Advertisement
ProCite
RefWorks
Reference Manager
BibTeX
Zotero
EndNote
-
1. Holtkamp DJ, Kliebenstein JB & Zimmerman JJ, et al. Economic impact of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus on US pork producers. Iowa State University animal industry report 2012. AS 658, ASL R2671. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University, 2012;3.
-
2. Albina E. Epidemiology of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS): an overview. Vet Microbiol 1997; 55: 309–316.
-
3. Otake S, Dee SA & Rossow KD, et al. J. Transmission of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus by fomites (boots and coveralls). J Swine Health Prod 2001; 10: 59–65.
-
4. Burrows R. Excretion of foot and mouth disease virus prior to development of lesions. Vet Rec 1968; 82: 387–388.
-
5. Burrows R, Mann JA & Garland AJM, et al. The pathogenesis of natural and simulated natural foot-and-mouth disease infection in cattle. J Comp Pathol 1981; 91: 599–609.
-
6. Woolhouse M, Donaldson A. Managing foot-and-mouth. Nature 2001; 410: 515–516.
-
7. Dickey BF, Carpenter TE, Bartell SM. Use of heterogeneous operation-specific contact parameters changes predictions for foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks in complex simulation models. Prev Vet Med 2008; 87: 272–287.
-
8. Graves JH. Foot-and-mouth disease: a constant threat to US livestock. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1979; 174: 174–176.
-
9. Sellers RF. Quantitative aspects of the spread of foot and mouth disease. Vet Bull 1971; 41: 431–439.
-
10. Fèvre EM, Bronsvoort BMDC & Hamilton KA, et al. Animal movements and the spread of infectious diseases. Trends Microbiol 2006; 14: 125–131.
-
11. Gibbens JC, Wilesmith JW & Sharpe CE, et al. Descriptive epidemiology of the 2001 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in Great Britain: the first five months. Vet Rec 2001; 149: 729–743.
-
12. Ellis-Iversen J, Smith RP & Gibbens JC, et al. Risk factors for transmission of foot-and-mouth disease during an outbreak in southern England in 2007. Vet Rec 2011; 168: 128.
-
13. USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service. 2007 census ofagriculture—United States cattle production. Available at: www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Fact_Sheets/Production/beef_cattle.pdf. Accessed Dec 6, 2012.
-
14. Paarlberg PL, Lee JG, Seitzinger AH. Potential revenue impact of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the United States. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002; 220: 988–992.
-
15. Pendell DL, Leatherman J & Schroeder TC, et al. The economic impacts of a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak: a regional analysis. J Agric Appl Econ 2007; 39: 19–33.
-
16. Bates TW, Thurmond MC, Carpenter TE. Direct and indirect contact rates among beef, dairy, goat, sheep, and swine herds in three California counties, with reference to control of potential foot-and-mouth disease transmission. Am J Vet Res 2001; 62: 1121–1129.
-
17. 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.
-
18. Bates TW, Thurmond MC, Carpenter TE. Results of epidemic simulation modeling to evaluate strategies to control an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Am J Vet Res 2003; 64: 205–210.
-
19. Schoenbaum MA, Disney WT. Modeling alternative mitigation strategies for a hypothetical outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the United States. Prev Vet Med 2003; 58: 25–52.
-
20. Harvey N, Reeves A & Schoenbaum MA, et al. The North American animal disease spread model: a simulation model to assist decision making in evaluating animal disease incursions. Prev Vet Med 2007; 82: 176–197.
-
21. Spedding CRW. An introduction to agricultural systems. London: Elsevier Applied Science, 1988.
-
22. Taylor N. Review of the use of models in informing disease control policy development and adjustment: a report for DEFRA. Earley Gate, Reading, England: School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, 2003.
-
23. Marshall ES, Carpenter TE, Thunes C. Results of a survey to estimate cattle movements and contact rates among beef herds in California, with reference to the potential spread and control of foot-and-mouth disease. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2009; 235: 573–579.
-
24. USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service. 2007 census of agriculture—United States cattle production. Available at: www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Fact_Sheets/Production/cattle_and_milk_production.pdf. Accessed Jul 22, 2013.
-
25. USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service. 2007 census of agriculture—summary and state data. Volume 1, chapter 2. Available at: www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_US_State_Level/st99_2_012_012.pdf. AccessedJul 22, 2013.
-
26. Sinclair M, Reeves A. Foot-and-mouth disease threat to US livestock production is real and growing. West Dairy News 2011; 11: 47–48.
-
27. Nielen M, Jalvingh AW & Horst HS, et al. Quantification of contacts between Dutch farms to assess the potential risk of foot-and-mouth disease spread. Prev Vet Med 1996; 28: 143–158.
-
28. Sanson RL. A survey to investigate movements off sheep and cattle farms in New Zealand, with reference to the potential transmission of foot-and-mouth disease. N Z Vet J 2005; 53: 223–233.
-
29. USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service. 2007 census of agriculture—summary and state data. Volume 1. Available at: www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/index.asp. Accessed Dec 6, 2012.
-
30. Reimer JJ. Contract and exit decisions in finisher hog production. Am J Agric Econ 2010; 92: 667–684.
-
31. Marshall B, Petrowski D, Levy SB. Inter- and intraspecies spread of Escherichia coli in a farm environment in the absence of antibiotic usage. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1990; 87: 6609–6613.
-
32. Talafha AQ, Hirche S & Ababneh MM, et al. Prevalence and risk factors associated with bovine viral diarrhea virus infection in dairy herds in Jordan. Trop Anim Health Prod 2009; 41: 499–506.
-
33. Cottral GE. Persistence of foot-and-mouth disease virus in animals, their products and the environment. Bull Off Int Epizoot 1969; 71: 549–568.
-
34. Himathongkham S, Bahari S & Riemann H, et al. Survival of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella Typhimurium in cow manure and cow manure slurry. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1999; 178: 251–257.
-
35. Plym-Forshell L, Ekesbo I. Survival of salmonellas in urine and dry faeces from cattle—an experimental study. Acta Vet Scand 1996; 37: 127–131.
-
36. Wills RW, Zimmerman JJ & Swenson SL, et al. Transmission of PRRSV by direct, close, or indirect contact. Swine Health Prod 1997; 5: 213–218.
-
37. Otake S, Dee SA & Rossow KD, et al. Transmission of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus by fomites (boots and coveralls). J Swine Health Prod 2002; 10: 59–66.
-
38. Niskanen R, Lindberg A. Transmission of bovine viral diarrhoea virus by unhygienic vaccination procedures, ambient air, and from contaminated pens. Vet J 2003; 165: 125–130.
Advertisement
Direct and indirect contact rates among livestock operations in Colorado and Kansas
Abstract
Objective—To characterize direct and indirect contacts among livestock operations in Colorado and Kansas.
Design—Cross-sectional quarterly survey.
Sample—532 livestock producers.
Procedures—Livestock producers in Colorado and Kansas were recruited by various means to participate in the survey, which was sent out via email or postal mail once quarterly (in March, June, September, and December) throughout 2011. Data were entered into an electronic record, and descriptive statistics were summarized.
Results—Large swine operations moving animals to other large swine operations had the highest outgoing direct contact rates (range, 5.9 to 24.53/quarter), followed by dairy operations moving cattle to auction or other dairy operations (range, 2.6 to 10.34/quarter). Incoming direct contact rates for most quarters were highest for large feedlots (range, 0 to 11.56/quarter) and dairies (range, 3.90 to 5.78/quarter). For large feedlots, mean total indirect contacts through feed trucks, livestock haulers, and manure haulers each exceeded 725 for the year. Dairy operations had a mean of 434.25 indirect contacts from milk trucks and 282.25 from manure haulers for the year.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—High direct contact rates detected among large swine operations may suggest a risk for direct disease transmission within the integrated swine system. Indirect contacts as well as incoming direct contacts may put large feedlots at substantial risk for disease introduction. These data can be useful for establishing and evaluating policy and biosecurity guidelines for livestock producers in the central United States. The results may be used to inform efforts to model transmission and control of infectious diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease in this region.
Contributor Notes
Supported in part by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture grant award No. 2010–65119–21012.
Powered by PubFactory