SIMULTANEOUS CA CAMPAIGN IN COMMERCIAL AND COMMUNAL FARMING

SIMULTANEOUS CA CAMPAIGN IN COMMERCIAL AND COMMUNAL FARMING

SIMULTANEOUS CA CAMPAIGN IN COMMERCIAL AND COMMUNAL FARMING AREAS DIFFERENCES SIMILARITIES LESSONS LEARNT A S GROBBELAAR Control Animal Health Technician Queenstown A D FISHER State Veterinarian Provincial Veterinary Lab Queenstown

Department of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform (DRDAR), Eastern Cape BACKGROUND RA 60 / Whittlesea communal farming area (previously part of the Ciskei) lies South West of Queenstown in the Eastern Cape. In late 2008 brucellosis was diagnosed on a commercial dairy and a beef farm (same owner) adjacent to two RA60 communities and also on a commercial beef herd in the Tarkastad district a few km to the West of the adjacent Thaba Themba community. The RA60 area was suspected to be the primary source of the infection

Background (contd) At the same time, an aborted foetus belonging to an undertaker based in the village of Whittlesea tested positive for CA confirming the suspicion. An interesting scenario was that, as it is a poor community, many of his clients from the RA60 area paid him in cows instead of cash. 35 / 49 cows in his herd eventually tested positive for CA DISEASE FREE cows ??? CA Campaign Jan-Feb 2009 Very little idea of the scale or source of the infection in either commercial or communal areas.

Annual Departmental TB/CA campaign (target for each AHT is 850 cows per annum) was perceived as not very effective: AHT tend to test the same known negative herds annually good facilities, cooperative farmers and often where they have a personal interest. It was important that the Department was seen to be treating all outbreaks and role-players equally as far as possible. (Agri-politics) Prompt action was required a short sharp campaign to identify and eliminate positive cattle before they were moved or just disappeared. Good co-operation from all communities was essential. STRUCTURE OF CAMPAIGN (6 WEEEKS) Communal farms Co AHT + 6 teams of 3 AHT 47 meetings with farmers

associations / villages in 3 days Poor facilities throughout Multiple owners Virtually no bio-security Low % branded No ear tags Emotional decisions Commercial farms S/Vet + 5 teams of 2 AHT 5 Farmers Assoc. Tarkastad (3), Smitsrivier, Sterkstroom Good facilities generally

Single owners Good bio-security Virtually all cattle branded Tagged or owners bought tags Economic decisions Tarkastad commercial beef herd 10% of herd tested positive on first two bleeds (Aug and Oct 2008) 79/799 cattle Eventually slaughtered 94 cattle (11,8% of herd) before quarantine was lifted on 24th July 2010 As the cows had new-born calves at foot when the disease was initially diagnosed, a third farm was used as a dirty farm: Positive cows moved to Bothas kraal, were not

mated, all their calves were sold off to a feedlot at weaning and cows were slaughtered under red-cross permit when fat (up to a year after initial diagnosis). Farmer obtained market-related prices. Tarkastad commercial beef herd The positive (dirty) herd was re-bled every 2 months at the same time as the other farms (remaining negative cows). Any new positives were immediately moved to dirty farm or slaughtered if pregnant. In Aug Oct 2008, the positive cows had CFT titres of - 24 + to 784 (maximum). By May 2009 (9months after initial diagnosis), only 10 of the remaining 30 cows (30%) were still positive on CFT tests (>24) and most had 0 CFT titres (from 784 before!!!!) PROZONE REACTIONS But Rose Bengal Tests RBT were 3+ (highly) positive and 0 CFT!

In other words, CFT is a very poor test for diagnosing chronic cases. In communal, or other endemic CA herds, the majority of cases are chronic and are likely to test strong Positive on RBT, but NEGATIVE on CFT FPA (Fluorescent Polarisation Assay) test confirmed all the RBT +ve cattle to still be positive for CA = accurate test for chronic Prozone reactors. It was also interesting that SAT test initially gave a good indication of early cases, but after we vaccinated with RB51 most cows tested +ve SAT Tarkastad, Sterkstroom, Western Queenstown districts campaign

25571 cattle were bled over a period of 6 weeks. Worked through districts systematically Farmers bought tags and tagged their own cattle 100% co-operation from all of the farmers. No further cases of CA were discovered Source of the Tarkastad outbreak remains a mystery off a truck transporting livestock?? 2nd Beef / Dairy herd CA eradication proceeded uneventfully. (32,4% of dairy herd tested positive (23/71) = pasture based) Quarantine lifted in 2009

COMPARISON of RESULTS COMMUNAL AREA (Jan 2009 Aug 2009) TARKASTAD COMMERCIAL BEEF FARM Aug 2008 July 2010 17,2% of the villages tested positive ( 10/58 villages) 2,9% of the cattle were positive in these herds(0,5%-5,3% infected in POS herds) Emerging farmer (adjoining Whittlesea) 31,9% positive

Undertaker 71,4% positive 150 cattle slaughtered / 15982 blood samples collected during first sampling ( 3weeks) 10% Positive on first two bleeds 94/799 cattle slaughtered (11,8% of initial herd no) Herd vaccinated 3 x with RB51 at owners expense . Twice a month apart and 6 months later. Quarantine lifted after 3 negative tests

5256 blood samples 19890(WTS + contacts) 25571 (TKD commercial) 5256 McEwan 2952 Hayes 53669 Cattle were bled in total during the campaign (communal and commercial herds) Planning the communal campaign Provincial meetings with ADSU and invited Dr. Matt Ekron (CA coordinator) for his inputs It appeared that such a large scale CA eradication campaign had not been attempted previously in communal farming area No real idea as to the prevalence of the disease in the communal area

No way of identifying cattle Poor compliance by the cattle owners to control measures Infrastructure races dilapidated ( + 3 mobile races used) Disease awareness of communities incl. zoonotic dangers % of the herds bled were far lower than the estimated stock numbers in the communal areas The annual CA campaign was not covering the entire area adequately some herds never or rarely surveyed Planning (cont) Abortions not usually reported Vaccinations of S19 erratic no earmarks, brands or records of the heifers that were vaccinated

Cultural attachment to their cattle (measure of their wealth) Reluctance to slaughtering their cattle especially as it is not a life threatening disease Previous negative experience of CSF eradication and delayed payments for their pigs as well as reduced slaughter value of the cattle at the abattoir due to measles and cachexia. Slaughter value decreased due to poor condition of the stock drought Quarantine impossible to enforce Low % of animals branded and some owners had not even registered brands Planning (cont) Estimated cattle figures 60 000 = 35000 40000 female

animals Lab capacity = volume of the samples, antigen stocks Materials to be purchased = bleeding tubes, needles, ear tags (green, yellow), ear tag applicators, ear tag markers, vaccines (RB 51, S19), automatic syringes and needles Decided to use one needle per animal to avoid suspicion of collateral needle-stick infections. Two separate, easily identifiable syringes per team, one for S19 and one for RB51(to prevent false positive vaccine reactions from S19 contamination) Replacement heifer concept Owners were given the choice of either slaughtering the positive animals at their own risk at the abattoir for slaughter

value ( especially bulls - heavier) or to receive an Nguni heifer as a replacement - tested for CA,TB, pregnancy tested and vaccinated twice with RB51and sourced from reputable farmers. Not to be a permanent policy Was used as an incentive or sweetener to generate goodwill Process expedited by E Cape Senior Manager, Veterinary Services to get approval through all the necessary channels If owners chose to take a replacement heifer the positive cow was slaughtered at state risk and the money put into state coffers. Funding was sourced from Uvimba bank. GH 21

Heifer replacement (cont) Tender documents were produced required non pregnant Nguni heifers -18-24 months (but we found that most Ngunis were mated at 12 months) 3 herds were approved 1 small scale Nguni farmer, 1 commercial Nguni herd and 1 stud / commercial herd Individual photos were taken (face and side views and description), heifers pregnancy tested and colour coded tags, yellow tag for pregnant and green for non pregnant, breeders prefix + number for later identification The herds were tested for TB and CA, herd history checked regarding fertility, all bulls sheath washed for venereal diseases A large public launch of replacement heifers was held

department to be seen to be delivering on promises made. Actual campaign Social facilitation started on the 12th of January 2009 to convey information regarding the disease and create awareness of the campaign. During one of the meetings human symptoms in the village were reported convinced community We managed to address 47 villages in 3 days Also met with the Health Department, clinics and SAPS Used 6 teams with 3 AHTs in each Tag animals Bleeding Record keeping (CA 5 and record book)

Logistics (co-ordinated by Manager Vet Services CHDM) additional AHT sourced ex other S/V areas, transport, lunches, tags, needles and tubes, RB51 and Strain 19 vaccine stocks. Campaign (contd) Supervision of the teams assisted by state vets Disruption due to bad weather from time to time meant schedules had to be adjusted Over estimated the capacity of AHTs initially which resulted in overbooked days Facilities were very bad re-arrange bleeding dates We needed to perform the campaign in the shortest possible time to eliminate movement of cattle

between tests quarantine not possible 1st round: 26 January to the 13th of February 2009 2nd round of re-bleeding 6 weeks later Campaign (contd) Indemnity form developed, signed by owner or representative Tags were numbered dip tank prefix and number (eg SH42) No of cattle bled for each owner recorded with tag numbers, and no of S19 and RB 51 vaccinated Heifer calves 4-9 months -vaccinated S19, tagged with a green tag (prefix of village + G1,etc), no bleeding Heifer calves 9-18 months vaccinate RB 51, tag with yellow tag (prefix + numbered), not bled Negative / unknown status herds: Heifers >18 months and cows

Yellow tag and bled, not vaccinated (abortion danger) Known positive herds (5 herds tested positive initially): Heifers >18 months and cows, yellow tag and bled, vaccinated with RB51 Bulls Yellow tag and bled, not vaccinated Oxen and bull calves not tested Campaign (cont)

Agreement reached with local abattoir to slaughter positive animals Stock theft clearance with SAPS before slaughter (unbranded animals) 5 days notice required before slaughter Abattoir to provide a truck On arrival at the abattoir, cattle were placed in a quarantine kraal Lymphnodes were collected by AHT and VPH (OP were unable to culture Brucella organism to differentiate field or vaccine strains) Tag no, weight, value and proof of payment recorded for each animal A reference number had to be obtained from departmental finance section each time money was deposited

Money was deposited by the abattoir 10 days after slaughter Offal was condemned and R300 deducted from the slaughter value of the animal to cover slaughter fees Campaign (cont) Agreement forms were signed between the owner of the positive animals and the Department when branding and loading the animals (Lightly branded with a C and owners brand mark) Trucks were sealed and moved under red cross permit to the abattoir When offloading the replacement heifers, both the owner and the Department signed a heifer replacement form We gave the owner photographs of the replacement heifer

and attached the 2 forms and and kept copies for our records. The heifers were branded with the new owners registered brand. Positive cases were reported to ADSU via an SR1 form Province of the EASTERN CAPE AGRICULTURE __________________________________________________________________________ The State Veterinary Services Avalon Court No.1 Hospital Walk, Private Bag X7187. Queenstown, 5320 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

Tel: +27(0)458077006.Fax: +27(0)458077097. Website: www.agr.ecprov.gov.za OWNERS OF POSITIVE COWS CERTIFICATE NUMBER / SERIAL NUMBER.. OWNERS FULL NAME AND SURNAME. DATE OF ISSUE ID NUMBER. ADDRESS. CONTACT DETAILS NUMBER OF COW(S) ..

TAG NUMBERS.. DESCRIPTION OF COW(S) BRANDING CERTIFICATE REGISTERED BRAND OR (APPLICATION FOR THE REGISTERED BRANDING MARK).. PROOF OF OWNERSHIP OF UNBRANDED COW: COW AND OWNERSHIP CONFIRMED BY.SIGNATURE.. AHT SIGNATURE FOR THE RECEIPT OF COWS TOTAL NUMBER OF COWS LOADED......... DESTINATION ADDRESS (ABATTOIR).. TRUCK REGISTRATION NUMBER. RED CROSS PERMIT NUMBER SEAL NUMBERS. . DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE REPRESENTATIVE NAMESIGNATURE. OWNERS SIGNATURE/ THUMB PRINTWITNESS NAME :..SIGNATURE I ENTER INTO AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE TO SLAUGHTER MY CA POSITIVE COWS THAT WILL BE C

BRANDED. I UNDERSTAND THAT I WILL NOT GET THE CARCASS VALUE OF THE COW(S) AS IT WILL BE PAID TO THE DEPARTMENT. I AGREE THAT I WILL BE COMPENSATED WITH ONE TESTED AND VACCINATED NGUNI HEIFER FOR EACH COW SLAUGHTERED. I AGREE THAT THE NEW REPLACEMENT HEIFER WILL BE BRANDED WITH MY REGISTERED BRAND Province of the EASTERN CAPE AGRICULTURE __________________________________________________________________________ The State Veterinary Services Avalon Court No.1 Hospital Walk, Private Bag X7187. Queenstown, 5320 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Tel: +27(0)458077006.Fax: +27(0)458077097. Website: www.agr.ecprov.gov.za

REPLACEMENT HEIFER RECEIPT FORM CERTIFICATE NUMBER / SERIAL NUMBER.. DATE OF DELIVERY OWNERS FULL NAME AND SURNAME. ID NUMBER ADDRESS. CONTACT DETAILS NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT HEIFER(S) ..

TAG NUMBERS DESCRIPTION OF HEIFER(S) BRAND NUMBER (IF AVAILABLE).. I RECEIVED THE HEIFER IN GOOD HEALTH AS A FULL REPLACEMENT FOR CA POSITIVE COW(S) NUMBER WHICH WAS TAKEN TO BE SLAUGHTERED FOR THE DEPARTMENTS ACCOUNT. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE REPLACEMENT HEIFER(S) ARE MY RESPONSIBILITY AND I WILL NOT MAKE CLAIMS TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR MORTALITIES ONCE UNDER MY CARE. THE HEIFER REPLACEMENT SCHEME IS A ONCE OFF FOR THE CURRENT CAMPAIGN IN WHITTLESEA COMMUNAL AREAS. OWNERS SIGNATURE/THUMB PRINTPLACE.... DATE. WITNESS NAME.SIGNATURE...DATE................. . DEPARMENT OF AGRICULTURE CoAHT/AHT NAMESIGNATURE Some of the problems encountered

Reluctance to collect cows in some areas due to the drought Sherwood Forest a stock owner refused to present his cattle for bleeding- needed to get the help of the SAPS Owner preferred to work through his lawyer, after discussions with his lawyer he finally presented his cattle (tested positive) All Government departments were perceived to be toothlessability to enforce control measures was questioned. Some owners refused to bring their cattle for bleeding Some owners hid positive cows or moved to other areas to avoid C branding or culling and needed coaxing/coercion Quarantine - almost impossible to enforce control measures Animal numbers presented for bleeding were not consistent. Some animals were only bled for the first time on the 3 rd or 4th herd bleed.

Sherwood Forest, Whittlesea August 2009 Solution to problems carrot and stick approach Consultation with recalcitrant owners lawyer and threat to prosecute under Animal Disease Act eventually complied Community meetings name and shame Threat to withhold permission for large (1000 cow) dairy project until CA was eradicated. Joint operation with SAPS mounted unit (Umtata) and stock theft unit to collect cows from mountainous terrain, owners were not co-operating Elicited support from Department of Health and SAPS

Problems (cont) In one case owner tried to substitute a positive cow with an old cow - supposedly lost tag wanted a heifer Original cow was found during the bleed and slaughtered The cow he had attempted to substitute tested negative Cow reported slaughtered for a ceremony was identified alive and well at a later bleed and was then branded and slaughtered. One animal was supposedly hit and killed by a truck the day before branding and slaughter no evidence and cow was never found (moved to Keiskammahoek?) CARPAL HYGROMA

Follow up bleeds 6 weeks later in positive herds when we did a 2nd RB51 inoculation. Heifer replacement either on the day of slaughtering or within 24 hours of slaughter 35 Extra heifers (Nguni and Bonsmara) sourced from Dohne research farm to supplement initial 111 purchased Expenses Accomodation (S+T) for AHT Caterers - meetings/lunches

Vacutainer needles Vacutainer tubes RB 51 Intervet S19 OBP Automatic syringes (ANB) Eartags(Bayer) Applicators Marking Pens Needles Total R 100 348 R 31 975 R 58 491

R 61 476 R 165 021 R 35 995 R 36 702 R 160 648 R 4 649 R 1 904 R 7 227 R 861 884 Actual cost of the campaign in communal areas Heifers purchased (111)

R 496 440 Heifers ex Dohne (35) N/C Other expenses R 861 884 Total expenses R 1 358 324

Costs recovered by Dept (146 cows slaughtered) Total cost of campaign R 323 071 R 1 035 253 Evaluation of CA campaign in communal herds Only 2 positive cows unaccounted for: possibly slaughtered or sold owners were devious Some untagged (ie. unbled) cows were discovered months after the campaign Estimated that 90% of cows were bled and 99% of

positive cows were successfully slaughtered (148/150). Co-operation from the communal farmers was generally good. Goodwill generated by prompt heifer replacement had a large positive spinoff for future disease campaigns. Lessons learnt CA is probably endemic in most communal areas in the Eastern Cape. Morbidity (% infected) rates are lower in communal areas than in commercial herds (due to poor grass cover and exposure to u/v sunlight?) CA eradication measures as prescribed by the Act, cannot be effectively implemented in communal areas (Quarantine, bleed all the cows, 3

negative tests on entire herd) Heifer replacement scheme as a sweetener worked well, but probably cannot become routine???? (due to financial implications) The present annual TB and CA campaigns are largely ineffective and not identifying the positive herds. Not cost-effective CFT test is unreliable for chronic (prozone) cases - RBT and FPA better Future strategy should probably concentrate on vaccination with ear notching (S19 and RB 51) to reduce the number of susceptible animals Prevention with eradication only when positive herds are identified Commercial farmers appreciated the Departments response and control measures to contain source of the outbreak - good for PR Thank you to the entire team!! AHT and State vets from all state vet areas in Chris Hani

District Municipality Farmers Associations Communal and Commercial SAPS Mounted unit and Stock theft unit Department of health Meat Traders Abattoir Suppliers of the Nguni heifers Dohne research centre (Bonsmara and Nguni heifers) Manager and Assistant Manager Veterinary Services Chris Hani District Municipality Senior Manager Veterinary Services (Nguni heifer replacement scheme) Veterinary laboratory staff Queenstown and Middelburg

Recently Viewed Presentations