ACVIM e-poster
- 1. Nancy E. Moran1, Teresa Mills1, Dimitria Mathys2, Dixie Mollenkopf2, Thomas Wittum2, Jason Stull2 1College of Public Health 2College of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
- 2. INTRODUCTION Dogs are often on livestock farms, where they serve important management and companion roles. However, they may also be involved in disease transmission between livestock and people. The increase in canine raw animal product diets, close dog-people interactions and an increasing population of immune-compromised people make this understudied disease pathway particularly important. The objective of this study was to quantify and qualify dog ownership among livestock producers, their husbandry and biosecurity practices, disease risks, and concern for zoonotic disease potential.
- 4. MATERIAL AND METHODS - Survey • A 10-minute self-administered written questionnaire was developed with guidance from epidemiologists, veterinarians, and zoonotic disease experts. • Gathered household and individual-level data including human and farm demographics, dog ownership and husbandry practices, and attachment level to and preventive veterinary care for the dogs. • Questionnaires mailed to 2000 Ohio livestock owners randomly selected from a farming magazine mailing list. • The Tailored Design Method (reminder postcards, second mailing of survey) was used to maximize response.
- 5. MATERIAL AND METHODS - Pathogen testing • Survey respondents who owned both dogs and livestock were mailed a dog fecal sampling kit to collect 3 fecal samples from each dog, up to 2 dogs per farm. • Returned feces were tested for Salmonella spp. and AmpC/extended spectrum beta lactamase (ESBL) - producing organisms using standard enrichment and selective media. • PCR was used to confirm the expected AmpC/ESBL phenotypes.
- 6. MATERIAL AND METHODS • Data analyzed using JMP 11 and SAS 9.3. • For the fecal pathogen analysis, a model adjusting for farm level clustering was used to identify dog level risk factors for pathogen colonization. • Statistical significance was based on a p <0.05. • Study approved by The Ohio State University’s Institutional Review Board.
- 7. RESULTS - Surveys • The survey response rate was 47%, of which 297 (67%) were livestock dog-owners. Remaining results pertain to them. • 52% of households included ≥ 1 individual at higher risk to infectious disease (i.e.,<5 yrs, ≥ 65 yrs, diagnosed with an immunocompromising condition). • All types of livestock and farm sizes were represented. • Most dogs were: primarily a pet (62%), medium sized (20-55lbs) (48%), spayed/neutered (72%), living in a two-dog household (34%) with a mean age of 6 years. • Most respondents were: white (99%), college educated (66%), and male (77%).
- 8. Biosecurity/Infection Control: • 96% of households reported at least one higher-risk management practice (Table 1). • Over half (52%) of respondents allowed dogs belonging to friends, family or visitors on their farm. • In the previous 12 months, 48% reported the dog had known contact with wildlife. • Almost 30% took the dog to visit family/friends, other farms, or out of state.
- 10. Husbandry: • Direct dog-livestock contact was often reported (70%). • Raw meat, eggs, milk or animal products were fed to dogs in 24% of the households. • Frequently reported higher-risk husbandry practices: 49% had outdoor-only dogs, 23% fed the dog in the kitchen and 53% never leashed or fenced their dogs • About 25% of households allowed the dogs free access of the house for sleeping at night and 13% reported dogs slept on a family member’s bed.
- 11. • Defecation reported in the household yard (64%) and in the fields (58%) with almost 3/4 of households rarely to never picking up feces. • Various levels of veterinary and preventive care of the dogs were reported (Table 2). • There was minimal to no concern for disease transmission from livestock to dogs (90%), from dogs to livestock (87%) and from dogs to people (94%). • Households with higher-risk members reported similar husbandry, biosecurity, and concern levels to those with lower-risk (all p>0.05).
- 12. Table 2: Reported preventative measures for dogs on livestock farms
- 13. RESULTS – Pathogen Testing • Dog fecal samples were provided from 67 dogs (48 respondents). • Salmonella and ESBLs were identified in 6 to 27% of dogs (Table 3). • Feeding raw animal product treats, livestock exposure, and recent receipt of probiotics were significant predictors of fecal blaCMY-2 carriage in dogs (Table 4).
- 15. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: • With 70% of the dogs in this study having frequent close livestock exposure while being considered family pets, transmission of pathogens between livestock, dogs, and owners is possible, resulting in disease among populations and loss of productivity on the farm. • High-risk dog husbandry practices were regularly reported and level of zoonotic disease concern was low, indicating a need for improved education and outreach for the livestock dog-owning community, particularly for higher-risk households.
- 16. • The prevalence of pathogen colonization (Salmonella - 7.5%; AmpC/ESBL producing E. coli - 31%) among healthy dogs in this study was higher than often reported, suggesting the livestock environment may contribute to this risk. Multiple fecal samples from individual dogs may have also contributed to these findings. • Recent administration of probiotics and feeding raw animal product treats were significant risk factors for dogs harboring E. coli with blaCMY-2. These novel findings are not altogether surprising as prior studies have identified these practices as risk factors for other pathogens (e.g., Salmonella).
- 17. • Pathogen colonization results supported potential disease risks associated with dog and livestock ownership since Salmonella spp. and ESBLs were found in many of the dogs’ feces. Additional research is needed to investigate other pathogens and to determine if colonization in dogs on livestock farms leads to human infections.
- 18. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to thank the Ohio livestock farmers who participated in this study. Funding was provided by the Animals for Life Foundation and The Ohio State University College of Veterinary Medicine. Disclosure: There is no conflict of interest related to this research. Presenter contact information: moran.297@osu.edu