Modeled detection time for surveillance for foot-and-mouth disease virus in bulk tank milk

Mark C. Thurmond Center for Animal Diseases Modeling and Surveillance, Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA 95616.

Search for other papers by Mark C. Thurmond in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
 DVM, PhD
and
Andrés M. Perez Center for Animal Diseases Modeling and Surveillance, Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA 95616.

Search for other papers by Andrés M. Perez in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
 DVM, PhD
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.67.12.2017
Volume/Issue:
Volume 67: Issue 12
Online Publication Date:
01 Dec 2006
Restricted access
Sign In Reprints and Permissions Purchase Article

Abstract

Objective—To estimate when foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) would first be detected in bulk tank milk of dairies after exposure to FMDV.

Sample Population—Hypothetical dairy herds milking 100, 500, or 1,000 cows.

Procedures—For each day after herd exposure to FMDV, infection, milk yield, and virolactia were simulated for individual cows with low and high rates of intraherd transmission to estimate when a PCR assay would detect virus in bulk tank milk. Detection limits were based on assumptions for the number of virus genomes per milliliter of milk and for analytical sensitivity of a PCR assay.

Results—A mean of 10% of the cows was predicted to have FMD lesions from 7 to 8 days and from 13.5 to 15 days after herd exposure for herds with high and low intraherd transmission rates, respectively. Herd bulk milk volume decreased by 10% by 8.5 to 9.5 days and by 15 to 16.5 days after herd exposure for herds with high and low transmission rates, respectively. Mean times by which FMDV would be first detected in bulk milk were 2.5 days and 6.5 to 8 days after herd exposure, which were extended for 10 to 11 days and 17 to 18 days for herds with high and low transmission rates, respectively.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—PCR screening of bulk milk for FMDV would likely detect FMDV in dairy herds several days sooner than might be expected for owner reporting of clinical signs and thus should be worthy of consideration for regional, national, or global FMD surveillance.

Abstract

Objective—To estimate when foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) would first be detected in bulk tank milk of dairies after exposure to FMDV.

Sample Population—Hypothetical dairy herds milking 100, 500, or 1,000 cows.

Procedures—For each day after herd exposure to FMDV, infection, milk yield, and virolactia were simulated for individual cows with low and high rates of intraherd transmission to estimate when a PCR assay would detect virus in bulk tank milk. Detection limits were based on assumptions for the number of virus genomes per milliliter of milk and for analytical sensitivity of a PCR assay.

Results—A mean of 10% of the cows was predicted to have FMD lesions from 7 to 8 days and from 13.5 to 15 days after herd exposure for herds with high and low intraherd transmission rates, respectively. Herd bulk milk volume decreased by 10% by 8.5 to 9.5 days and by 15 to 16.5 days after herd exposure for herds with high and low transmission rates, respectively. Mean times by which FMDV would be first detected in bulk milk were 2.5 days and 6.5 to 8 days after herd exposure, which were extended for 10 to 11 days and 17 to 18 days for herds with high and low transmission rates, respectively.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—PCR screening of bulk milk for FMDV would likely detect FMDV in dairy herds several days sooner than might be expected for owner reporting of clinical signs and thus should be worthy of consideration for regional, national, or global FMD surveillance.

Contributor Notes

Supported by the Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center, Fort Detrick, Md.

The authors thank Dr. Connor Jameson for providing Dairy Herd Improvement Association data on daily milk production and Alexey Vlasenko for creating figures and graphs.

Address correspondence to Dr. Thurmond.
Cover American Journal of Veterinary Research
American Journal of Veterinary Research
Publication Date:
01 Dec 2006
  • 1

    Kitching RP, Hutber AM, Thrushfield MV. A review of foot-and-mouth disease with special consideration for the clinical and epidemiological factors relevant to predictive modeling of disease. Vet J 2005;169:197–209.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Bates TW, Thurmond MC, Carpenter TE. Description of an epidemic simulation model for use in evaluating strategies to control an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Am J Vet Res 2003;64:195–204.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Donaldson AI, Gloster J & Harvey LDJ, et al. Use of prediction models to forecast and analyse airborne spread during the foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks in Brittany, Jersey and the Isle of Wight in 1981. Vet Rec 1982;110:53–57.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Donaldson AI, Ferris NP, Gloster J. Air sampling of pigs infected with foot-and-mouth disease virus: comparison of Litton and cyclone samplers. Res Vet Sci 1982;33:384–385.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Alexandersen S, Donaldson AI. Further studies to quantify the dose of natural aerosols of foot-and-mouth disease virus for pigs. Epidemiol Infect 2002;128:313–323.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Grubman MJ, Baxt B. Foot-and-mouth disease. Clin Microbiol Rev 2004;17:465–493.

  • 7

    Scudamore JM, Harris DM. Control of foot and mouth disease: lessons from the experience of the outbreak in Great Britain in 2001. Rev Sci Tech Off Int Epizoot 2002;21:699–710.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Perez A, Ward M, Carpenter T. Epidemiological investigations of the 2001 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in Argentina. Vet Rec 2004;154:777–782.

  • 9

    Sellers RF, Daggupaty SM. The epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease in Saskatchewan, Canada, 1951–1952. Can J Vet Res 1990;54:457–464.

  • 10

    Bates TW, Thurmond MC & Hietala SK, et al. Surveillance for detection of foot-and-mouth disease. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003;223:609–614.

  • 11

    Kuiken T, Leighton FA & Fouchier RAM, et al. Pathogen surveillance in animals. Science 2005;309:1680–1681.

  • 12

    Thurmond MC. Conceptual foundations for infectious disease surveillance. J Vet Diagn Invest 2003;15:501–514.

  • 13

    Reid SM, Parida S & King DP, et al. Utility of automated realtime RT-PCR for the detection of foot-and-mouth disease virus excreted in milk. Vet Res 2006;37:121–132.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Blackwell JH, McKercher PD & Kosikowski FV, et al. Concentration of foot-and-mouth disease virus in milk of cows infected under simulated field conditions. J Dairy Sci 1982;65:1624–1631.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Perez AM, Ward MP, Carpenter TE. Control of a foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in Argentina. Prev Vet Med 2004;65:217–226.

  • 16

    Bouma A, Elbers AR & Dekker A, et al. The foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in The Netherlands in 2001. Prev Vet Med 2003;57:155–166.

  • 17

    Burrows R, Mann JA & Greig A, et al. The growth and persistence of foot-and-mouth disease virus in the bovine mammary gland. J Hyg (Lond) 1971;69:307–321.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Burrows R. Excretion of foot-and-mouth disease virus prior to development of lesions. Vet Rec 1968;83:387–388.

  • 19

    Pizzi JC. Evolución de la Fiebre Aftosa en Argentina. Revista InVet 2001;3:125–145.

Advertisement