As summer (and holidays) begins to wind down, it is a good opportunity to take a few moments to examine the state of some of OABP’s ongoing projects. There are several discrepancies in livestock show health standards across the province, and it places the attending veterinarian in the unenviable position of interpreting that standard in deciding to disqualify an animal. Drs. Henry Ceelen and Adam Haight are spearheading a joint initiative between OABP and 4-H Ontario to increase awareness of contagious/zoonotic diseases. With assistance from OMAFRA summer veterinary student Kristen Ferguson, a PowerPoint presentation was created and shared with veterinarians and 4-H leaders across the province (a copy is on the OABP website) last spring. Several OABP members delivered presentations to 4-H clubs outlining what would be considered unacceptable. Unfortunately, the word has been slow to reach all 4-H clubs, so that there were still approximately 25 out of 200 calves at one show with evidence of communicable disease. There is some hesitation on the part of 4-H Ontario to immediately implement a “zero tolerance” policy for infectious lesions, and some question of their ability to enforce it at this stage. A subsequent show in Markham yielded 12 calves that would not have been acceptable under zero tolerance. Those exhibitors were given a warning (“next year you would be out”). The show veterinarian, Dr. Tim Henshaw, took the opportunity to photograph the lesions, along with some healthy calf models, and conducted a brief PowerPoint presentation to educate all of those in attendance. This fall we plan to strike an advisory technical committee to further work out specific details on what is and is not acceptable in cattle brought to shows, fairs, etc. Consultation with industry and 4-H Ontario will follow in the winter to find the best ways to inform future exhibitors of their responsibilities and make them aware of future enforcement plans. We greatly appreciate the support of the show sponsors and supporters for their help with this initiative. There seems to be strong agreement that further educational efforts are warranted, as the continued display of these animals is a health risk and a black eye for the dairy and cattle sales industry. A “visual” reference sheet with photographs of acceptable and unacceptable conditions needs to be created and widely circulated among veterinarians, 4-H leaders, and 4-H members. Any OABP members that are willing to share their photographs, could you please email a copy to Ruth Cudmore at: [email protected]. (cont’d on page 2…….) September 2011 PRESIDENT’S mEssage— Dr. Lance Males Inside this issue: Quote of the Day Autumn is a second spring when every leaf is a flower. Ontario Association of Bovine Practitioners 2011 OABP Executive 2 President’s Message (cont’d) 2 Editor’s Notes 2 OABP Continuing Education 3 CQM Workshop Planned 3 Product Withdrawal Info 4 CABV Update 5 Lameness Pen 6 Membership Report 8 Calf Rearing Guide Offer 8 Johnes Program Update 9 OVC Research Summary 11 OVC Research Summary 12 OVC Bovine Club Update 12 Congratulations 13 Mark Your Calendar 13 Visit OABP online at www.oabp.ca UPDATE UPDATE
Transcript
As summer (and holidays) begins to wind down, it is a good opportunityto take a few moments to examine the state of some of OABP’s ongoingprojects. There are several discrepancies in livestock show health standardsacross the province, and it places the attending veterinarian in the unenviableposition of interpreting that standard in deciding to disqualify an animal. Drs.Henry Ceelen and Adam Haight are spearheading a joint initiative betweenOABP and 4-H Ontario to increase awareness of contagious/zoonotic diseases.With assistance from OMAFRA summer veterinary student Kristen Ferguson, aPowerPoint presentation was created and shared with veterinarians and 4-Hleaders across the province (a copy is on the OABP website) last spring.Several OABP members delivered presentations to 4-H clubs outlining whatwould be considered unacceptable. Unfortunately, the word has been slow toreach all 4-H clubs, so that there were still approximately 25 out of 200 calvesat one show with evidence of communicable disease. There is some hesitationon the part of 4-H Ontario to immediately implement a “zero tolerance” policyfor infectious lesions, and some question of their ability to enforce it at thisstage.
A subsequent show in Markham yielded 12 calves that would not havebeen acceptable under zero tolerance. Those exhibitors were given a warning(“next year you would be out”). The show veterinarian, Dr. Tim Henshaw, tookthe opportunity to photograph the lesions, along with some healthy calfmodels, and conducted a brief PowerPoint presentation to educate all of thosein attendance.
This fall we plan to strike an advisory technical committee to furtherwork out specific details on what is and is not acceptable in cattle brought toshows, fairs, etc. Consultation with industry and 4-H Ontario will follow in thewinter to find the best ways to inform future exhibitors of their responsibilitiesand make them aware of future enforcement plans. We greatly appreciate thesupport of the show sponsors and supporters for their help with this initiative.There seems to be strong agreement that further educational efforts arewarranted, as the continued display of these animals is a health risk and ablack eye for the dairy and cattle sales industry. A “visual” reference sheet withphotographs of acceptable and unacceptable conditions needs to be createdand widely circulated among veterinarians, 4-H leaders, and 4-H members.Any OABP members that are willing to share their photographs, could youplease email a copy to Ruth Cudmore at: [email protected].
(cont’d on page 2…….)
September 2011
PRESIDENT’ S mEssage— D r . L a n c e M a l e s
Inside this issue:
Quote of the Day
Autumn is asecond spring
when every leafis a flower.
Ontario Association of
Bovine Practitioners
2011 OABP Executive 2
President’s Message (cont’d) 2
Editor’s Notes 2
OABP Continuing Education 3
CQM Workshop Planned 3
Product Withdrawal Info 4
CABV Update 5
Lameness Pen 6
Membership Report 8
Calf Rearing Guide Offer 8
Johnes Program Update 9
OVC Research Summary 11
OVC Research Summary 12
OVC Bovine Club Update 12
Congratulations 13
Mark Your Calendar 13
Visit OABP online at www.oabp.ca
UPDATEUPDATE
S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 1 P A G E 2
Editor’s notes— D r . P h i l M e a d o w s
After a pretty warm July and August, the days are beginning to feel like fall. This edition of the
OABP newsletter contains several articles providing more details regarding current industry topics. In
November, I trust many of you will make time for our fall meeting. Once again, I owe Ruth Cudmore a
big “thank you” for the time and expertise she utilized in the creation of this newsletter.
- Phil
20 1 1 oabp executive
President: Dr. Lance Males1st Vice-President: Dr. David Douglas2nd Vice-President: Dr. Phil MeadowsSecretary: Dr. Ann GodkinTreasurer: Dr. Rob McGregorPast-President: Dr. Henry Ceelen
Directors: Dr. Kelly Barratt Dr. Randy Graham Dr. Geert JongertDr. Jason Brownridge Dr. Kelly Haelzle Dr. Stephen LeBlancDr. Chris Church Dr. Adam Haight Dr. Rob WalshAmanda Topp (OVC Student Representative)
If you are interested in becoming a member of the Executive, please contact the OABP office at [email protected].
President’ s message ( c o n t ’ d )
The CQM program seems to be rolling along and occupying the time of several dairy veterinarians.To assist in writing extralabel prescriptions, OABP hopes to be able to continue to share gFARADwithdrawal recommendations for common products as members submit them. An additional trainingsession will be held prior to our November conference. Please see the details on page 3 of this newsletter.Pre-registration is mandatory. To register, please see the enclosed CE Registration Form.
With just under a year until the new bulk tank 400 K somatic cell count limit is in place, Dr. DaveDouglas and his continuing education committee is in the final stages of lining up some top qualityspeakers focusing on udder health for the fall conference. The OABP has also partnered with DairyFarmers of Ontario, DHI, Animal Health Lab, and University of Guelph in submitting a funding applicationfor an initiative to lower somatic cell counts. If the application is successful further details will be availablelater in the fall.
A final program that I would like to draw your attention to is the Bovine Education Trust. Withveterinary students having to travel further afield to take advantage of educational opportunities, the costsof receiving enhanced training is becoming prohibitive. Any assistance that we can give (tax deductable)will help maintain and improve the quality of the graduates that we hope will guide our profession throughcoming years. For more information see the website: http://www.ovc.uoguelph.ca/bovineeducationtrust/
Hope that everyone is getting enough time off to enjoy the last of the summer weather.- Lance
P A G E 3S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 1
OABP Continuing education — D r . D a v e D o u g l a s
The Continuing Education Committee is pleased to have the fall meeting in order. Wednesday,November 16 and Thursday, November 17 are the dates. New this year, the Wednesday evening meetingwill be preceded by an optional buffet supper. We hope you will join us during the registration period for agood meal.
Since our industry is moving to an upper limit of 400,000 SCC next August 2012, the main focus ofour meeting is mastitis control. We have Dr. Theo Lam of the Dutch Udder Health Centre, giving threeseparate talks addressing producer motivation, problem solving, and staph aureus. Also, we have Dr.Brenda Moslock-Carter of Keseca Veterinary Clinic in New York on the program. Dr. Carter will give herprivate practice views of on-farm udder health management and their in-clinic approach to milk qualitydiagnostics. (Dr. Carter is a speaker at this year’s AABP conference in St Louis.) We have a “new technolo-gies” section including three speakers: Dr. Bonnie Mallard, High Immune Responders - dairy cattle; BrianVan Doormaal, Genomics; and, Dr. Dave Kelton, How PCR Technology is Redefining Mastitis.
Bill Grexton, from Canwest DHI, will be presenting some information derived from their ProfitProfiler program and Dick Ward will review a business analysis of dairy practices across the province.
Back for another year will be the Student Case Competition where you get to vote for the winner.It is a great chance to see what a fantastic group of graduating bovine veterinarians we have and at thesame time be thankful it’s not yourself presenting.
We will have a short presentation on DFO inhibitor testing from Charlie Fulton and a short talkabout CgFarad from Ron Johnson.
Keep these dates open and see you in November!
CQM Training sess ion Planned—D r s . D a v e D o u g l a s & A n n G o d k i n
In conjunction with OABP’s Fall CE conference this year, OABP and DFO will host an additionalCQM Advisor training session on Wednesday, November 16 from 12:00 to 2:30 p.m. in the WellingtonRoom at the Holiday Inn in Guelph. The workshop will be given by Dr. Kelly Barrett and a DFO represen-tative. Participation in this workshop is necessary if you wish to become a CQM trainer for dairy producersin Ontario. Once you have completed the course, your name will be added to the list of trained Advisorsmaintained by DFO.
This is the only session currently planned as the CQM program is well underway and trainingopportunities for producers will be completed by 2014. Each producer can only access subsidized trainingfrom a CQM Advisor to initiate their first enrolment in CQM. This Advisor training session is offered tocurrently licensed veterinary practitioners only. If there is interest, a separate information session onCQM will be offered to DVM students by the Bovine Club and held at OVC.
The charge for this Advisor training session is $100.00 per person. There is a “tick off” box on the
OABP CE registration form (enclosed with this newsletter) for you to enrol in the CQM Advisor training
session. Please share this information with others in your practice who might be interested. Membership
in OABP or attendance at the OABP CE program is not required to participate in the CQM Advisor training
session. Pre-registration is MANDATORY as space is limited.
P A G E 4S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 1
Veterinary product withdrawal information — D r . P h i l M e a d o w s
For our members in the trenches who need to provide “off label” drug withdrawalinformation to clients, it can be an onerous task at best. With the Canadian QualityMilk (CQM) program rolling out this year, dairy veterinarians will be required toprovide scripts more frequently for off label drug use. Currently, veterinarians cansubmit withdrawal information requests to the Canadian gFARAD (cgFARAD) in orderto receive science based withdrawal information. The OABP Executive wanted tofacilitate the sharing of cgFARAD rulings with respect to off label drug withdrawals.We have decided to create this column in our newsletter to provide cgFARADwithdrawal recommendations from questions that have been submitted by ourmembers to cgFARAD. If you have any comments about this column or would like toshare a cgFARAD response, please email Ruth Cudmore ([email protected]).
gFARAD Western Centre
Western College of
Veterinary Medicine
52 Campus Drive
Saskatoon, SK S7N 5B4
Phone: 306-966-7359
Fax: 306-966-7376
www.cgfarad.usask.ca
Please note: Information not included on the label of a product may change over time. The cgFARADwithdrawal information in this column is current as of the date the submission was received by theveterinarian who contacted cgFARAD. It will still be an individual veterinarian’s responsibility to ensureinformation they provide with a product prescribed for extralabel use is valid, as is described in theprovincial Veterinarian’s Act.
SUBMISSION
Product: Special Formula 17900 and Oxymicine LPDose: Special Formula 17900 1 tube IMM once daily for 3 days and
Oxymycine LP 3ml/100 lbs IM once daily for 3 days.Date cgFARAD Responded: July 8th, 2011Milk Withdrawal: 96hrs + testMeat Withdrawal: 48days
Excerpts from cgFARAD response“The label dose for Special Formula is 1 syringe per quarter and can be repeated in 24 hours.Recently, the label on this product was modified to include a 24 day meat withdrawal period. This is based on the CFIA'sextremely sensitive new testing methodology for the aminoglycosides (including dihydrostreptomycin). Up until the label changed,there had previously been no meat withdrawal on the label of this product, and we had been recommending a 10 day meatwithdrawal interval based on the available depletion information for the separate components of the product. Since this remark-able increase in label withdrawal time occurred, we have examined the data supporting the new withdrawal period. Thisinformation is insufficient to reasonably model a residue depletion curve, which leaves us unable to make withdrawal recommen-dations for meat after extralabel use of Special Formula 17900. For this reason, we discourage the extra-label use of SpecialFormula 17900. If the product has already been used in an extra-label manner, we suggest that as a bare minimum, for eachdoubling of the label dose the withdrawal period should be doubled also (so if you are treating every 24 hours for 3 treatments,the meat withdrawal should be no shorter than 48 days). Because we do not have sufficient data to support a meat withdrawalrecommendation after extra-label use of Special Formula 17900, this guideline should NOT be viewed as a CgFARAD recommen-dation.For milk, the label withdrawal is 72 hours. Unfortunately, making withdrawal recommendations after extra-label use of SpecialFormula 17900 is difficult because we do not have access to milk residue depletion data for all of the drugs included in this for-mulation. Consequently, our recommendation for the extralabel use of Special Formula 17900 is to send a milk sample from thetreated cow to the processing plant for testing, 96 hours after the last dose. If no drugs are detected in the milk sample, thenmilk from that cow can be put into the bulk tank.I know of no scientific reason why these drugs should alter each other’s depletion kinetics, so the withdrawal period of 48 daysfor meat and 96 hours for milk (+ TESTING) should be adequate to avoid residues.”Therefore, the Canadian gFARAD recommends a withdrawal interval of 48 days for meat; 96 hours + TESTING for milk,which should be sufficient so that detectable residues are not found. Furthermore, this recommendation for residue avoidancedoes not address the risks of developing or transmitting antimicrobial resistance from treated animals to other animals or humansfollowing the extralabel use of this antimicrobial. Because the Canadian gFARAD withdrawal recommendation is not an officialwithdrawal time and is based on data that has not been reviewed nor approved by the Veterinary Drugs Directorate or theCanadian Food Inspection Agency, responsibility for residue violations rests with the attending veterinarian.”
The CABV-ACVB continues to be active working with other national organizations as part ofits mandate. Most recently, CABV-ACVB has been consulted to review and comment on theNational On-Farm Beef Biosecurity Standard which represents a guideline document for beefproducers to refer to in setting biosecurity plans for their operations. In addition, CABV-ACVB willalso be working with the Office of Animal Biosecurity, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, toreview a similar set of Biosecurity standards for the Dairy sector.
Just a reminder to all of the Annual General Meeting of CABV-ACVB taking place at theAmerican Association of Bovine Practitioners (AABP) conference in St. Louis, Mo. The AGM will beheld during the lunch hour on Thursday, September 22. Details can be found within the AABPcalendar of events. Also there is a social evening planned for Canadian veterinarians andstudents on Friday evening with finger food and beverages graciously sponsored by Pfizer AnimalHealth.
P A G E 5S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 1
Cabv/acvb update—D r . R a n d y G r a h a m
Digital Cushion and Lameness—Given that cows have been getting sole ulcers for a long time it issurprising that the exact pathogenesis is still unclear. What is clear at this point that sole ulcers are multi-factorial and that the damage to the sole occurs due to loading of the corium by P3. For this damage tooccur the cow needs to be standing on a hard surface. Since where and how a cow stands can be influ-enced by many factors, most lameness investigations should focus on improving cow comfort to decreasethe duration of standing bouts. Currently, the amount of time that the corium needs to be loaded by P3 tocause a sole ulcer and what causes the support structure of P3 to weaken to allow sinking onto the coriumis unclear. Often implicated as a causative factor in this process are nutritional factors; however there isvery little evidence in the literature to support this argument. Recent work at Cornell University is starting
P A G E 6S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 1
Lameness Pen— D r . G e r a r d C r a m e r , C r a m e r M o b i l e B o v i n e V e t S e r v i c e s
to provide some evidence thatthe thickness of the cow’s digitalcushion plays an important role indevelopment of sole ulcers and Iwill try to summarize some oftheir work.
The research team by Dr.Rodrigo Bicalho hypothesize thatthe fatty tissue in the digitalcushion acts as a shock absorberfor the cow. As the fat content ofthe digital cushion changesthroughout lactation the corium isexposed to more pressure fromP3 and ulcers result. To supportthis theory in their first study theresearchers found that cows witha thinner digital cushion weremore likely to have an ulcer. Theyalso measured body conditionscore (BCS) and interestingly thepattern of digital cushion thick-ness followed the same patternas a BCS curve would throughoutlactation. Since this initial studywas a cross sectional study theywere unable to prove what camefirst, the thinner digital cushionor the sole ulcer. In a follow upprospective study, cows werehoof trimmed at dry-off and bothBCS and digital cushion thicknesswas recorded. In the next lacta-tion these cows were followed todetermine lameness incidence.
(cont’d…….)
P A G E 7S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 1
In this follow up study the finding from the first study was repeated for cows with sole ulcers atdry-off. Additionally, they were able to show that cows with a thinner digital cushion or BCS at dry-off hada much higher risk of becoming lame in the next lactation. Furthermore cows with a lesion at dry-off hadthe greatest risk of becoming lame in the following lactation.
In a separate clinical trial this research group reduced the milking frequency from 3x to 2x in agroup of lame cows. Compared to lame cows who continued being milked 3x, cows in the 2x group hadsimilar milk production, BCS improved slightly, and much lower lameness levels after four months.
Anecdotally they report that thetime budgets for these lame cowsimproved substantially with a lotmore time spent lying down.
Although these findings arefrom only one research group inone herd and need to bereplicated, they do provide someinteresting ideas for lamenessprevention.
Some take home messagesfrom these studies:
Consider putting thin cows and
cows with a history of ulcers inthe close up group right afterdry-off.
In our bigger herds even if not
milking 3x a separate lamecow (any blocked cow) penmight aid recovery.
Foot health programs need tofocus on both reducingduration of standing bouts andmaintaining adequate BCS.
Lameness is another diseasewhere the transition periodplays a crucial role.
Lameness Pen ( c o n t i n u e d )
P A G E 8S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 1
In an effort to better cater to all bovine practitioners, the OABP Membership Committee would liketo present a proposal to change the classes of membership in our bylaws. Currently, there are fiveclasses: Active, Honorary (bestowed), Student, Associate, and Life (bestowed). We would like torecommend a new class, Retired, and suggest changes to the Student class.
Regarding the Retired class, this would include veterinarians that are no longer in active practice,but would like to stay in touch with the association. They would receive newsletters and have access tothe web resources, but would lose voting rights. Dues would be 50% of those collected for Activemembers.
Regarding the Student class, they currently pay $20 in dues and cannot vote and admission feesfor CE sessions are set at $25. We would like to recommend that the newsletter continue to be madeavailable to all members of the OVC bovine club, and that attendance at one CE day would cost $30 withmembership included. This would therefore include membership to OABP, conference attendance withmeal and proceedings. The second CE event attended that year would cost $25. Membership would allowaccess to the web resources, but not include voting privileges.
According to our bylaws, these proposed changes must be announced (see enclosed page) inadvance of the annual meeting, where the members will have an opportunity to vote on the changes.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact a member of the membership committee.
OABP membership committee update — D r . C h r i s C h u r c h
Calf rearing guide offer
The Ontario Veal Association (OVA) is pleased to provide FREE copies of Calf Rearing Guide to membersof the Ontario Association of Bovine Practitioners. This book is a practical and easy guide to refer to foryour calf rearing needs.
Healthy and high quality calves are the founda-tion of all successful dairy and veal operations.This resource book is a wonderful addition toany veterinarian’s calf resources and library.
The OVA has also offered this great promotionto members of the OVA and Dairy Farmers ofOntario so that producers also have access tothis same great resource.
This book written by Sally Charlton Bsc (Hons)Ani Sci, Pr Sci Nat. is compiled using solidresearch-based concepts with the objective to
encourage calf producers to easily find and understand basic principles with practical applications andevaluation.
For your FREE copy please email your name and mailing address to Kendra Keels [email protected] and we will be very happy to mail you your FREE copy. Please allow 4-6weeks for delivery. For further information please call 519-824-2942.
P A G E 9S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 1
Ontario Johne ’ s program update— D r . C h r i s C h u r c h , O A B PR e p r e s e n t a t i v e t o t h e O n t a r i o J o h n e s W o r k i n g G r o u p
Halton, Huron 1 (Huron East Twponly), Lambton, Niagara
Dec. 5, 2010 - Jan. 15, 2011 58 39 14
The number of test positive and high-titre cows identified in the herd tests continues to be quite low. Of all cowstested, 453 (0.9%) had a test result classified as positive. Of the herds tested in year one, 176 (25 %) had one ormore cows test positive. Most of those herds (145) had ≤5% test positives. There were 18 herds that had between 6and 10% test positives within their herds, and only 6 herds that had greater than 10% positive. Among the 453positive cows, those cows with a very high positive result (1.0 or higher) are classified as high-titre cows (HTCs) in theprogram. These cows have been shown to have a great impact on the herd exposure to Mycobacterium avium paratu-berculosis (MAP) as they are shedding high numbers of bacteria virtually all the time. There were 54 HTCs in 46herds, representing about 0.1 per cent of all cows tested. It is encouraging that after the first year, the results indicatethat among the eligible herds enrolled, there is a low prevalence of herds with a serious Johne’s problem, and anoverall low prevalence of test-positive and HTCs.
Over the first year, about 50-60% of eligible producers completed testing. Twenty-three herds tested the lactating herdthrough the Animal Health Laboratory at the University of Guelph, but most of these herds (97%) chose to completethe whole herd testing through CanWest DHI. The following is a comparison amongst CanWest DHI herds thatparticipated in the program testing and those that chose not to participate.
Milk produced per cow ($ Milk Value) $5,962 $5.567
Pregnancy Rate in Cows 13.4% 12.4%
Data from 864 DHI Herds Eligible to Participate in the Program in 2010
The Ontario Johne’s Education and Management Assistance Program has had a verysuccessful first year. Nearly 50,000 cows from about 700 herds have been tested.
The table below shows participating herd by testing window:
P A G E 1 0S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 1
Below is a comparison of the monthly average bulk tank SCC in March and August (2010) between program testingparticipants and non-participants among all eligible herds.
Herds that take advantage of the eligible whole herd testing seem to be better managed larger herds with more milkproduction per cow.
Of the herds that completed the whole herd testing (706), 84% successfully completed the program requirements toreceive testing reimbursement. These herds have completed whole herd testing during their county’s scheduled test-ing period, a RAMP evaluation with their veterinarian and, if applicable, removed cows with an ELISA test score 1.0or higher from their herds within 90 days of the herd test. There were 659 RAMP’s completed by producers, withtheir veterinarians, in 2010. The most commonly cited recommendations from the management plan are as follows:
Frequency Top 10 Recommendations:(14%) Don’t purchase more cows/ minimize purchases/ buy from low risk herds.(11%) Remove heifer calves quickly from maternity area/ pasture to individual pens/hutches.(8%) Feed more colostrum and feed it on time.(6%) Don’t feed non-saleable milk of high SCC milk to heifer calves.(6%) Separate newborn calf from cow (create mini-pen, calf box/cart, Rubbermaid tub).(3%) Calving pen is NOT to be used as a hospital pen (need separate pen).(3%) Separate heifers (bred/pregnant/breeding) from dry cows.(3%) Feed low risk milk.(3%) Retest herd in 12- 18 months/ continue testing.(3%) One cow in calving pen at a time/minimize cows in calving pen.
Program Challenges
The Working Group was concerned about the number of HTCs identified but not properly disposed of according toprogram requirements. To receive testing reimbursement and management assistance, HTCs must be permanentlyremoved from the food chain either to deadstock, burial or compost. If the animal goes to rendering, the dead stockcollector must verify her identification on the “Animal Disposal Certificate” at the time of pick-up. If the animal isdisposed of on-farm, the owner completes the “Animal Disposal Certificate” and gets the herd veterinarian to sign theform. To reduce the number of HTCs sold to the beef or dairy rings before their risks can be discussed with the herdveterinarian, the Working Group has instigated a new system to notify the identified herd vet about the occurrence ofa HTC in their client’s herd. As of May 2011 a fax is sent to the herd veterinarian as soon as a HTC is identified bythe laboratories. We hope this gives the vet significant time and will encourage them to make immediate contactwith their client and explain the importance of proper removal of these animals. This also provides the veterinarianswith an opportunity to discuss the ramifications of a HTC for the home herd.
Program participation in testing and program completion has been lower than the 75% hoped for in the first year.Additional emails and brochures are being sent to producers prior to their eligible testing window by the program,CanWest DHI, herd veterinarians and DFO in an attempt to encourage more producers to take advantage of wholeherd testing. Following testing, producers will be reminded to conduct their RAMP to receive reimbursement, via a
(cont’d on next page……)
Ontario Johne ’ s program update ( c o n t ’ d )
Data from ALL DHI Herds Eligible to Participate in the Program in 2010
letter sent by the program. To ensure as many producers as possible could complete the first year of the program,herds that tested in the first year but whose RAMP time had expired, have been allowed a time extension tocomplete their RAMP until June 30, 2011. A number of producers have taken advantage of this extension. For allherds testing after March 2011, the requirement of RAMP completion within 90 days of testing remains in place.
Program Changes
In January 2010 at the DFO AGM, OMAFRA announced an unanticipated contribution of $300,000 to the first year ofthe program. OMAFRA funds have assisted with the testing and educational activities in the first year of theprogram. As a result of this additional contribution, the program was able to re-organize funding to allow somefinancial assistance for Johne’s disease prevention following the identification and removal of a HTC in a herd.Initially, based on an estimate of the number of HTCs expected, producers received $250 per HTC when allidentified during herd testing were removed to composting, burial or rendering (not for beef or dairy purposes).Herds with HTCs are financially assisted to enable them to make management and facility changes that advanceJohne’s prevention. Examples of changes have included:
• modifications to maternity pens, such as extra gates for separating calving cows in group pens orbuilding mini-pens for newborn calves;
• purchase and provision of calf hutches;• building pens to keep calves from contacting the mature cow herd; and• follow-up herd testing.
At the Working Group meeting in December 2010, it was decided to increase the funds for removal of HTCs toencourage more producers to participate in the removal program. Program completion numbers were lower thananticipated and many HTCs were not being removed. Participating producers who removed HTCs earlier in 2010 andwho had already received $250 per HTC cow received an additional $250. As we go forward from 2011 to 2013,producers that remove HTCs as required for the program will continue to be eligible to receive $500 per cow, if allHTCs are removed and program activities are completed.
Ontario Johne ’ s program update ( c o n t ’ d )
OVC RESEARCH SUMMARY
Effects of time and storage conditions on Johne’s disease milk ELISA test results.C. M. Innes*, D. F. Kelton, D. L. Pearl, and T. F. Duffield,University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
The Ontario Johne’s Education and Management Assistance Program (OJEMAP) utilizes an individual cowmilk ELISA test for antibody to Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis (MAP) to determine theJohne’s disease status of participating herds. Concerns were raised about the age of the samples at thetime of testing and the temperature extremes that milk samples could be subjected to while beingtransported to the Dairy Herd Improvement (DHI) laboratory, and the impact on integrity of test results.This objective of this study was to investigate the impact of storage time and conditions (room tempera-ture, frozen, refrigerated) on Johne’s disease milk ELISA test results. Milk ELISA tests were completedusing a commercially available kit following standard manufacturer instructions on days one, 4, 7 and 10post collection. The time between collection and storage of the samples and the differences betweenstorage conditions were compared graphically and statistically using the paired t-test, with a level ofsignificance of P < 0.05. There were no significant differences in test results for any of the storageconditions for up to 7 d post collection. Based on these results, samples could be stored under variousconditions for up to a week with no significant changes in test results.
J. Dairy Sci. Vol. 94, E-Suppl. 1:240 (abstr. 237)
Reproductive performance with an automated activity monitoring system vs. a synchronizedbreeding program in 3 commercial dairy herdsR. C. Neves*1, K. E. Leslie1, J. S. Walton2, and S. J. LeBlanc1
Department of Population Medicine, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, CanadaDepartment of Poultry and Animal Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
The objective of this study was to compare overall herd and cow-level reproductive performance with an auto-mated activity monitoring system relative to a synchronized breeding program. A pen-level randomized trial wasperformed over 1 year using 3 commercial herds in Ontario, Canada, in which cows were housed in a primipa-rous and a multiparous pen on each farm. At the pen level, animals were assigned to an automated heatdetection (AHD) system based on monitoring activity levels (Heatime®, SCR Engineers Ltd.) or a timed artificialinsemination program (TAI; Ovsynch), and a cross-over occurred after 6 months of the trial to avoid confound-ing treatment with parity. Insemination based on additional detection of estrus by observation was practiced inall pens. Herds A, B, and C milked 495, 305 and 260 cows on average, respectively. Herd A had 992 AI, herd B580 AI, and Herd C 702 AI analyzed throughout the study period. Herd-level analyses were conducted usingpen as the experimental unit. The proportion of TAI in the TAI pen was 50%, 68% and 54% for herds A, B andC. The proportion of AI in the AHD group after a heat signaled by the AHD system was 58%, 57% and 54% forherds A, B, and C. The mean annual 21-d pregnancy rates across the 3 herds were analyzed utilizing leastsquares means controlling for herd effect. There was no difference (P = 0.25) in the overall mean pregnancyrates between TAI program (15.9%) and AHD system (14.6%) or in the probability of pregnancy per AI (CR =30 to 33%). At the individual cow level, time to pregnancy throughout the study period (n = 1990 cow-periods) was analyzed with a Cox proportional hazards model accounting for herd effect; parity, period andcalving season were not significant covariates. Overall, time to pregnancy was not different (Hazard ratio (HR)= 1.13, P = 0.2) between cows assigned to management by AHD or TAI. However, the model revealed an in-teraction between herd and breeding program, such that time to pregnancy was not significantly different inherd A (median = 151 and 136 days; HR = 0.93, P = 0.52) and herd C (median = 99 and 124, HR = 1.24, P =0.08) whereas herd B had a difference of median time to pregnancy of 119 d and 146 d (HR = 1.3, P = 0.02) inthe AHD group and the TAI group, respectively. Under conditions in which a substantial minority of AI in bothgroups was based on visually detected estrus, herd pregnancy rate and cow-level interval to pregnancy werenot different between a TAI program and an AHD system. However, factors that influence the variability inrelative performance of these management systems between herds require further investigation.J. Dairy Sci. Vol. 94, E-Suppl. 1:240 (abstr. 236)
P A G E 1 2S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 1
OVC Research Summary
As I write this, summer is quickly coming to a close and the students of the OVC Bovine Club arepreparing for another year of classes and many great Bovine Club events. This fall, we are looking forward towelcoming the Class of 2015 to the OVC and adding many new and enthusiastic students to the Bovine Club.
In September, twenty members of the Bovine Club are travelling to St. Louis, Missouri to the 44th
Annual AABP Conference. We are very excited to have such a large number of students attending the confer-ence and are truly looking forward to this fun and educational opportunity. As well, we are entering a teaminto the 2nd Annual AABP Student Quiz Bowl, and Brett Gamble and myself are representing the club as Stu-dent Delegates at the conference. On behalf of the Bovine Club I would like to thank all of our sponsors whomake this trip financially possible for our club members—we couldn’t attend without your generous support.
Our tentative plans for the fall semester include: a hoof trimming lab, various lunch talks, studentpractitioner night, steak BBQ, and hopefully, at least one farm tour.
We are always looking for new ideas and events, dynamic speakers to lead lunch talks, and ideas andexperiences to help improve our members’ practical skills. Please feel free to contact me [email protected] .
OVC bovine club update—A m a n d a T o p p , O V C 2 0 1 3
Promoting bovine medicine for theVeterinary Practitioners of Ontario
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OFBOVINE PRACTITIONERS
We’re on the Web!
www.oabp.ca
P A G E 13
September 22 to 24 AABP Annual Conference, St. Louis, Missouri. www.aabp.org
October 4 to 8 World Dairy Expo, Madison, WI www.world-dairy-expo.com
October 15 to 19 International Dairy Federation World Dairy Summit, Parma, Italywww.world-dairy-expo.com
October 30 to Antimicrobial Stewardship in Agriculture and Veterinary MedicineNovember 2 Conference. www.antimicrobialcanada.com
November 16 & 17 OABP Fall Continuing Education Meeting and Annual General Meeting,Holiday Inn, Guelph. www.oabp.ca
January 19 to 21, 2012 Western Canadian Association of Bovine Practitioners Annual Conference,Email: [email protected] or Website: www.wcabp.com
January 22 to 24 National Mastitis Council Annual Meeting, St. Pete Beach, Floridawww.nmconline.org/meetings.html
Dates to mark on your calendar….. .
The OABP Award is presented annually to a
student in the graduating class of the Ontario
Veterinary College who has demonstrated proficiency
in the area of bovine herd health management and
an interest in bovine practice.
Dr. Kellie Libera is the recipient of this year’s
award. Dr. Libera’s short and long-term career goals
include ensuring Canadian dairy and beef farmers
continue to have great quality veterinary care, and to
work with producers to improve efficiency and
animal welfare on farms. Dr. Libera is currently
employed by the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Congratulations Dr. Libera!
Congratulations !
OABP does not endorse any services or products in this newsletter. OABP makes nowarranties, expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy, application or use of the
