results, infected animals,
should be culled as heavily as
economics permit.
The most severe should be
culled first.
An initial lest of the whole
herd followed by aggressive
culling is very effective in ini
tially reducing the prevalence
in the herd. Appropriate man
agement should be started at
the same time.
Testing and culling, com
bined with management, will
control Johne’s disease more
effectively and in less time
than partial culling and man
agement or either alone.
Frequency of testing and
culling will depend on what is
practical for the farm.
The simplest and most
effective approach to take in
any infected herd is to man
age all animals as if they are
infected and as if all manure
is guilty.
This management attitude
works all the lime, and is espe
cially important if testing and
early culling is not practical.
Attempt to recognize and
strengthen the system, build the
diagnostics program, which had
received little attention since it was
constructed during the 19505, and
getting more people out in the field
(Turn to Pag* A2l)
cull animals suspicious with
clinical signs, earlier, before
they further contaminate facil
ities and lose salvage value.
These animals are shedding
billions of organisms each
day. If uncertain, ISOLATE or
cull anyway, and test to con
firm for your knowledge.
Sanitation has no substitute.
Remove manure as thorough
ly and as often as possible.
Always strive for more often.
Spread manure on cropland,
not on pasture to be harvested
or grazed the same season.
• Reduce the risk of intro
ducing infected animals into
the herd, especially when eli
mination of the infection is
the goal:
Be cautious and investigate
animals to be purchased.
Purchase animals from test
negative herds, herds with no
history of Johne’s and/or
farms that look clean.
Reduce risk by prior testing
with serology or by fecal cul
ture immediately when ani
mals arrive.
The goals of a Johne’s Dis
ease control program are
several.
In herds with low to mod
erate infection (1 percent or
fewer clinical cases per year),
wise use of a combination of
testing, culling and manage
ment can be expected to
reduce the clinical disease to
zero within 1 to 3 years and
most infection in 5 to 7 years.
Thus, as the herd turns over,
each succeeding generation
will have fewer infected ani
mals, eventually all of which
will be non-shedders.
Finally, the infection will
be eliminated.
Complete elimination of
infected cattle is likely to take
many years alter Johne’s dis
ease becomes invisible in the
herd. Preventive management
should remain in place other
wise Johne’s disease is likely
to recur.
With repeated negative
herd tests, herds can qualify
for paraluberculosis test nega
tive certification status in PA
and NY. These stale programs
are consistent with the Nation
al Paraluberculosis Certifica
tion Program Guidelines
adopted by the USAHA,
November 1993.
Herds with more severe
widespread infection will
require aggressive control
programs and many years to
eliminate Johne’s disease.
However, a practical control
program and sound herd man
agement can be expected to
eliminate clinical disease in
these herds and reduce the
economic impact of Johne’s in
the herd to a minimum.
For more information on
control programs, contact in
New York-NYS Diagnostic
Laboratory, ITHACA 14852
607-253-3931 and Pennsylva
nia; Penn State University
814-863-7696 or University
of Pennsylvania
610-444-5800.