1

Environmental distribution of Environmental distribution of M. paratuberculosis on cow-calf M. paratuberculosis on cow-calf

farms with clinical Johne’s farms with clinical Johne’s disease in Western Canadadisease in Western Canada

Dale Douma DVMWestern College of Veterinary

Medicine

2

OutlineOutline

Introduction to the Johne’s DiseaseIntroduction to the Johne’s Disease ResearchResearch

Prevalence StudyPrevalence Study Wildlife StudyWildlife Study Environment StudyEnvironment Study

ConclusionsConclusions

3

What is Johne’s disease?What is Johne’s disease?

Chronic granulomatous enteritis of Chronic granulomatous enteritis of ruminantsruminants

Signs include:Signs include: Profuse diarrheaProfuse diarrhea Severe weight lossSevere weight loss Altered lining of the intestineAltered lining of the intestine

Thickened and corrugated mucosaThickened and corrugated mucosa

Caused by Mycobacterium Caused by Mycobacterium paratuberculosisparatuberculosis

http://www.johnes.org

4

History of Johne’sHistory of Johne’s

Bacterial cause discovered Bacterial cause discovered by Dr. H. Johne and Dr. L. by Dr. H. Johne and Dr. L. Frothingham in 1895 in Frothingham in 1895 in GermanyGermany

Acid fast bacteria similar to Acid fast bacteria similar to M. avium and pathology M. avium and pathology similar to intestinal similar to intestinal tuberculosis in cattletuberculosis in cattle

First found in North America First found in North America in 1908in 1908

http://www.johnes.org/history/index.html

5

M. paratuberculosisM. paratuberculosis

aka M. avium paratuberculosis aka M. avium paratuberculosis “Map”“Map” Virtually identical to M. avium Virtually identical to M. avium

genetically (>99%)genetically (>99%) Behaves differentlyBehaves differently

Mycobactin dependant for iron transportMycobactin dependant for iron transport Slower growingSlower growing Primarily infects ruminants but not Primarily infects ruminants but not

exclusivelyexclusively

6

M. paratuberculosisM. paratuberculosis

Small Gram-positive rod-shaped Small Gram-positive rod-shaped bacteriumbacterium

Acid Fast positive Acid Fast positive Tendency to clump togetherTendency to clump together Waxy rough cell wallWaxy rough cell wall Can survive outside of host Can survive outside of host Replicates inside of macrophagesReplicates inside of macrophages

7

Johne’s Disease Johne’s Disease Transmission Cycle:Transmission Cycle:

Pic

ture

s fr

om

: h

ttp

://w

ww

.joh

nes.

org

8

Why present at ADED?Why present at ADED? Cattle prevalence increasingCattle prevalence increasing

Host range expanding?Host range expanding? Other ruminantsOther ruminants Non-ruminantsNon-ruminants PrimatesPrimates

Zoonotic concernZoonotic concern Crohn’s diseaseCrohn’s disease

Positive association evidentPositive association evident

http://www.johnes.org/zoonotic/index.html

9

Research ObjectivesResearch Objectives

Determine the seroprevalence of Map in Determine the seroprevalence of Map in Canadian beef cow-calf herdsCanadian beef cow-calf herds

Survey wildlife present on cow-calf farms Survey wildlife present on cow-calf farms that may be infected with Mapthat may be infected with Map

Characterize the distribution of Map Characterize the distribution of Map within the environment of these cow-calf within the environment of these cow-calf herds herds

Evaluate the potential of using Evaluate the potential of using environmental sampling as a economical environmental sampling as a economical herd testherd test

10

Seroprevalence StudySeroprevalence Study

Production Limiting Disease Production Limiting Disease Committee research projectCommittee research project

Collected 4778 serum samples from Collected 4778 serum samples from 179 cow-calf herds across Canada in 179 cow-calf herds across Canada in 2003 2003 excluding Manitoba and Quebecexcluding Manitoba and Quebec

11

Table 1. Summary of the results of cow and herd level seroprevalence by province.

Animal Level Prevalence Herd Level Prevalence (≥2 pos.)

Region

No. of cows tested

positive

No. of cows

tested

Apparent Prevalence %

(95%CI)

No. of herds tested

positive

No. of herds tested

Prevalence % (95%CI)

Alberta 7 833 0.8% (0-1.7) 2 29 6.9% (0-16.3)

British Columbia 3 1196 0.3% (0-0.5) 0 44 0.0%

Ontario 11 1037 1.1% (0-2.1) 3 40 7.5% (0-15.8)

Saskatchewan 5 880 0.6% (0-1.1) 1 32 3.1% (0-9.3)

Maritimes (NB,NS,PEI) 11 832 1.3% (0-2.6) 2 34 5.9% (0-13.9)

     

Overall 37 4778 0.8% (0.4-1.1) 8 179 4.5% (1.4-7.5)

Serologic results determined by Elisa testing using the optical density cutoff of 0.100 above the mean of two negative controls

12

Wildlife SurveyWildlife Survey

Trapped wild rodents and birds on 6 Trapped wild rodents and birds on 6 cow-calf herds with clinical Johne’s cow-calf herds with clinical Johne’s diseasedisease

4 rounds of trapping4 rounds of trapping One round every 3 months for one yearOne round every 3 months for one year

13

Wildlife SurveyWildlife Survey

Results – all 4 roundsResults – all 4 rounds 202 Birds (sparrows, junco, swallows, 202 Birds (sparrows, junco, swallows,

etc)etc) 236 Rodents (house mice, deer mice, 236 Rodents (house mice, deer mice,

RGS, etc)RGS, etc) No positive samples No positive samples

Birds and rodents appear to be non Birds and rodents appear to be non susceptible or unaffected by Map due to low susceptible or unaffected by Map due to low exposure on cow-calf farms exposure on cow-calf farms

14

Coyote SurveyCoyote Survey Part of tuberculosis study by Dr. Gary Wobeser Part of tuberculosis study by Dr. Gary Wobeser

and Dr. Cheryl Sangster and Dr. Cheryl Sangster Lymph nodes collected from 82 trapped coyotes Lymph nodes collected from 82 trapped coyotes

around Riding Mountain National Park and around Riding Mountain National Park and submitted for culture to the CFIAsubmitted for culture to the CFIA

0 positive for tuberculosis0 positive for tuberculosis 3 positive for Map (3.7%; 95% CI 0-7.7)3 positive for Map (3.7%; 95% CI 0-7.7)

SignificanceSignificance First report of Map cultured from multiple coyotes at First report of Map cultured from multiple coyotes at

one locationone location Further research required Further research required

15

Map of trapped coyote locations

Blue – Map Negative Red – Map Positive

RMNP

16

Environmental StudyEnvironmental Study

MethodMethod Enrolled 27 herds with a history of Enrolled 27 herds with a history of

clinical Johne’s disease clinical Johne’s disease Collected approx. 15 environmental Collected approx. 15 environmental

samples per herd during the calving samples per herd during the calving seasonseason

Collected manure from up to 150 cattle Collected manure from up to 150 cattle per herd to estimate prevalenceper herd to estimate prevalence Cultured in pools of 5Cultured in pools of 5

Compared results of test methodsCompared results of test methods

17

Environmental StudyEnvironmental Study

ResultsResults Water SamplesWater Samples

26 biofilm samples, 54 samples from 26 biofilm samples, 54 samples from waterers, 21 dugout samples, and 13 farm waterers, 21 dugout samples, and 13 farm drainage samples including creeks and drainage samples including creeks and riversrivers

0 culture positive for Map0 culture positive for Map

18

Environmental StudyEnvironmental Study 243 non-water environmental samples were 243 non-water environmental samples were

collectedcollected 15 (6.2%) were positive for Map15 (6.2%) were positive for Map

chute systems: 4/26 (15.6%)chute systems: 4/26 (15.6%) outside cattle feeders: 3/21 (14.3%)outside cattle feeders: 3/21 (14.3%) inside cattle feeders: 2/21 (9.5%)inside cattle feeders: 2/21 (9.5%) mothering-up pens: 2/13 (15.4%)mothering-up pens: 2/13 (15.4%) bullpens : 1/7 (14.3%)bullpens : 1/7 (14.3%) turnout pens: 1/10 (10.0%) turnout pens: 1/10 (10.0%) calf shelters: 1/18 (5.6%)calf shelters: 1/18 (5.6%) calving pens: 1/26 (3.8%)calving pens: 1/26 (3.8%)

No Map was detected in 101 samples from: pastures (24), No Map was detected in 101 samples from: pastures (24), hospital pens (19), manure storage areas (17), young stock hospital pens (19), manure storage areas (17), young stock pens (10), creep feeders (7), mineral supplements (4), calf pens (10), creep feeders (7), mineral supplements (4), calf pens (2), and other areas of owner concern (18).pens (2), and other areas of owner concern (18).

19

Environmental StudyEnvironmental Study

Results for Environmental Testing as a Results for Environmental Testing as a Herd TestHerd Test 8 of 27 (29.6%) herds had at least one 8 of 27 (29.6%) herds had at least one

positive environmental samplepositive environmental sample 17 of 27 (63.0%) herds had at least one 17 of 27 (63.0%) herds had at least one

positive fecal poolpositive fecal pool 2 of 27 (7.4%) herds were positive only on 2 of 27 (7.4%) herds were positive only on

environmental samplingenvironmental sampling 9 of 27 (33.3%) herds were positive only 9 of 27 (33.3%) herds were positive only

with fecal pool cultureswith fecal pool cultures

20

In ConclusionIn Conclusion

At this time:At this time: Johne’s prevalence in cow-calf herds in Johne’s prevalence in cow-calf herds in

Canada is relatively lowCanada is relatively low Environmental contamination of Map on Environmental contamination of Map on

cow-calf farms is lowcow-calf farms is low The time to act is nowThe time to act is now

Environmental sampling as done in this Environmental sampling as done in this research study is not sensitive enough research study is not sensitive enough at this time to replace animal samplingat this time to replace animal sampling

21

Thank you!Thank you!

Funding Agencies:Funding Agencies: Agriculture Development Fund of Agriculture Development Fund of

SaskatchewanSaskatchewan Beef Cattle Research Council Beef Cattle Research Council Beef Development Fund of SaskatchewanBeef Development Fund of Saskatchewan Wildlife Health FundWildlife Health Fund Interprovincial Graduate Student Interprovincial Graduate Student

FellowshipFellowship