Abstracts Accepted for Session 3: Federal, State and Industry Response

Federal 3D Priorities Update

Lori P. Miller

United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Veterinary Services, Riverdale, Maryland

The purpose of this presentation is to review recent advances in addressing US carcass management priorities and related biosecurity activities. Over the past several years, federal agencies have collaborated with state, industry, and academic partners to identify animal disease outbreak response research priorities, and work to fill those needs. Advances have been made in a number of areas, including understanding available carcass management capacity in high livestock production regions of the US; modeling risks from transporting infected carcasses, risks from disposing carcasses in landfills, and risks from burning, burial and composting carcasses affected by natural disasters or biological, chemical or radiological incidents; evaluating feasibility of various on-farm treatment options; and identifying obstacles to emergency rendering, among other projects. Overall, the findings indicate that the US must use other countermeasures in addition to stamping out if faced with a wide-spread animal disease outbreak, particularly if it occurs in livestock rather than poultry. Although quarantine is traditionally the first step when facing an outbreak, it may not be possible to keep all infected materials on a farm, which means infected material must be transported or sanitized prior transport to inactivate pathogens. This suggests that improved methods of on-farm pre-treatment are needed. On-farm carcass pre-treatment for confirmed infected animals, combined with managed harvest of non-infected animals in a control zone, and use of vaccination to slow spread outside the control zone might be part of a future response strategy.

Presentation: session 3.1

Case Study of Enteric Illness in Responder Associated with 2015 HPAI Carcass Disposal Response

Arlene Buchholz, DVM; Lori Miller, PE

USDA APHIS VS SPRS, USDA APHIS VS STAS, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Case study of enteric illness in responder associated with 2015 HPAI carcass disposal response A composting SME was assigned to work with HPAI positive turkey producer for composting of Turkey carcasses and contaminated bedding, feed and other materials. The SME developed enteric illness after working with responders on compost windrow construction. The SME was wearing the recommended PPE. Exposure may have occurred by contact of skin with contaminated fluids. Presentation will review PPE used, possible exposure routes, APHIS VS PPE guidance document and possible recommendations for prevention of exposure during future Animal disease responses. The presentation will also include an overview of Campylobacter and Salmonella and enteric disease associated with occupational exposure. Case History: Case patient was composting SME responding to HPAI positive turkey premise working in barn during construction of composting windrows. Patient was wearing Tyvek coveralls, Gloves, fitted half face respirator, rubber boots, boot covers, and goggles. Patient reported contact of fluid with skin during movement of turkey carcasses to construct windrows. The patient was unable to stop and take off PPE and wash off skin for period of time. After response period, assistance with doffing PPE not available consistently. Hand sanitizer available but not running water. Likely that contaminated fluid contacted skin on the patient’s face and contaminated hands during doffing of PPE. Patient reported clinical signs of diarrhea, blood in stool, nausea, weakness that occurred after an incubation period of approximately 12 hours. The case patient had to leave the response and seek medical care. Physician treated patient symptomatically with supportive care for dehydration and enteritis. The diagnosis was campylobacter enteritis based on exposure history and clinical signs. Diagnostic testing for campylobacter was not available at the time of the medical examination. The patient recovered after approximately 10 days and was able to resume composting response activities. Campylobacter clinical signs, case definition; https://www.cdc.gov/campylobacter/technical.html Salmonella clinical signs and case definition; https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/index.html Case studies of occupational exposure to enteric pathogens, CDC occupational health Finding during 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak that medical responders were using recommended PPE, however one risk factor was exposure to Ebola virus while doffing PPE; https://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/healthcare-us/ppe/faq.html Steps put in place and possible future preventive steps to limit exposure to pathogens: 1) Utilize Face shields during high risk activities such as movement of animal carcasses, construction of windrows, turning of windrows. 2) Have SME primarily provide guidance during windrow construction and turning and not actively handling carcasses 3) Provide assistance with donning and doffing PPE by knowledgeable safety officer or trained personnel 4) Increase training and practice sessions for donning and doffing PPE 5) Provide antibacterial hand wipes or running water for cleaning skin that may have been in contact with contaminated material during response activities and doffing of PPE.

Presentations: session 3.2session 3.2.1

AVMA Humane Endings: An Update on the Panel on Euthanasia and the Panel on Depopulation

Cia Johnson, Steven Leary, Emily Patterson-Kane

American Veterinary Medical Association, Schaumburg, Illinois

In 1963, the AVMA convened its first Panel on Euthanasia (POE) to provide guidance to veterinarians who perform or oversee the euthanasia of animals. Through a process of continual improvement the AVMA has built a reputation for developing comprehensive data-based, perspective-balanced guidance that is highly influential in regulatory and business environments. During the most recent revision of the Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals (2013), the AVMA’s POE determined that there was a need to address and evaluate the methods and agents that veterinarians may encounter during end of life issues for animals that fall outside of euthanasia, slaughter and depopulation. This led to the development of the AVMA Guidelines for the Humane Slaughter of Animals (2016). The Panel on Humane Slaughter has been dedicated to ensuring that no unnecessary pain or distress is inflicted on conscious food animals prior to, during or after slaughter procedures. Additionally, the AVMA convened its Panel on Depopulation, which developed the AVMA Guidelines for the Depopulation of Animals (2018-pending). These Guidelines define depopulation as: the rapid destruction of a population of animals in response to an emergency situation, which may include disease control, or natural or human-made disaster. In the course of developing these end of life documents it became apparent that techniques that were not considered humane were being utilized and that techniques that had been considered humane were becoming less acceptable in the eyes of society. These observations contributed to the assessment of whether a technique was considered acceptable within each of the three guidelines. It is imperative that the use of less-preferred methods does not become standard practice. This requires that we continuously critically evaluate methods in use; actively support technology transfer and innovation; and give due diligence to training and ongoing support of personnel. As part of this continuous improvement modality the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals is undergoing an interim update in 2018. Updates such as this ensure that the document remains the gold standard in the area of humane killing.

Role of Meat Packing Industry in Response to Livestock Disasters

Robert DeOtte

It is well recognized that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in the United States would have serious economic, social, and food security implications, many of which are tied to international regulations. The major issue with FMD is the trade implications once a country is deemed positive for the disease; however, other diseases also have impact, though perhaps not at the same level. Bovine tuberculosis is a case in point. For any disease or other catastrophic livestock event, the desire is for the animal to be used for the originally intended purpose, if possible.  Others have explored thoroughly the use of landfills, burial, and composting to dispose of animal mortalities. More recently (July 2017) USDA APHIS VS hosted a symposium directed at better implementation of rendering for mortality disposal. The obvious hole in the response is using the animal for the originally intended purpose. With sponsorship from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and USDA APHIS Veterinary Services workshops engaging packers were conducted in March 2014, August 2015, and August 2016. The U.S. packing industry slaughters over 115,000 hd of beef cattle and 415,000 head of hogs per day. That capacity could be used effectively in efforts to limit disease progression and maintain, as best possible, business continuity in the livestock industry. USDA APHIS VS and USDA Food Safety Inspection Services (FSIS) both engaged in the discussion as did representatives of the packing industry and producers. Concerns and impediments for packer involvement were articulated and discussion concerning paths forward were outlined.