foot-and-mouth disease (fmd) training manualfoot-and-mouth disease (fmd) training manual ......

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (FMD)TRAINING MANUAL

FOO

T-AN

D-M

OU

TH D

ISEASE (FM

D)

TRAIN

ING

MA

NU

AL

All documents are available on the EuFMD wiki site: http://km.fao.org/eufmd/wiki/Main_Page

EuFMD official Web site: http://www.fao.org/ag/eufmd.html

Foot-and-Mouth disease (FMd)training ManuaL

Food and agricuLture organization oF the united nationsEuropEan Commission for thE Control of foot-and-mouth disEasE (Eufmd)

2009

Approximate program of lectures/exercises

Day 1: Monday 08.45 Pick-up at Hotel, transfer to VCRI09.15 Introduction to Course, organisation of the week09.30 Epidemiology /control, of FMD in Turkey 10.30 What is special about FMD investigations? Relevance of FMD pathogenesis, clinical

signs, lesion ageing, kinetics of infectivity and transmission, to tracing FMD spread 11.30 Sampling and Diagnostic procedures for FMD (include probang sampling in field?) 12.30 Lunch 13.30 Min requirements of the EU Directives and best practises 14.00 Group work exercise: investigation procedures for village and individual holdings15.00 Feedback, Output: agree on forms to be completed16.00 Biosecurity – both optimal (EU) and pragmatic (Erzurum) 16.30 Organisation of Field work – Groups/tasksif time Lessons learnt in FMD investigation – UK 2007

Day 2: TuesdayCollection, meet at VCRI then travel to field sites Process/Test samples collected Principles of dangerous contact risk assessment, contact tracing, link to epiGroup work – summarising field investigationOutputs: summary investigation + epi reportsSummary of day: recommended actions for Day 3

Day 3 and 4: will be decided after Day2

1 An alternative exercise: situation with healed lesions/post-outbreak surveillance.

Foot-and-mouth disease

Eoin ryan, dept of agriculture, ireland

3

Table of contents

Foot-and-mouth diseaseEoin ryan, dept of agriculture, ireland ....................................................................................................... 5

FMD Pathogenesis and lesion ageingEoin ryan, dept of agriculture, ireland ..................................................................................................... 11

Biosecurity and FMDEoin ryan, dept of agriculture, ireland ..................................................................................................... 17

FMD epidemiology and tracing dangerous contactsEoin ryan, dept of agriculture, ireland ..................................................................................................... 23

The 2007 UK FMD Outbreak: Field investigation perspectiveEoin ryan, dept of agriculture, ireland ..................................................................................................... 29

Report on the participatory epidemiological investigation of FMD in Erzurum Provincesupport of the training of veterinary officers in the participatory epidemiological investigation of fmd in Erzurum provinceBerhanu admassu, november 2005 .......................................................................................................... 35

Clinical and Epidemiology Report of InvestigationsEufmd EtC1Eastern anatolia region, Erzurum, turkey, June 2009 ............................................................................ 49

Clinical and Epidemiology Report of Investigations at Çatakök y VillageEufmd EtC2Eastern anatolia region, Erzurum, turkey, June 2009 ............................................................................ 61

Foot and Mouth Disease/Swine Vesicular Diseasesuspect premises report form ...................................................................................................... 71



4

5





6



7



8



9

Notes

10

FMD Pathogenesis and lesion ageing


11





12



13



14

Notes

15

Notes

16

17

Biosecurity and FMD




18

Biosecurity and FMD


18

Biosecurity and FMD


19



20

Biosecurity and FMD


20

Notes

21

Notes

22

23

FMD epidemiology andtracing dangerous contacts




24

FMD epidemiology and tracing dangerous contacts


24



25



26



26



27

Notes

28

29

The 2007 UK FMD Outbreak:Field investigation perspective




30

The 2007 UK FMD Outbreak: field investigation perspective


30



31



32



32

Notes

33

Notes

34

35

Report on the participatory epidemiological

investigation of FMD in Erzurum Province

support of the training of veterinary officers in the participatory epidemiological investigation of fmd in Erzurum province

Berhanu admassunovember 2005

Report on the participatory epidemiological investigation of FMD in Erzurum Province

Berhanu admassu

36

Please note these are excerpts of the Report on The Participatory Epidemiological Investigation of FMD in Erzurum Province, Support of the training of veterinary officers in the participatory epidemiological investigation of FMD in Erzurum Province, by Berhanu Admassu, November 2005

========================================================

The province of Erzurum in eastern Anatolia exhibits one of the highest incidences of FMD in Turkey. Previous EUFMD-FAO work with the General Directorate of Protection and Control (GDPC), Turkey, has illustrated the difficulties of FMD control in this region and identified a number of uncertainties in the epidemiology of the disease which if resolved might improve the targeting of control measures. The principle of a longitudinal study to identify the spread of infection in space and time was discussed with GDPC in November 2004 (in Ankara) and in April 2005 (in Rome). The EUFMD Commission conducted a mission to Erzurum in June 2005 which concluded that a rapid epidemiological survey of FMD could proceed in summer 2005. The purpose of the activities is to gain information on the incidence and distribution of FMD in the province, and on the patterns of disease incidence and spread. In doing so, the FAO consultant conducted a mission to Erzurum Province in July 2005 and trained veterinarians in participatory methods and techniques of disease investigation to undertake PE studies to identify key features of FMD epidemiology in Erzurum province. After the training a province wide epidemiological appraisal of current FMD situation and recent FMD history and community experience was conducted. This report is therefore reviews the findings of the participatory epidemiological studies into the epidemiology of foot-and-mouth disease in Erzurum Province conducted in August-September 2005.

Description of the study area Erzurum is the largest province in Eastern Anatolia and is located on a high plateau. The majority of the province is elevated. Depression plains are located between the mountains and plateaus. The province has a long and harsh winters, and short and mild summers. It is snow covered from November to April. The province of Erzurum has a population of about one million people. The largest city Erzurum has a population of about 400,000. For administrative purposes the province is divided into 18 districts which are subdivided into villages. Each district has its Director of Agriculture while each village has its Headman (Muhtar) with important authority in administration at village level.

Erzurum has the highest ratio of meadows and pastures in Turkey, ideal for stockbreeding. The livestock population of the province is Cattle are the most common livestock in Erzurum. There are about 500,000 cattle in the province. The structure of Agriculture is based on communal grazing by all livestock in individual villages. All the animals owned by different farmers share grazing land. The province of Erzurum is a province with one of the highest incidences of FMD in Turkey.

In this investigation villages are chosen as a basic unit of interest. This will make an easy, faster and cheaper collection of reliable information about the epidemiology of FMD at village level. The study technique is based on selection of villages from each district by simple random selection. Each selected village is visited by a survey team, and a group interview conducted. Once the participatory epidemiological investigation team reaches the selected village, the selection of informants within the village was not at random. The choice of respondents will be on the basis of whom in the village can provide complete and reliable information about the study unit. The interview was carried out with 6-10 livestock owners selected from each village. The interview was based on their indigenous knowledge, perception and the views of interviewee were ascertained. In addition at each village the interviewers were identified informants who were thought by the local community to possess particular knowledge of practices and these key informants includes the village headman (Muhtar). The Muhtar is the democratically elected leader/representative of the village.

For the reason of increasing the precision and variability of the information collected from villagers and to increase the sensitivity of the investigation methods a 99% Cl was used to determine the sample size of the study. Therefore a sample of 98 villages was chosen by simple random sampling from all the villages in 18 districts (N=1050). The sampling frame used was based on up-to-date village lists obtained from the Veterinary Control and Research Institute (VCRI).


Berhanu admassu

37

Study Methods Participatory methods were used to collect all the required data and information. These methods were semi-structured interviews (SSI), used throughout the investigations; specifically these interviews were used to collect general background information on local perceptions of the most important cattle diseases. Interviews were also used extensively in connection with other participatory epidemiology methods such as matrix scoring, proportional piling, seasonal calendars and participatory mapping. Map 1. Study area and randomly selected villages

Data

4.1. General disease ranking

Informal semi-structured interviews were used to collect general background information on local perceptions of the most important cattle diseases. These interviews were based on probing open questions designed to cross check information. The respondents were requested to list the major diseases of cattle and then, to describe the clinical, epidemiological and gross pathological picture for each disease comprehensively. The diseases mentioned were then listed and the respondents were requested to rank them in order of frequency of occurrence and economical importance.

The most common cattle disease terms mentioned in all 98 villages is presented in Table 1. Many other disease terms were mentioned but were not explored in detail. The discussions have revealed that cattle owners were able to accurately describe and rank cattle diseases based on the frequency of occurrence of the disease. Informants were asked the name by which these diseases are usually called in the village. The local name of these diseases is shown on Table1. Informants from all villages referred to FMD with the local term "Dabak" and the typical signs of FMD were also consistently described as shown on Table 2. The term ap is usually used by veterinary


Berhanu admassu

38

professionals which is the direct translation of the term FMD. The term Dabak means "underfoot" to signify that the sole of the foot is affected.

Dabak (FMD) was invariably mentioned as a major disease concern in each interview. Respondents were asked to rank the five most important diseases among the list provided. Dabak ranked first in 54 villages and 2nd and 3rd in 16 villages (Table 1). All livestock keepers were knowledgeable in regard to Dabak and without fail could provide a full and accurate description of the disease.

Table 1: summary of the current cattle diseases according to their importance in Erzurum province

Local Name English equivalent 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Total

ap(Dabak) FMD 54 8 8 1 0 71

yankara Blackleg 11 22 16 6 1 56

yavru atma Brucellosis 1 17 5 11 7 41

sarlk Icterus 4 16 14 3 1 38

arbon Anthrax 1 8 6 9 0 24

Others 4 7 9 24Source: PE investigation result

Table 2. Summary of list of historical cattle diseases and their rank

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Total FMD Dabak ( ap) 21 12 6 1 0 40 Rinderpest sigir vebasi 7 0 0 3 0 10 icterus sarlk 4 7 3 3 0 17 Black leg yankara 9 13 6 2 0 30 Anthrax arbon 4 5 12 3 0 24 brucellosis yavru atma 1 2 3 7 2 15 others 1 1 3 4 4 13

Source: PE investigation result

Local perceptions of disease signs

The purpose of this exercise was to recognize whether respondents have personally seen FMD in their lifetimes. All livestock owners involved in the interview exercise in all investigated villages have exposed to FMD and they have seen Dabak (FMD) in their lifetime. Since Dabak (FMD) was the commonly mentioned disease, respondents were again asked to describe the disease as part of the verification process and they described Dabak with the following clinical courses in order of progression.

feversalivation loss of appetite lameness mouth and foot lesions. Salivation, fever, mouth and foot lesions are the most frequently noted clinical signs and followed by the development of mouth and foot lesions and lameness. Analysis of the disease signs scores demonstrated good agreement between the informant groups.


Berhanu admassu

39

Table 3. Matrix of frequencies of clinical signs reported by respondents

Clinical courses Clinical signs and lesions Number of Informants observed

salivation 79Fever (high temperature) 33in appetence 21dullness 6rough skin 3

Clinical signs observed when the disease start

lacrimation 1lameness 31lesion in mouth 19salivation 9lesion on foot 8lesion on muzzle and mouth 5lesion in mouth and foot 4anorexia 5fever 3lacrimation 1

Clinical signs observed to follow the initial ones

rough hair coat 1lesion on foot 23lameness 22lesion in mouth and foot 14lesion on foot and lameness 7lesion in mouth 5lesion in mouth and foot and teat 2lesion in the mouth and tongue 2fever 2sudden calve death 1anorexia 1

Clinical signs observed late in the progression of the disease

salivation and lesion in the mouth 1Source: PE investigation result

4.2. Recent FMD outbreaks history

A retrospective investigation of village FMD outbreaks through targeted focus group and key informants was done in order to find out if there has ever been an outbreak of FMD in the village. If there has been an outbreak, the date of the last outbreak and the estimated number of animals affected was required. If there has never been an outbreak in the memory of any of the villagers, the earliest date since which group is sure that there have been no outbreaks is also required.


Berhanu admassu

40

Most recent outbreak (2005)Second most recentoutbreak (2004)Third most recentoutbreak (2003)Year 2002

Year 2001

Year 2000

Year 1998

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

No.of villages reported

1998

2001

1998-1999-2000

1999-2000-2001

2000-2001-2002

2001-2002-2003

2002- 2003-2004

2002-2003-2005

2003-2004-2005

Out

brea

k pa

tter

Figure 1. The percentage of investigated villages reported the last date of FMD outbreak between 1998 and 2005.

Informant's observation on the occurrence of FMD in their own herds, neighbouring herds was reported. All the villages surveyed reported having had an outbreak of FMD and occurred very frequently in their herds and also they observed in the neighboring villages. Respondents provided the last date of FMD outbreaks between 1998 and 2005 For all surveyed villages, FMD outbreak is a common episode and the disease was not reported to animal health authorities at every occurrence.

Figure 2. Pattern of FMD outbreaks between 1998-2005

All the 98 villages surveyed reported having had an outbreak of FMD. Among the surveyed villages 64% of them have reported that they have encountered FMD outbreaks in 2005, while 17% of the villages reported that the last date of the outbreak in 2004 and the rest 19% of the villages recalled the date of the outbreak as being about 4-8 years back (see figure 2).


Berhanu admassu

41

Map 2. Geographical distribution of FMD outbreaks between 1998-2005.

The above map provides the current history of FMD outbreak and community experience for the last eight years in the province.

(...)

The interview with informants indicated that FMD outbreaks in cattle are associated with: uncontrolled communal grazing contact with neighbouring village pasture purchase of animals from animal markets without proper veterinary inspection introducing newly purchased animal into the herd without quarantine exposure of sick animal out of the barn to the grazing area or forcing to walk on mud, thinking the disease will leave the animal easily animal dealers, who travel from village to village, animal trade between villages, purchase of animals from animal markets with out proper examination

Depending on proximity to the communal grazing areas, three types of grazing movement pattern are identified. In May the cattle graze the communal grazing in the large plains around the villages.

1. After a long period being kept in door in autumn and winter seasons, cattle (mostly young fattening animals) are turned out to the large plains around the villages. From then on they are moved to higher pastures in the highlands (yayla grazing areas) where they stay from June to the end of September. The land near the villages is then used to grow the fodder crops for winter use.


Berhanu admassu

42

2. At the end of September and early October, animals are returned from the highlands and stay on the plain grazing fields and make a remarkable density of grazing livestock on the plain, predominantly cattle with relatively few small ruminants and occasional buffalo.

3. In some villages, where there is no movement to the highland pasture, cattle are kept around homestead and on the plain during the spring and summer seasons.

4.6. Spatial and seasonal Factors

Seasonal variations in the incidence of FMD indicated that most cases 76% of the outbreaks observed in the spring season (April-June). This seasonal pattern was associated with movements of cattle to communal grazing areas. During the autumn and winter season animals are moved and housed in the barn and the incidence decreased. During spring time cattle are moved out of the barn and turned out to the plain grazing areas temporarily until the snow melts on the mountain pasture. The incidence of FMD peaked when cattle are present in the open communal grazing area.

4.7. Livestock movement to and from market

an additional risk factor identified was livestock movement to and from markets. Respondents have reported that in Erzurum province and the neighboring provinces large number of animal markets exists without proper veterinary inspection. Introductions of purchased cattle (frequently young animals) from these markets are the first source of the infection. Respondents also believe that close contact with trade cattle within the same village and along the long distances trek without any sanitary control is also serve as source of the infection. Nearly all FMD outbreaks occurred in 2005 in 62 villages were associated with these animal markets as sources of infection. A large proportion of animals produced in Erzurum are sent westwards towards the larger human population densities for fattening and slaughter. The list of these markets associated with the reported outbreaks is shown on Table 8.

Foot and Mouth Disease/Swine Vesicular Disease

suspect premises report form

43

Annexes Annex 1. Schedule for the field work implementation of participatory epidemiological investigation of FMD

DISTRICT Villages to be investigated Date of investigation Team

MERKEZ so ucak yolgeçti kırmızıta 08.08.05 A MERKEZ derebo azı kümbet güzelyurt 09.08.05 B MERKEZ arıbahçe umudum toparlak 10.08.05 B A KALE ortabahçe merdiven 11.08.05 B

A KALE kavurmaçukuru 12.08.05 A

A KALE çiftlik yeniköy 13.08.05 A

ILICA Çavdarlı A.canören 14.08.05 A

ILICA Pa ayurdu Elmalı 15.08.05 B

ILICA Toprakkale Kapılı 16.05.05 A

PAS NLER B.tuy Karavelet 17.08.05 B

PAS NLER Pelitli Ügümü Y.dani ment 18.08.05 A

TEKMAN Ba dere Toptepe 19.08.05 B TEKMAN Karatepe 20.08.05 B TEKMAN Düzyurt Güzeldere 21.08.05 B ÇAT A a ıçat Çiri li 22.08.05 B ÇAT Sarıkaya Muratçayır 23.08.05 B ÇAT Tüysüz Çayırtepe 24.08.05 A OLTU Çamlıbel Yarba ı 25.08.05 B OLTU Kalebo azı Elmadüzü 26.08.05 A OLTU Süleymanlı 27.08.05 A NARMAN Yukarıyayla 28.08.05 A NARMAN Sütpınar Kı laköy 29.08.05 B NARMAN Araköy Gökda 30.08.05 A KARAYAZI Ulucanlar Yalındal 31.08.05 A KARAYAZI Anıtlı 01.09.05 A KARAYAZI Köyce iz Duruca E Karabey Göktepe Sukonak 02.09.05 B KARAYAZI A a ı ncesu Çaltılı 03.09.05 B ENKAYA ho köy sö ütler yo urtçular 04.09.05 B ENKAYA ba pınarlar kö k 05.09.05 B ENKAYA dörtyol 06.09.05 A

SP R ba köyçamlıkayanahiyesi sırakonaklar 07.09.05 B

PAZARYOLU göztepe konakyeri 08.09.05 A KARAÇOBAN Karaköprü Molladavut Çatalgül 09.09.05 A HINIS bellita erence ovakozlu 10.09.05 A HINIS halilçavu tipideresi yayla konak 11.09.05 A OLUR çataksu ormana zı yukarı karaca 12.09.05 A KÖPRÜKÖY savatlı y.sö ütlü dereba ı ılıcasu 13.09.05 B HORASAN bahçe horumlar muratba ı 14.09.05 B HORASAN yüzören kırkgözeler karabıyık 15.09.05 A HORASAN akkeren danı ment hacıhalil 16.09.05 A TORTUM karli ziyaret alapinar Çaylica 17.09.05 B

TORTUM serdarli cevizli (u.dere) 18.09.05 B



44

Annex 2. Last date FMD outbreak per district

Number of FMD outbreaks observed in

Districts

Number of villages

investigated 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1998

1 HINIS 6 4 1 1

2 TEKMAN 5 4 1

3 HORASAN 9 7 2

4 ÇAT 6 1 1 1 1

5 MERKEZ 9 8 1

6 SP R 3 1 2

7 NARMAN 5 4 1

8 ENKAYA 6 6

9 KARAÇOBAN 3 2 1

10 KARAYAZI 10 9 1

11 KÖPRÜKÖY 4 - 2 1 1

12 PAS NLER 5 2 2 1

13 A KALE 5 4 1

14 ILICA 6 1 2 1 2

15 PAZARYOLU 2 1 1

16 TORTUM 5 4 1

17 UZUNDERE 1 - 1

18 OLTU 5 1 1 2 1

19 OLUR 3 3 98 62 16 9 3 2 2 2



45

Annex 3. Last date and pattern of FMD outbreak per surveyed village and sources of the outbreak

District Surveyed village Time of the outbreakoccurred

Sources of the disease

Pattern of the outbreak at least for three years

HINIS bellita 2004 ovaçevirme village 2002- 2003-2004

erence May-05 erzurum animal market

2003-2004-2005

halilçavu May-05 2002-2003-2004

ovakozlu May-05 erzurum animal market

2003-2004-2005

tipideresi 2002 2004-2003-2002

yayla konak Jun-05 2003-2004-2005

TEKMAN Ba dere May-03 2001-2002-2003

Düzyurt Jun-05 güzeldere 2002-2003-2004

Güzeldere Jun-05 erzurum animal market

2002-2003-2004

Karatepe Aug-05 erzurum animal market

2002-2003-2004

Toptepe May-05 erzurum animal market

2002-2003-2004

HORASAN akkeren May-05 sheep came from Igdır

2003-2004-2005

bahçekoy May-05 erzurum and horasan animal market

2003-2004-2005

danı ment May-05 2003-2004-2005

hacıhalil May-05 sheep came from Igdır

2003-2004-2005

horumlar Aug-04 2002-2003-2004

karabıyık Jun-05 erzurum and horasan animal market

2003-2004-2005

kırkgözeler May-04 2002-2003-2004

muratba ı Jul-05 erzurum and horasan animal market

2003-2004-2005

yüzören Jun-05 erzurum and horasan animal market

2003-2004-2005

ÇAT A a ıçat May-04 2002-2003-2004

Çayırtepe May-98 1998

Çiri li Jun-04 2002-2003-2004

Muratçayır Jun-03 2001-2002-2003

Sarıkaya Jun-03 2001-2002-2003

Tüysüz May-05 erzurum animal market

2003-2004-2005

MERKEZ arıbahçe Jun-05 erzurum animal market

2003-2004-2005

derebo azı May-05 erzurum animal market

2002-2003-2004

güzelyurt Sep-05 erzurum animal market

2003-2004-2005

kırmızıta May-05 erzurum animal market

2003-2004-2005

kümbet Apr-05 erzurum animal market

2003-2004-2005

so ucak May-05 erzurum animal market

2003-2004-2005



46

toparlak Jun-05 erzurum animal market

2003-2004-2005

umudum 2003 2001-2002-2003

yolgeçti Jun-05 erzurum animal market

2003-2004-2005

SP R ba köy Jun-02 2000-2001-2002

çamlıkayanahiyesi

Jun-02 2000-2001-2002

sırakonaklar Aug-05 neighbouring village 2003-2004-2005

NARMAN Araköy May-05 neighbouring village 2003-2004-2005

Gökda May-Jun-2003

2001-2002-2003

Kı laköy Apr-05 narman market 2003-2004-2005

Sütpınar Jun-05 narman market 2000-2001-2002

Yukarıyayla Jun-05 narman market 2003-2004-2005

ENKAYA ba pınarlar May-05 a kale,sgöle, nkayahayvan pazarları

2003-2004-2005

dörtyol Jun-05 Oltu animal market 2003-2004-2005

ho köy Jun-05 2003-2004-2005

kö k Aug-05 2003-2004-2005

sö ütler Jun-05 a kale,göle and enkaya animal

market

2003-2004-2005

yo urtçular Jul-05 a kale,göle and enkaya animal

market

2003-2004-2005

KARAÇOBAN Çatalgül 2005 mu bulanık animal market

2003-2004-2005

Karaköprü 2005 mu bulanık animal market

2003-2004-2005

Molladavut 2004 2002-2003-2004

KARAYAZI Anıtlı Jun-05 a rı ve horasan animal market

2003-2004-2005

A a ı ncesu Jun-05 karayazı animal market

2003-2004-2005

Çaltılı Jun-05 karayazı animal market

2002-2003-2004

Duruca E May-05 neighbouring village 2003-2004-2005

Göktepe Jun-05 neighbouring village 2003-2004-2005

Köyce iz Jun-05 erzurum animal market

2003-2004-2005

Karabey May-05 Villages from Tutak, Agri

2003-2004-2005

Sukonak May-05 2003-2004-2005

Ulucanlar 2005 erzurum animal market

2003-2004-2005

Yalındal 2004 2002-2003-2004

KÖPRÜKÖY savatlı Aug-04 2002-2003-2004

y.sö ütlü Aug-03 2001-2002-2003

dereba ı 2001 1999-2000-2001

ılıcasu 2004 2002-2003-2004

PAS NLER B.tuy 2005 erzurum animal market

2003-2004-2005



47

Karavelet 2004 2002-2003-2004

Pelitli Jun-03 2001-2002-2003

Ügümü Apr-05 animal markets 2003-2004-2005

Y.dani ment Jun-04 2002-2003-2004

A KALE çiftlik Aug-05 2003-2004-2005

kavurmaçukuru Jul-05 erzurum animal market

2001-2002-2003

ortabahçe Apr-05 a kale animal market 2003-2004-2005

yeniköy 2004 2002-2003-2004

merdiven May-05 2003-2004-2005

ILICA A.canören Jan-03 2001-2002-2003

Çavdarlı 2000 1998-1999-2000

Elmalı Jun-05 2003-2004-2005

Kapılı 2000 2000-2001-2002

Pa ayurdu 2004 2002-2003-2004

Toprakkale 2004 2002-2003-2004

PAZARYOLU göztepe May-01 2001

konakyeri 2005 2003-2004-2005

TORTUM Alapinar 2004 2002-2003-2004

Çaylica 2005 fromTa oluk village 2003-2004-2005

Karli 2005 dumlu village and erzurum animal market

2003-2004-2005

Serdarli bld Jul-05 erzurum,tortum and oltu animal markets

2002-2003-2005

Ziyaretli Jul-05 2002-2003-2005

UZUNDERE cevizli Sep-04 2002-2003-2004

OLTU Çamlıbel Sep-04 2002-2003-2004

Elmadüzü Aug-03 2001-2002-2003

Kalebo azı May-03 2001-2002-2003

Süleymanlı Jun-05 Oltu animal market 2002-2003-2005

Yarba ı Sep-98 1998

OLUR çataksu Jun-05 2002-2003-2005

ormana zı Jun-05 2002-2003-2005

yukarı karaca Jun-05 2002-2003-2005



48

Annex 4. Vaccination achievements figures (2003-2005)

Districts

FMD vaccination coverage in 2003 (spring + autumn)

FMD vaccination coverage in 2004 (spring + autumn)

FMD vaccination coverage in 2005

(only spring )

MERKEZ 90781 79417 50859

A KALE 28729 33435 28943

ÇAT 14790 6412 13844

HINIS 13491 20910 14868

HORASAN 35322 54337 25961

ILICA 27760 34290 26907

SP R 23640 24810 15850

KARAÇOBAN 11465 10890 5528

KARAYAZI 19058 11379 12325

KÖPRÜKÖY 10659 15179 9312

NARMAN 27249 29052 19951

OLTU 21832 33871 27710

OLUR 16540 16619 13460

PAS NLER 19311 27765 30185

PAZARYOLU 7080 5270 5478

ENKAYA 21075 23718 23654

TEKMAN 20650 10100 17390

TORTUM 33264 30620 20260

UZUNDERE 3598 2108 1812

Clinical and Epidemiology Report of Investigations

Eufmd EtC1

Eastern anatolia region, Erzurum, turkeyJune 2009


Eufmd EtC1

50

EuFMD ETC1

Executive Summary

1. Based on the information given by the Turkish veterinary service, a Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD)

suspicion was confirmed according to a clinical investigation done by a local official veterinarian in

Kevenlik on 29th of May, 2009. It was reported that altogether 6 affected cattle were found out of 843 (It is

uncertain how many of those were examined).

2. A clinical examination was carried out by the EUFMD Training group on the 2nd of June, 2009. On arrival to

the village, which is considered as one epidemiological unit (IP), there were 10 suspected cattle gathered in

one group. Another cow and a ewe were kept separated in other places. Altogether 10 cattle out of 11

clinically examined exhibited clinical signs corresponding to FMD symptoms.

3. The age of the oldest lesions observed within the subpopulation of clinically affected animals were at least

14 days. Based on these examinations, the period of entry of FMD virus into the IP is estimated to have been

between the 30th of April and the 11th of May 2009 considering an incubation period of 3-14d.

4. Samples of blood, loose epithelium from vesicular lesions, and saliva samples collected from the larynx with

a probang were taken for laboratory diagnosis of antibodies and virus positive antigen/genome using NSP-

ELISA, NFL and PCR. The SVANODIP® FMDV-Ag test was used on four samples from three different

animals and two of these where positive. This test is a simple direct LFD-test for the detection of all seven

serotypes of the FMDV antigen in swab and tissue samples.

5. A follow-up visit by the EUFMD Training group was undertaken on June 4th to reassess the clinical

situation, to continue the epidemiological investigation, and to evaluate the development of the FMD

outbreak in the village. One cow was re-observed and 10 sheep were observed for the first time to check for

clinical signs. Blood samples were taken from four sheep (all NSP positive, and high SP titres against type

O), including one sheep with signs of loosening of the cloves on all four feet.

6. The latest FMD outbreaks in 2009 prior to this were seen in the province of Erzurum in Abdalcik Village (64

km away from the IP) on March 24th, (still open), in Umudum Village (23 km away from the IP) on

February 2nd (closed on May 12th), and in Oltu Village (73 km away from the IP) on January 10th.

7. There have not been any officially confirmed outbreaks of FMD in Kevenlik for the last years based on an

inquiry in the Turkvet database. There was however two confirmed FMD outbreaks in the Pasinler district in

the autumn of 2008 (in TASGIL (14 km away) on the 5th of November and in BÜYÜKTÜY (7 km away) on

the 17th of October).

8. The epidemiological investigation revealed that the most probable disease introduction occurred associated

with 180 cattle acquired in the months prior to the outbreak. On the 2nd or 3rd of May 30 animals where

bought and one or more of these allegedly showed symptoms on the 20th (17/18 days after introduction). The

origin of these was the markets of Erzurum and Pasinler, and a trader (middleman) that came to the village.

Executive Summary


Eufmd EtC1

51

2

The villagers are not allowed to take the animals out of their housing until the 15th of May according to the

regional veterinary director.

9. A milk truck collects the daily production of the village and neighbouring villages and this activity has

continued up to the present, even though quarantine restrictions have been laid down. It is a bit uncertain

what the quarantine restrictions consists of, but there is restrictions on animal movements for a fortnight

after the last clinical signs have been observed. It has not been confirmed that there is any kind of restriction

on other infectious objects such as vehicles, people, animal products and by-products, etc.

10. During the risk period before FMD was suspected, 2-3 animals were sold and no specific destination has

been identified.

11. On the 3rd of June the EUFMD-training team evaluated the risk factors of the Erzurum animal market,

including individual identification, control of animal movement and bio security. A short awareness session

with focus on FMD recognition and prevention of transmission where held on the balcony of the local

“teahouse” for some of the traders and village leaders that where present. This was followed up by a short

round of discussions and questioning about possible cases. Several of the participants obviously recognised

the symptoms from the pictures we showed, indicating that the disease is quite common in the region.

Introduction

The suspicion of Foot and Mouth disease in the village of Kevenlik was reported on Thursday, the 28th of May

2009. The official veterinarian, Bahaddian Livaneli, evaluated clinically the herd and collected samples for

laboratory confirmation on the following day, Friday the 29th of May.

The EUFMD-training team was split into two groups to carry out the clinical examination and the

epidemiological investigation and made 2 visits to the outbreak: on June 2nd and on June 4th.

The location

Kevenlik is a small village in a rural area surrounded by seven other villages, as illustrated on fig 1. This is a

village with mixed production. The farmhouses are in the village intermingled with the villagers housing

facilities. The fattening animals are moved to pastures up in the mountains and the milk herd grazes around the

village on local pastures.

Population at risk

According to the initial data given by the Turkish veterinary authority, the Kevenlik ruminant livestock

comprises 843 cattle and 1325 small ruminants. There are no pigs.

A group of 530 cattle were grazing at pastures at the highlands, 10km away from the village.

A group of 320 cattle, including the entire dairy herd, were kept in the village and were grazing on the

surrounding pastures.

FMD history


Eufmd EtC1

52

3

It was reported that six cattle were affected, aged between one and three years, and there were a further 20

suspected cases in the village.

There was no previous history of FMD in Kevenlik and neighbouring villages (fig. 1), although this is

debatable as local producers reported that they could recall having seen FMD suspected animals in the

previous 1 - 3 years.

The veterinarian reported that the clinical signs displayed by the cases were pyrexia, lameness, salivation,

oral vesicular lesions, weight loss, and nasal discharge. The suspected cases were reported to have oral

lesions.

The clinical cases belong to the same owner, while the suspected cases are owned by three other owners.

Vaccination was performed in this group of animals, and it was reported by the local veterinarian that all the

cattle and small ruminants were vaccinated on March 10th, with a batch of trivalent vaccine that expired on

March 18th. The cattle that are presently suspected of FMD were amongst those vaccinated.

Fig. 1 Circle with 1 km radius around Kevenlik

Fig 2: Grazing area in the mountains above Kevenlik


Eufmd EtC1

53

4

Clinical examination and sampling

Based on the information given by the villagers the first clinical signs were observed on the cattle grazing in the

mountains. 11 of these were taken down from the mountain pasture to the village after presenting clinical signs

so that they could be inspected by the veterinarian. Therefore, most of the herd is still kept on the mountain

pasture. Only some of the sick cattle, identified by the producers, were taken from the pastures and was kept in

quarantine in the village. The rest of the herd has not been examined by a veterinarian and it was not possible to

get a good estimate of the number of sick animals in this group. The results of the clinical examination are

gathered in table 1.

Table 1: Results of the clinical investigations

Animal ID Lameness Excessive

Salivation

Vesicular

lesions

Age of

lesions

Samples

taken

TR 2514/58327 Y Y Y 7d Epithelium

TR 2515/14745 Y Y++ Y 7-8d Epithelium


Eufmd EtC1

54

5

TR 2514/78945 N Y+ Y 10-14d N

TR 2516/05832 Y Y++ Y 10d N

TR 2516/05825 Y Y+ Y >14d N

TR 2516/05874 N Y Y 6-7d Probang

TR 2516/05850 Y Y Y 12d N

TR 2516/05822 Y Y Y 8d+ and

3d on foot

Nasal and

foot

epithelium

TR 2516/05849 Y N Y 10d N

TR 2515/84181 Y N Y 10-14d N

Lameness was observed in 8 of 10 animals,

Details on the clinical signs are recorded as pictures (see Annex 1)

The age of lesions were considered in accordance with the table below to estimate the most likely time for

disease introduction (Oien Ryan, 2009).

The age of the oldest lesions observed within the subpopulation of clinically affected animals was approximately

14 days. Based on these examinations, the period of incursion of FMD virus into the herd can therefore be

estimated to have been between the 30th of April and the 11th of May, 2009 considering an incubation period of

3-14d.

Sampling

Blood samples were taken from 9 cattle and tissue samples from some of these. Additionally, probang samples

were taken from two animals (data regarding one of these are not available at the moment).

Laboratory results

Virus excretion: range and highest excretion periods relative to appearance of first lesions

Day of first lesions

-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Cattle

Sheep


Eufmd EtC1

55

6

Following laboratory results were achieved (Table 2). These results are based on test of the lateral flow devices

(LFD), tests with the 3-ABC-ELISA for NSP antibodies and FMD-Ag-ELISA.

Table 2: Results of clinical and (VCRI) laboratory results of the samples submitted from Kevenlik

Animal ID LFD NSP

antibodies

FMD-Ag Clinical symptoms Remarks

TR 2514/58327 -ve +ve -ve +ve

TR 2514/78945 +ve +ve -ve +ve

TR 2516/05832 Nd +ve -ve +ve

TR 2516/05825 Nd +ve -ve +ve

TR 2516/05874 Nd +ve -ve +ve

TR 2516/05850 Nd +ve -ve +ve

TR 2516/05822 +ve +ve -ve +ve

2 samples

LFD +ve (epithelium)

LVD –ve (clove)

TR 2516/05849 Nd +ve -ve +ve

TR 2515/84181 Nd +ve -ve +ve

TR 2515/14745 +ve

The rest of the results of

animal TR2515/14745

is missing


Eufmd EtC1

56

7

Table 3

Final Summary of Lab results from the National (SAP) Reference laboratory

Village Air-tag no SPECIE

S

SAMP

LE

LPBE-

O

LPBE-

A

LPBE-

Asia

NSP

ELISA

Ag

Detection

ELISA

PCR Probang

Kevenlik 251458327 cattle Epithel

ium

ND ND ND ND NEG NEG

Kevenlik 251584181 cattle serum >4096 362 512 POZ

Kevenlik 251478945 cattle Serum

+Epith

elium

>4096 1400 1024 POZ Poz by

3rd Inoc.

(O).

POZ

(O)



+Ephel

ium

>4096 712 362 POZ Poz by

3rd Inoc.

(O).

POZ

(O)


+Proba

ng

712 362 256 POZ POZ by

PCR

Kevenlik 251605850 cattle serum 1400 192 712 POZ




Kevenlik 7600437382 sheep serum >256 96 256 POZ

Kevenlik 7600437423 sheep serum >256 >256 192 POZ

Kevenlik 7600737430 sheep serum >256 >256 192 POZ

Kevenlik 1300220472 sheep Serum

+Proba

ng+

>256 96 96 POZ NEG


Eufmd EtC1

57

8

Descriptive Epidemiology of 2009/ June at IP 1 (Kevenlik)

FMD at cattle holding in Kevenlik village was investigated and disease was confirmed on clinical grounds on

29th of May, this became IP 1. Samples of epithelium were taken from mouth, nose and foot. Blood samples

were taken and sent to FMD Institute.

Table 3: Details of the clinically affected animals

Ear tag No. Sex Date of birth Date of movement

to Kevenlik Birth town

TR 2514/58327 Female 01.04.2006 Not recorded in

Turkvet Bahcelievler

TR 2515/14745 Male 01.03.2008 Kevenlik

TR 2514/78945 Male 15.01.2008 Kevenlik

TR 2516/05832 Male 14.06.2008 Kevenlik

TR 2516/05825 Male 14.06.2008 Kevenlik

TR 2516/05874 Male 15.06.2008 Kevenlik

TR 2516/05850 Male 15.06.2008 Kevenlik

TR 2516/05822 Male 01.06.2008 Kevenlik

TR 2516/05849 n.d.? n.d. yet

TR 2515/84181 Male 01.09.2008 25.02.2009 Pasabey

No information was obtained about 1 cattle, of the remaining 9 cattle only 1 female was examined and only 2

animals were born outside of the IP1. The ages ranged between 9 and 38 months and 5 of these were 12 months

old.

Only one of the 2 animals that originated from other villages was registered in the information system Turkvet

with a movement into Kevenlik in February, 2009.

Characterization of the clinically examined sheep

Approximately 10 of the sheep that were recently acquired were clinically examined on the re-visit to Kevenlik

on June 4th. The examination included inspection of the feet and mouth of each animal, only one was suspected

of having signs of an earlier occurrence of FMD. The sign that triggered the suspicion was the delaminating of


Eufmd EtC1

58

9

the cloves on all four feet. This could be a sign of an earlier infection. All the animals that were examined were

sampled for blood.

The laboratory findings are in Table 3: all sheep were NSP positive indicating they had been infected with

FMDV. From the SP serology, each sampled sheep had high titres (>256) against type O, suggesting that the

NSP positive relate to past type O infection. The single probang sample did not yield a positive result, so this

could not be confirmed.

The findings are consistent with the theory that these sheep may have introduced infection into Kevenlik.

However, they could also have been infected from the cattle. The marked rings on the hooves of one animal

suggest past rather than recent infection.

Possible issues to be followed up?

Complete clinical examination of all the animals to assess the intra-herd spread.

Additional value: No value for this outbreak this far out in the disease outbreak.

Are there any clinically affected animals in neighbouring villages, especially those with the possibility of

common grazing, close proximity, or close contact between the villagers?

Additional value: Discover possible spread, to map the possible routes of incursions of the FMDV

into Kevenlik, and to emphasize focus on risk parameters for the villagers.

What is common baseline of abortions and other reproductive parameters? (Questions on the management

system of the villages?) Are there any changes of the level observed?

Additional value: Could give an idea about sub clinical disease in the sheep herd.

Tracing of origin and FMD status of all small ruminants to assess the exposure hazard they constitute for the

rest of the animal population in the Kevenlik area.

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF RISK FACTORS

Herd management

During winter cattle are housed inside the premises of the village and in spring and summer for a period of

3.5 months (May to September) they are moved to mountain pastures 10 km away. The pastures, paths and

watering holes are private to the village of Kevenlik.

Sheep and goats do not share the same pastures.

Wild boars are frequently observed in contact with the cattle herd on the pastures.

No animals are borrowed from other villages for reproduction purposes.

Tagging and Registration is official and compulsory in a short period after birth with the application of a

double ear tag and the issuing of an individual passport. In small ruminants the system is under development.

A proportion of the cattle observed on the village and in the Market of Erzurum did not present the officially

due ear tags.


Eufmd EtC1

59

10

Animal movement is only officially authorized for animals vaccinated at least 2 week prior to the move and

it is compulsory with a health certificate. The animals must be transported in disinfected vehicles. The

animal market of Erzurum was visited by the team and 4 animals that were presenting oro-nasal secretions

were clinically inspected and concluded not to present lesions suggestive of FMD.

Vehicles and People

Although there are no resident dealers some transit of people occur, including middleman.

Visits to the IP1 can be a bio security problem.

Milk collection by milk trucks is scheduled in the local villages on a daily basis. The milk truck as a vector

poses a risk of entry and exit of FMD infection.

The local veterinarian visits regularly the 50 villages in the area to perform vaccination and other animal

health duties so iatrogenic transmission is a factor to be emphasized.

Acquisitions

There is a seasonal acquisition of cattle in the spring for fattening on the pastures and for sale in the autumn

and also religious feasts that result in high numbers of animal movement and transitions. Between March

and May 2009, 180 cattle, mostly within 1-2 years of age, were brought to the village and joined the herd

that went to the highlands on 23 April. 30 cattle were bought on the 2/3 of May of which 1 started to present

FMD suspicious signs on May 20th.

After a decade without sheep, 1350 animal were bought during the winter/spring of 2009.

The bovine acquisitions were made in the markets of Erzurum and Pasinler (which is not an official market).

The sheep acquisitions were made mostly in Igdir, but also from non identified origins, including a

middleman.

Sales

2-3 cows were sold within the last month to a middleman, for an unknown destination.

Milk and slurry are also transacted for several destinations.

FMD vaccination

Vaccination against FMD is performed twice a year on cattle that are more than 2 months of age (March and

October), small ruminants are vaccinated once a year.

The younger animals are usually the group with greater risk of contracting the disease because the boost on

primo-vaccination is not included on the official programme.

Pastures

As there are no shared pastures either with cattle form neighbouring villages or with sheep the risk is

considered minimal. The contact with wild boar could present a risk that is difficult to evaluate.


Eufmd EtC1

60

11

RANKING OF RISK FACTORS FOR INTRODUCTION OF DISEASE

• Animals

– Markets

– Middleman

• Milk Truck

• Humans

– Villagers

– Dealers

– Middleman

– Veterinarian

• Wild boar?

IMPORTANT FACTORS FOR STOPPING THE SPREAD OF DISEASE

Movement control on all animal, products, people and equipment that can function as a vector for the

virus.

Ensure 100% coverage of vaccination and only accept movement and trade of vaccinated animals.

Ensure good documentation of all animal movements from markets, middlemen, and private trade. This

requires a 100% fulfilment of tagging requirements.

Clinical and EpidemiologyReport of Investigations at Çatakök y Village

Eufmd EtC2

Eastern anatolia region, Erzurum, turkeyJune 2009

Clinical and Epidemiology Report of Investigations at Çatakök y Village

Eufmd EtC2

62

EuFMD ETC2

Based on the information given by the Turkish veterinary service, the suspicion of a foot-and-mouth

disease (FMD) outbreak was notified by a livestock owner in the village of Çatakk y in the district of Oltu on

the 3rd of June. A visit and investigation carried out by a local official veterinarian on the 4th of June, 2009

confirmed the suspicion. It was reported that six cattle were affected from the village population of

approximately 1000 (80 cattle from 4 holdings were examined by the official veterinarian). A village visit was

carried out by the EUFMD Training group on the 9th of June, 2009 (13.00- 7.00 hrs).

This village was considered as one epidemiological unit, because the animals are kept in very close

proximity in barns in winter. The village livestock are also grazed in communal areas during the summer

months. The villagers assert, however, that the village’s livestock do not come into contact with those from other

villages on the mountain pasture.

At the time of the visit by the EUFMD training group on 9th of June, only one of the six clinically affected

cattle was available for examination and sampling. The other five affected cattle had been returned to the group

on the mountain pasture. The clinically affected animal was examined and sampled and 32 calves with no

reported signs were also examined. The age of the only lesion observed was likely to be at least 10 days old.

Based on the assumption that this was the oldest lesion associated with the outbreak, the period of incursion of

FMD virus into the herd was estimated to have been between the 16th of May and the 30th of May 2009

considering an incubation period of 1-14 days.

The livestock owners in Çatakk y regularly visit the live animal market in Oltu and occasionally buy

animals which are then returned to the mountain village.

One possible source of infection was the import of three animals into the village from the market in Oltu

around the 10th of May. These were, according to the village livestock owners, the only animals that were

imported into the village in recent times. All three of these animals became clinically infected and were amongst

the six animals examined by the official veterinarian on the 4th of June. Based on the 10-day old lesion observed

in the one animal examined, the first clinical signs probably occurred on or around the 1st of June. It is possible

that this animal picked up the virus in the Oltu market on the 10th May and, following a two-week incubation

period, showed clinical signs of FMD on or about the 24th of May. If this occurred then the lesion seen on the 9th

of June may have been 16 days of age. This could not be ruled out as it is difficult to accurately age lesions

beyond 7-8 days of age. Another possible, though less likely source of infection was the animals already in the

village infecting the three newly purchased animals, or the village environment being contaminated with virus

that had survived due to the low temperatures. In this theory, the animals in the Çatakk y village already carried

the virus and infected the three naïve animals, thus setting up clinical disease in the village. This could be the

reason why the symptoms could be observed more than 14 days after the entry of animals.

The spread of infection from Çatakk y to other villages is not considered to be highly likely since no

animals were said to have left the village in the last six months. The risk is not negligible however, because five

out of the six clinically affected animals had been sent back to graze the highlands with the group, one or two


Eufmd EtC2

63

EuFMD ETC2

2

days before the EUFMD group visit on the 9th of June. Furthermore, there is also a risk that the farmers

themselves might act as fomites for the spread of the virus during visits to local villages and the market in Oltu.

Introduction

Erzurum is the largest province in Eastern Anatolia and is located on a high plateau. The majority of the

province is elevated. Depression plains are located between the mountains and plateaus. The province has a

population of about one million people. The largest city Erzurum has a population of about 400,000. For

administrative purposes the province is divided into 18 districts each of which are subdivided into villages. Each

district has its Director of Agriculture while each village has its Headman (Muhtar) with important authority in

administration at village level.

Erzurum has the highest ratio of meadows and pastures in Turkey, ideal for stockbreeding. There are about

500,000 cattle in the province. The structure of agriculture is based on communal grazing by all livestock in

individual villages. All the animals owned by different farmers share grazing land.

Çatakk y is a mountain village in the district of Oltu, and Oltu is one of the 18 provinces in Erzurum. The

economy of Çatakk y revolves around farming and all of the villagers are involved in it. There are 62 farms in

the village which has a population of approximately 200. Food and supplies are purchased in the town of Oltu

which is at lower altitude and approximately 30 kilometres from Çatakk y. Oltu also has a market where cattle,

sheep and goats are traded. Each farmer in Çatakk y has a small herd (30-40) of breeding cows and young stock.

The calves born in the village are suckled up to six-months of age, after which up to half of the animals are sold.

The remainder are reared to approximately 1-1½ years and are then sold for fattening on fattening units in

farming districts west of Erzurum. The conditions for farming in Çatakk y and surrounding villages are tough.

Because of the high altitude, winters are long and quite severe. There are only a few months in summer when the

conditions are suitable for grazing cattle. A system called ‘Yayla’ is practiced during the summer months. This is

where a group of the village farmers take the cattle to the mountain pastures for grazing, sometimes for weeks on

end. The farmers pitch tents and move along with the animals, thus providing care and protection, and ensuring

that the cattle have the best grass available. After the summer grazing period is over the animals are housed in

the villages and are fed hay which is typically bought in from farms in lower lying areas.

Cattle and sheep are vaccinated against FMD in Turkey. Cattle are vaccinated twice a year and sheep and goats

are vaccinated once per year. In the province of Erzurum a bivalent vaccine was used in 2008 and 2009, to cover

FMD serotypes O and A. The cattle in Çatakk y village are reported to have received the most recent

vaccination in early May. Despite the vaccination protocol FMD is considered to be endemic in the country, and

the province of Erzurum has one of the highest incidences of the disease in Turkey.


Eufmd EtC2

64

EuFMD ETC2

3

Outbreak history

The suspicion of an FMD outbreak was reported on the 3rd of June 2009. The official veterinarian visited the

village and took samples on the 4th of June. The EUFMD Training group carried out an epidemiological and

clinical investigation on the 9th of June.

According to data given by the Turkish veterinary authority, the Çatakk y animal population consists of the

following: 800-1000 cattle, 300-400 sheep and an unspecified number of goats. There have not been any

officially confirmed outbreaks of FMD in Çatakk y village for the last two years but outbreaks have occurred in

the Oltu district within the last year.

It was reported that in this outbreak, six cattle were affected, aged between 1½ and 2 years. This was based on an

examination by the official veterinarian of 80 cattle from four herds. All six cattle were from one herd owned by

Ishmael Sengol. Bivalent vaccine (containing serotypes O & A) was administered to animals in this village this

year between 1st of May and 5th of May. All of the cattle but none of the small ruminants are reported to have

been vaccinated. The previous vaccination was applied for all cattle six months before that.

Three cattle were imported into the village of Çatakk y from the market in Oltu around the 10th of May 2009.

These were, according to the village livestock owners, the only animals that were imported into the village in

recent times. All three of these animals became clinically infected and were amongst the six clinical cases

identified by the official veterinarian on the 4th of June. The vaccination history of these three cattle is unclear.

They were not vaccinated after entry into the village.

The veterinarian’s report stated that the clinical signs observed by the owner and displayed by the cases were

ruptures on the hoof, lameness and salivation.

Despite instructions regarding isolation of the six clinical cases, five of the six were returned to the mountain

grazing to join the group already there (10 kilometers away from the village). This happened one or two days

before the EUFMD Training group visit on the 9th of June.

Clinical examination

In the village, only one sick animal was available for examination. Approximately 25 farmers had young one to

four–month old calves in barns. The team examined 32 young calves in eight of these barns. They had not shown

any clinical signs according to the owners. On examination, no clinical evidence of FMD was seen in these

animals, although two calves had tongue lesions. One of these was clearly traumatic (tooth injury to tongue),

while the other calf’s tongue lesions were circular and superficial, resembling Bovine Papular Stomatitis (BPS)

but an FMD lesion could not be excluded. All of the calves were bright and alert, although small for their age

compared to more intensive production systems. 9 of these calves were blood sampled.

The one clinically affected animal available was examined last. It was isolated in a barn on its own. The animal

was recumbent and unable to rise. The hooves were bandaged and had a blue-coloured dressing, so foot

examination was difficult. The animal was eating.


Eufmd EtC2

65

EuFMD ETC2

4

Table 1: Details of clinically affected animal

Animal ID Sex Date of birth Date of movement to Çatakk y Birthplace

TR 251641602 Female 23.07.2008 Not recorded in Turkvet Erzurum

There was a very severe deep ulcerative lesion on the dental pad. Although this lesion was estimated at

approximately ten days old, it could not be accurately aged because it had been treated with silver nitrate. A

blood sample was taken and a sample of pharyngeal fluid was taken using a sheep probang because of the small

size of the animal.

Table 2: Description of the cattle with suspect FMD lesions seen in Çatakk y village

Animal ID Lame? Lesions? Vesicles? Age of lesions Probang? Epithelium?

Untagged Calf No BPS? No N/A No No

Untagged Calf No Traumatic No N/A No No

TR 251641602 Yes Yes No ~10 days Yes No

Sampling, testing and results

10 serum samples (9 from calves and 1 from the clinically affected animal) and 1 pharyngeal fluid (probang)

sample (from the clinically affected animal) was taken. The samples were forwarded to the veterinary laboratory

in Ankara for testing. The list of tests carried out and the results of these tests are listed in table 3.

Table 3: Test results of animals samples in Çatakk y

Animal ID Sample LPBE-O LPBE-A LPBE-

Asia

NSP

ELISA

Ag Detection

ELISA

PCR

Calf 1 Serum 45 96 Neg Neg

Calf 2 Serum 96 96 96 Neg


Calf 4 Serum Neg 96 45 Neg

Calf 5 Serum 96 96 96 Pos



Calf 8 Serum 96 192 128


TR 251641602 Serum 1400 192 192 Neg

TR 251641602 Probang Neg


Eufmd EtC2

66

EuFMD ETC2

5

Disinfection

The bus carrying the training team parked in the village itself. The road was not tarred and there was a heavy

shower of hail during the visit, making the mud road quite messy. Boots, a disposable tyvek suit and a double

pair of latex gloves were worn by each member of the team during the visit. Disinfection prior to entering the

bus and leaving the village was not easy and, while carried out as thoroughly as possible, could not be

considered to be ideal. The risk may have been reduced somewhat by parking the bus outside the village, since

we considered the village to be a single epidemiological unit and therefore, the infected premises.

Discussion

As the oldest lesion examined was approximately 10 days old, the clinical signs must have appeared on or prior

to the 30th of May 2009. The incubation period for FMD virus of 1-14 days suggests that the affected animal

was exposed between the 16th and 29th of May. Table 4 illustrates the sequence of events associated with the

outbreak.

Table 4: Timeline of events associated with the Çatakk y FMD outbreak

The EUFMD training group was unable to examine and age the lesions of the animals which had been moved

from the village so we could not exclude the possibility that some of these had older lesions. Our conclusions

therefore, are based on the single animal available to examine.

One possible source of infection was the import of three infected animals into the village from the market in

Oltu around the 10th of May. These were, according to the village livestock owners, the only animals that were

9thJune 2009

30thM

ay 2009

16thM

ay 2009

10thM

ay 20093 C

attle bought in O

ltu

EU

FMD

group visit

Lesion age estimation Incubation period Most likely date of infection


Eufmd EtC2

67

EuFMD ETC2

6

imported into the village in recent times. Unfortunately there is no record on the Turkvet database of the

movement of these three animals so it was not possible to trace the movements from the source farm. All three

became clinically infected and were amongst the six animals examined by the official veterinarian on the 4th of

June. Based on the ~10-day old lesion observed in the one animal examined, the first clinical signs probably

occurred on or around the 30th of May. It is possible that this animal picked up the virus in the Oltu market on

the 10th May, and following a two-week incubation period, showed clinical signs of FMD on or about the 24th of

May. If this occurred then the lesion seen on the 9th of June may have been 16 days of age. This could not be

ruled out as it is difficult to accurately age lesions beyond 7-8 days of age.

Another possible but less likely source of infection is the animals already in the village infecting the three newly

purchased naïve animals. In this theory, the animals in the Çatakk y village already carried the virus and

infected the three naïve animals, thus setting up clinical disease in the village. This could be the reason why the

symptoms could be observed more than 14 days after the entry of animals.

Unanswered questions

How many animals are actually clinically infected in this outbreak?

Is FMD present in the sheep and goat population of the village?

What is the clinical status of the milking herd and other cattle on the pasture?

How many animals are actually present on the village, the surrounding hills and the pastures?

Further action if this was an ongoing outbreak investigation

Determine the actual number of susceptible animals in the village.

Carry out a clinical examination of the entire large and small ruminant population of the village.

Implement appropriate movement controls and restriction zones.

Seek further information on which villages are visited frequently by farmers from Çatakk y.

Seek further information on whether vehicles and machinery from Çatakk y are used in other villages.

Clinically examine and sample animals in neighbouring villages in order to clarify if spread had occurred

in either direction.

Trace the source of the three bought-in animals and examine and sample animals from this herd or herds

for evidence of FMD.

Trace the destination of any animals sold from the village over the previous three months and examine and

sample these animals for evidence of FMD.

Isolate the five affected animals again.

Advise on the disinfection procedures that should be followed to prevent spread of FMD.


Eufmd EtC2

68

EuFMD ETC2

7

Clinical Report of Investigations at Yurtbasi

Summary

All three outbreaks mentioned here occurred near the town of Elazig.

The first outbreak started at the 25th of May in Yazikonak. There are 2,200 cattle in this village according

to the TURKVET database. Samples were taken on the 26th of May. The EUFMD training team visited a farm in

this village on 10th June 2009. We were told that most of the animals had recovered and did not show any

clinical symptoms. Two animals were examined at this location but no samples were taken.

The second outbreak started on the 2nd of June in Yünlüce. There are 700 cattle in this village according

to the TURKVET database. The location of the first outbreak is near the second outbreak. The training team did

not visit this village.

The 3rd outbreak was in Yurtbasi, Bahcelievler. The first symptoms were noticed on the 2nd of June but the

outbreak was not notified to the veterinary authorities until the 10th of June. There are 2,500 cattle in this village

according to the TURKVET database. The official vet arrived on the farm on the 10th June and when FMD was

confirmed, the EUFMD team was informed. The team visited the farm of Mehmet Bingöl. The herd owner was

not present, but some stock-keepers and Mehmet Bingöl’s sons were present at the time of the inspection. Based

on their information the animals got sick 10 days previously. All of the animals were bought in between

September and November 2008. They were vaccinated in November 2008 and again on the 30th of April 2009.

Table 5: Description of the cattle with suspect FMD lesions seen in Yurtbasi village

Animal ID Lame? Temp Salivating? Vesicles? Age of oldest lesions

12233248 Yes 39.4oC No Yes 8 days

23348750 No - No No -

23349274 No 39.3oC No No -

12230582 No - Yes Yes 1-2 days

23328934 Yes - Yes Yes 3-4 days

23317247 No - Yes Yes 2 days

23345866 No - Yes Yes 3-4 days

Sampling, testing and results

4 epithelium samples, 1 serum and 1 pharyngeal fluid (probang) sample were taken. The samples were

forwarded to the veterinary laboratory in Ankara for testing. The list of tests carried out and the results of these

tests are listed in table 6.


Eufmd EtC2

69

EuFMD ETC2

8

Table 6: Test results of animals sampled in Yurtbasi

Animal ID Sample LPBE-O LPBE-A LFD* NSP

ELISA

Ag Detection

ELISA

PCR

12233248 Serum Pos

12233248 Epithelium Pos (O) Pos (O)

12230582 Epithelium Pos Pos (O) Pos (O)

23317247 Epithelium Pos (O) Pos (O)

23345866 Epithelium Pos Pos (O) Pos (O)

23345866 Probang Neg

* LFD = Lateral Flow Device

Disinfection

The bus carrying the training team parked approximately 300 meters from the infected premises. The road was

not tarred but the day was dry. Boots, a disposable tyvek suit and a double pair of latex gloves were worn by

each member of the team during the visit. Disinfection was carried out before leaving the infected premises. The

risk of carrying the virus from the premises was considered to be low, and was made more so by the fact that it

was the last farm visit of the training course.

Discussion

The age of the oldest lesion seen was about 8 days old. This places the first clinical signs appearing around 2nd

of June, the day that the symptoms were first noticed by the herd owner. We conclude that, based on an

incubation period of 1-14 days, the time of incursion of the FMD virus was between the 18th of May and the 1st

of June 2009. Because the visit was primarily focused on the recognition and ageing of FMD lesions, a thorough

epidemiological investigation was not carried out into the outbreak in Yurtbasi village.

Notes

70



72

Page 1 of 16

Section 1

VI Code Date

Reported by Time Position Contact No.

A. General Information

Herdowner Name Herd Number/Identifier

Address

Co-ordinates X

Y

Address of suspect premises, if different

Telephone: Home Office Mobile E-mail

Fax

Email

Address of outfarms 1 2

Rented/Owned

Rented/Owned



73

Page 2 of 16

B. Farm Profile

Please indicate below the type of farm enterprises: Yes or No

Dairy Suckler Beef Mixed Pig Breeding

Pig Fattener Sheep Deer Other

Pedigree animals Yes/No

C. Acreage Home

Outfarm 1 Outfarm 2 Total

D. Veterinary Clinicians Testing Vets - if

different

Name and address Name and address

E. Creamery Supplied

F. Farm Workers Identify all employees, temporary, full-time or

contract

Name Address Herd No (if any)

G. Associated Herds

Identify any associated herds, where there may be shared equipment or labour

Name Address Herd No (if any)



74

Page 3 of 16

Section 2 Clinical Findings

Stock Census (These numbers are indicative, not necessarily absolute)

Species Group/Type Number in group

Number with clinical disease

Number deadPerinatal

deaths (PD) or abortions (A)

Housed or pasture

Bovine Milking Cows

Dry Cows

Suckler Cows

Bulls

Stores

Calves

Fatteners

Porcine Sows

Dry Sows

Boars

Weaners

Piglets

Fatteners

Ovine Ewes

Rams

Lambs

Stores

Others

Number of Groups Affected

Number Animals Affected

Have affected animals been at pasture Yes/No



75

Page

4 o

f 16

Sect

ion

2a

Clin

ical

Exa

min

atio

n

Ani

mal

I.D

. La

men

ess

Y/N

If

Yes

, W

hen

first

no

ticed

Te

mp.

Exc

essi

ve

saliv

atio

n

Y/N

V

esic

ular

le

sion

s Y/

N

Est

imat

ed a

ge

of v

esic

ular

le

sion

s

Dro

p in

M

ilk Y

ield

Y/

N

I f y

es,

whe

n fir

st

notic

ed

Per

inat

al d

eath

s (P

D) o

r Abo

rtion

s (A

)

Pr

obab

le

Like

ly

Poss

ible

U

nlik

ely

Elim

inat

ed

Ass

ess

the

poss

ibili

ty o

f pre

viou

sly

ill a

nim

als

not b

eing

det

ecte

d

Con

clus

ions

:

E

stim

ated

age

of o

ldes

t les

ion

seen

:



76

Page 5 of 16

Section 2b: Farm geography

Please provide a sketch of the farm, showing location of farm buildings, distribution and numbers of animals, handling/loading facilities, milk collection point, other contact points AND identify where disease has been observed



77

Page 6 of 16

Section 3 SAMPLING Samples taken YES/NO If Yes, By Whom Date & Time of Dispatch Dispatched to:

Sampling Details

Species Group/Type Number Sampled

Blood Y/N

Epi Y/N Lesion age/comments

Bovine Milking Cows Dry Cows Suckler Cows Bulls Stores Calves Fatteners

Porcine Sows Dry Sows Boars Weaners Piglets Fatteners

Ovine Ewes Rams Lambs Stores

Others

Number of Groups Sampled

Number Animals Sampled



78

Page

7 o

f 16

S

ectio

n 4

Con

tact

Inve

stig

atio

ns: i

nclu

de a

ll m

ovem

ents

from

toda

y ba

ck to

14

days

prio

r to

estim

ated

dat

e of

firs

t app

eara

nce

of le

sion

s

A

. M

ovem

ent o

f ani

mal

s on

to fa

rm

Dat

e Ty

pe/G

roup

N

umbe

r S

ourc

e - N

ame

& A

ddre

ss

Her

d N

umbe

r (if

app

licab

le)

Iden

tity

of M

art,

if in

volv

ed

Iden

tity

of T

rans

porte

r use

d

Intro

duce

d an

imal

s af

fect

ed

(YES

/NO

)

Gro

up in

to

whi

ch a

nim

als

intro

duce

d af

fect

ed

(YES

/NO

)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Com

men

ts:



79

Page

8 o

f 16

B.

M

ovem

ent o

f ani

mal

s of

f the

farm

Dat

e Ty

pe/G

roup

N

umbe

r B

uyer

- N

ame

& A

ddre

ss

Her

d N

umbe

r (if

app

licab

le)

Iden

tity

of M

art,

if in

volv

ed

Iden

tity

of T

rans

porte

r use

dAr

e co

mra

des

now

affe

cted

(Y

ES/N

O)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

C.

Sw

ill

Is S

will

fed

YES/

NO

If Y

es, i

s it

a re

gist

ered

pre

mis

es

YES/

NO

Is o

wn

hous

ehol

d w

aste

us

ed

YES/

NO

D

etai

ls o

f sou

rce

C

olle

ctio

n D

ates

N

ame

& Ad

dres

s of

sou

rces

Col

lect

ion

Dat

es

Nam

e &

Addr

ess

of s

ourc

es



80

Page 9 of 16

Section 4

D. Farm Labour (Identify all personnel who have a labour input on the farm - whether on a regular or irregular basis - paid or unpaid)

Name Address & Phone No. Contact with

animals on other farms

(YES/NO)

Type of enterprise

Herd Number or Herd Identifier (if

applicable)

If irregular, date of last

contact

1

2

3

4

5

E. Other personnel movements onto or off farm

(I) Veterinary Surgeon Date Name, Address & Phone No. Animal Groups Contacted Now showing clinical

signs (YES/NO) 1

2

3

4

(II) Artificial Insemination Operator Date Name, Address & Phone No. Animal Groups Contacted Now showing clinincal

signs (YES/NO) 1

2

3



81

Page 10 of 16

Section 4

(III) Farm Relief Service Operatives

Date Name, Address & Phone No. Animal Groups Contacted Now showing clinical

signs (YES/NO) 1

2

3

4

(IV) Neighbouring/Associated herdowners visiting/assisting

Date Name, Address & Phone No. Herd Number Identifier

Animal Groups Contacted by visitor

Now showing clinical signs

(YES/NO)

1

2

3

4

(V) Visiting/Assisting at Neighbouring/Associated farms

Date Name, Address & Phone No. Herd Number Identifier Animal Groups Contacted by owner of suspect farm

1

2

3

4



82

Page 11 of 16

Section 4

(VI) Movement of Livestock Vehicles/Trailers onto or off the farm (other than associated with animal movements described above) Date Name, Address & Phone No.

Loaned inwards (IN) or loaned

out (OUT) If in, Animal Groups Contacted

If contact, now showing clinical signs (YES/NO)

1

2

3

4

5

(VII) Milk Collection - (if applicable)

Name of Collector/Truck ID Dates of collection Contact with animals (YES/NO)

Contact with affected animals

(YES/NO)

(VIII) Use of Contractors

Date Name, Address & Phone No. Work carried out Animal Groups Contacted

If contact, now

showing clinical signs

(YES/NO) 1

2

3

4



83

Page 12 of 16

Section 4

(IX) Movement of farm machinery onto/off the farm

Date Name, Address & Phone No. Loaned inwards (IN) or loaned

out (OUT) If in, Animal Groups Contacted

If contact, now


(YES/NO) 1

2

3

4

(X) Teagasc Advisor

Date Name, Address & Phone No. Contact with

animals YES/NO

If contact, now


(YES/NO) 1

2

3

(XI) Feed Supplies

Date Name, Address & Phone No. Contact with

animals YES/NO

If contact, now


(YES/NO) 1

2

3



84

Page 13 of 16

Section 4 (XII) Other Supplies - Utilities, Water, Gas, Couriers, Repairs etc.

Date Type of contact Name, Address & Phone No.

Contact with

animals YES/NO

If contact, now showing clinical signs

(YES/NO) 1

2

3

4

5

(XIII) Off-farm Work Activities of Household Personnel Name Work Activity/Location Contact with animals/infective material - Explain

1

2

3

4

5

(XIV) Other Visitors to Farm/Household - Guest House, Relations etc. Date Name, Address & Phone No. Type of visitor Country of origin Contact with

animals 1

2

3

4

(XV) Any Other Risk Factor in the Locality Activity (& date if appropriate) Address & Phone Number Distance (KM) Possibility of

animal contact 1

2

3



85

Page 14 of 16

Section 4

F.

Comments on contact tracing



86

Page 15 of 16

Section 5

Contiguous and Associated Herds

Area Aid Maps available YES/NO Attached YES/NO

Contiguous Herds

Name Address Herd Number Identifier

Enterprise Type

Previously identified in

contact tracing (Y/N)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14



87

Page 16 of 16

Section 5

Associated Herds

Name Address Herd Number Identifier

Enterprise Type

Previously identified in

contact tracing (Y/N)

1

2

3

4

5

6

Comments on contiguous and associated herds:

Notes

88

foot-and-mouth disease (fmd) training manualfoot-and-mouth disease (fmd) training manual ......

Documents