Perceptions of veterinarians and producers concerning Johne’s disease prevalence and control in US beef cow-calf operations

Abstract

BackgroundEfforts to educate producers and veterinarians in the United States regarding the management, prevention and control of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis (MAP) infection have increased over recent years. While nationwide awareness about MAP infection is improving, current level of awareness among beef producers and veterinarians is largely unknown. This study compares the perceptions of beef producers and veterinarians on the burden of MAP infection in cow-calf herds and on measures to control new infections. Questionnaires were mailed to 989 US beef producers through state Designated Johne’s Coordinators and to 1080 bovine veterinarians belonging to a US nationwide professional association.ResultsTwenty-two percent (34/155) of producers reported having infected animals in their herds. The mean (minimum, median, maximum) prevalence reported by producers was 0.8% (0, 0, 10). Twenty-seven percent (27/100) of producers had at least one clinical animal during the previous year. Compared to the small herds (<50 head), the mean test-positive percentages and estimated prevalences were higher in medium (50–149) and highest in large (≥150) herds. Seedstock herds had a lower prevalence and these producers were more likely to enroll in Johne’s disease (JD) control programs and test their herds. Veterinarians reported a mean overall animal level prevalence in their client herds of 5% (0, 2, 60). Similarly, 26% (0, 10, 100) of client herds had at least one infected animal. Mean percentage of infected cows within infected herds was 9% (0.01, 5, 80). Producers generally performed activities to control MAP transmission more frequently than perceived by veterinarians. Compared to veterinarians’ opinions, producers were less likely to cull cows with signs consistent with JD (P < 0.01), but more likely to test purchased additions (P < 0.01). Testing recommendations by veterinarians (n = 277) for beef cow-calf herds were bacterial culture of feces (3%), PCR (14%), ELISA (35%) and a combination of these tests (47%). Seventy-nine percent of veterinarians recommended a 12-month interval between testing.ConclusionsSeedstock producers who had had JD risk assessments performed on their farms were more supportive of JD control programs and had a correspondingly lower prevalence. It is important to increase educational activities to provide relevant information to veterinarians and producers for better management and control of JD. Educational programs should target larger herds to maximize the impact.

Limitations in the implementation of control measures for bovine paratuberculosis in infected Swiss dairy and beef herds

“…Thus, although comparable data are not available from European countries, the perception of PTB and the motivation of dairy farmers toward control measures appear to be similar across countries and continents. Similar perceptions and motivations have been described for beef farmers in North America as well [27,28].…”

“…Economic considerations can also be a motivator for implementing management changes, depending on the awareness of the farm manager about the economic impact of the disease. Several authors have reported that the losses associated with PTB are often underestimated by farmers [ 12 , 28 , 30 ]. In small herds as in our study, the number of clinical cases on the farm and, therefore, the directly visible losses due to PTB may be relatively low.…”

Mycobacterium Avium Paratuberculosis: A Disease Burden on the Dairy Industry

“…Studies show a prevalence of above 50% for MAP in dairy herds in countries operating intensive farming systems [ 40 ] with low levels (5%) of clinical disease [ 44 ]. Indeed, in the United States, prevalence ranges from 68 to 91% in dairy herds and 8% of beef herds [ 45 ] with estimates typically based on ELISA, fecal culture, or PCR techniques. Estimating prevalence of infection is difficult as identification of MAP is achieved mostly via fecal culture, with no symptoms of infection in the animal subclinically.…”

Veterinary experiences of a Johne's disease control programme in Ireland

“…The private veterinary practitioner (PVP) is considered an important source of information for farmers on disease control generally 1–3 . Although herd PVPs may actively engage with their clients on JD control strategies, the effectiveness of this engagement and the potential for compliance with control measures can be undermined by a lack of PVP training and confidence in specific JD epidemiology 4 5 . A number of countries including Canada, the UK and the Netherlands currently have JD control programmes that involve PVP training and direct farmer engagement, and in which on‐farm risk assessment forms a central component 6 .…”