On-Farm Mitigation of Transmission of Tuberculosis from White-Tailed Deer to Cattle: Literature Review and Recommendations

Abstract

The Animal Industry Division of the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) has been challenged with assisting farmers with modifying farm practices to reduce potential for exposure to Mycobacterium bovis from wildlife to cattle. The MDARD recommendations for on-farm risk mitigation practices were developed from experiences in the US, UK and Ireland and a review of the scientific literature. The objectives of our study were to review the present state of knowledge on M. bovis excretion, transmission, and survival in the environment and the interactions of wildlife and cattle with the intention of determining if the current recommendations by MDARD on farm practices are adequate and to identify additional changes to farm practices that may help to mitigate the risk of transmission. This review will provide agencies with a comprehensive summary of the scientific literature on mitigation of disease transmission between wildlife and cattle and to identify lacunae in published research.

Effectiveness of cattle operated bump gates and exclusion fences in preventing ungulate multi-host sanitary interaction

“…Our methods can be used in the context of integrated plans to mitigate pathogen transmission between cattle and wildlife, as Walter et al (2012) recommends in Michigan, USA and can contribute to improved cost-effectiveness of such strategies. Where wildlife maintain disease (Naranjo et al, 2008), measures solely targeting biosecurity are unlikely to resolve the problem (Gortazar et al, 2011b).…”

“…Nonetheless, the complex aspect in our study resides in the fact that effective segregation of cattle and wildlife is required when both species share farm habitat , and already tested physical barriers that deter wild ungulates also impede passage of cattle. Our results will assist farmers in developing strategies for modifying farm practices to reduce potential for transmission of disease agents between wildlife and cattle by (i) impeding cattle access to standing water sources (e.g., waterholes, springs) commonly used by wildlife (Walter et al, 2012) and (ii) impeding wildlife access to water sources (e.g., water troughs) commonly used by cattle.…”

“…Previous studies remark the possibility of indirect TB transmission between wildlife and cattle (Palmer et al, 2001;Phillips et al, 2003;VerCauteren et al, 2008;Walter et al, 2012). For example in UK, cattle could be infected by contact with farm buildings (feed stores and cattle sheds) and grazing on grass contaminated by badger urine, faeces, sputum or wound exudates (e.g.…”

Evaluating wildlife-cattle contact rates to improve the understanding of dynamics of bovine tuberculosis transmission in Michigan, USA

“…Consistent with previous work (Gortazar et al, 2011(Gortazar et al, , 2015, we focused on characterizing indirect contacts through cattle-related resources such as feed and water which are likely hot spots for pathogen contamination by wildlife species (Atwood et al, 2009;Joseph et al, 2013;Palmer and Whipple, 2006;Ward et al, 2006;Walter et al, 2012). Our findings demonstrate indirect contacts resulting from wildlife visitation to unprotected resources are of primary concern, especially when that same feed is delivered shortly afterwards to cattle.…”

“…This area lies within the core endemic area of bTB in MI (Walter et al, 2012;Berentsen et al, 2014) and provides highly suitable habitat for white-tailed deer (Felix et al, 2007). High-use, cattle-related areas and feed storage sites were present on each farm.…”