FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (FMD) TRAINING MANUAL All Documents Are Available on the Eufmd Wiki Site

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (FMD) t TRAINING MANUAL

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (FMD) TRAINING MANUAL 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 Nations European 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 VCRI 09.15 Introduction to Course, organisation of the week 09.30 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 holdings 15.00 Feedback, Output: agree on forms to be completed 16.00 Biosecurity – both optimal (EU) and pragmatic (Erzurum) 16.30 Organisation of Field work – Groups/tasks If time Lessons learnt in FMD investigation – UK 2007

Day 2: Tuesday Collection, meet at VCRI then travel to field sites Process/Test samples collected Principles of dangerous contact risk assessment, contact tracing, link to epi Group work – summarising field investigation Outputs: summary investigation + epi reports Summary 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

Table of contents

Foot-and-mouth disease Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland...... 5

FMD Pathogenesis and lesion ageing Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland...... 11

Biosecurity and FMD Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland...... 17

FMD epidemiology and tracing dangerous contacts Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland...... 23

The 2007 UK FMD Outbreak: Field investigation perspective Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland...... 29

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 Admassu, November 2005...... 35

Clinical and Epidemiology Report of Investigations EuFMD ETC1 Eastern Anatolia Region, Erzurum, Turkey, June 2009...... 49

Clinical and Epidemiology Report of Investigations at Çatakök y Village EuFMD ETC2 Eastern Anatolia Region, Erzurum, Turkey, June 2009...... 61

Foot and Mouth Disease/Swine Vesicular Disease Suspect Premises Report Form...... 71

3 Foot-and-mouth disease

Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland

4 Foot-and-mouth disease

Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland

5 Foot-and-mouth disease

Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland

6 Foot-and-mouth disease

Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland

7 Foot-and-mouth disease

Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland

8 Foot-and-mouth disease

Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland

9 Notes

10 FMD Pathogenesis and lesion ageing

Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland

FMD Pathogenesis and lesion ageing

Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland

11 FMD Pathogenesis and lesion ageing

Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland

12 FMD Pathogenesis and lesion ageing

Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland

13 FMD Pathogenesis and lesion ageing

Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland

14 Notes

15 Notes

16 Biosecurity and FMD

Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland

17 FMD PathogenesisBiosecurity and and lesion FMD ageing

Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland

18 Biosecurity and FMD

Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland

19 FMD PathogenesisBiosecurity and and lesion FMD ageing

Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland

20 Notes

21 Notes

22 FMD epidemiology and tracing dangerous contacts

Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland

23 FMD epidemiologyFMD Pathogenesis and tracing and lesion dangerous ageing contacts

Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland

24 FMD epidemiology and tracing dangerous contacts

Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland

25 FMD epidemiologyFMD Pathogenesis and tracing and lesion dangerous ageing contacts

Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland

26 FMD epidemiology and tracing dangerous contacts

Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland

27 Notes

28 The 2007 UK FMD Outbreak: Field investigation perspective

Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland

29 The 2007 UKFMD FMD Pathogenesis Outbreak: field and investigationlesion ageing perspective

Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland

30 The 2007 UK FMD Outbreak: field investigation perspective

Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland

31 The 2007 UKFMD FMD Pathogenesis Outbreak: field and investigationlesion ageing perspective

Eoin Ryan, Dept of Agriculture, Ireland

32 Notes

33 Notes

34 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 Admassu November 2005

35 Report on the participatory epidemiological investigation of FMD in Erzurum Province

Berhanu Admassu

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).

36 Report on the participatory epidemiological investigation of FMD in Erzurum Province

Berhanu Admassu

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 úap is usually used by veterinary

37 Report on the participatory epidemiological investigation of FMD in Erzurum Province

Berhanu Admassu 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

English Local Name equivalent 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Total úap(Dabak) FMD 54 8 8 1 0 71 yankara Blackleg 11 22 16 6 1 56 yavru atma Brucellosis 1 17 5 11 7 41 sarlk Icterus 4 16 14 3 1 38 úarbon Anthrax 1 8 6 9 0 24 Others 4 7 9 24 Source: PE investigation result

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

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Total FMD Dabak (úap) 21 12 6 1 0 40 Rinderpest sigir vebasi 7 0 0 3 0 10 icterus sarlk 4 7 3 3 0 17 Black leg yankara 9 13 6 2 0 30 Anthrax úarbon 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. x fever x salivation x loss of appetite x lameness x mouth and foot lesions. x 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.

38 Report on the participatory epidemiological investigation of FMD in Erzurum Province

Berhanu Admassu

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

Clinical courses Clinical signs and lesions Number of Informants observed salivation 79 Fever (high temperature) 33 Clinical signs observed when the in appetence 21 disease start dullness 6 rough skin 3 lacrimation 1 lameness 31 lesion in mouth 19 salivation 9 lesion on foot 8 Clinical signs observed to lesion on muzzle and mouth 5 follow the initial ones lesion in mouth and foot 4 anorexia 5 fever 3 lacrimation 1 rough hair coat 1 lesion on foot 23 lameness 22 lesion in mouth and foot 14 lesion on foot and lameness 7 lesion in mouth 5 Clinical signs observed late in the progression of the disease lesion in mouth and foot and teat 2 lesion in the mouth and tongue 2 fever 2 sudden calve death 1 anorexia 1 salivation and lesion in the mouth 1 Source: 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.

39 Report on the participatory epidemiological investigation of FMD in Erzurum Province

Berhanu Admassu

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

Year 2001

Year 2000

Year 1998

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

2003-2004-2005

2002-2003-2005

2002- 2003-2004

r 2001-2002-2003

2000-2001-2002

Outbreak patte Outbreak 1999-2000-2001

1998-1999-2000

2001

1998

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

No.of villages reported 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).

40 Report on the participatory epidemiological investigation of FMD in Erzurum Province

Berhanu Admassu

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: x uncontrolled communal grazing x contact with neighbouring village pasture x purchase of animals from animal markets without proper veterinary inspection x introducing newly purchased animal into the herd without quarantine x 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 x animal dealers, who travel from village to village, x 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.

41 Report on the participatory epidemiological investigation of FMD in Erzurum Province

Berhanu Admassu

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.

42 Foot and Mouth Disease/Swine Vesicular Disease

Suspect Premises Report Form

Annexes Annex 1. Schedule for the field work implementation of participatory epidemiological investigation of FMD Date of DISTRICT Villages to be investigated investigation Team MERKEZ so÷ucak yolgeçti kırmızıtaú 08.08.05 A MERKEZ derebo÷azı kümbet güzelyurt 09.08.05 B MERKEZ arıbahçe umudum toparlak 10.08.05 B AùKALE ortabahçe merdiven 11.08.05 B AùKALE kavurmaçukuru 12.08.05 A AùKALE çiftlik yeniköy 13.08.05 A ILICA Çavdarlı A.canören 14.08.05 A ILICA Paúayurdu Elmalı 15.08.05 B ILICA Toprakkale Kapılı 16.05.05 A PASøNLER B.tuy Karavelet 17.08.05 B PASøNLER Pelitli Ügümü Y.daniúment 18.08.05 A TEKMAN Baúdere Toptepe 19.08.05 B TEKMAN Karatepe 20.08.05 B TEKMAN Düzyurt Güzeldere 21.08.05 B ÇAT Aúa÷ıçat Çiriúli 22.08.05 B ÇAT Sarıkaya Muratçayır 23.08.05 B ÇAT Tüysüz Çayırtepe 24.08.05 A OLTU Çamlıbel Yarbaúı 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 Kıúlaköy 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 Aúa÷ı øncesu Çaltılı 03.09.05 B ùENKAYA hoúköy sö÷ütler yo÷urtçular 04.09.05 B ùENKAYA baúpınarlar köúk 05.09.05 B ùENKAYA dörtyol 06.09.05 A çamlıkaya øSPøR baúköy nahiyesi sırakonaklar 07.09.05 B PAZARYOLU göztepe konakyeri 08.09.05 A KARAÇOBAN Karaköprü Molladavut Çatalgül 09.09.05 A HINIS bellitaú erence ovakozlu 10.09.05 A HINIS halilçavuú tipideresi yayla konak 11.09.05 A OLUR çataksu ormana÷zı yukarı karaca 12.09.05 A KÖPRÜKÖY savatlı y.sö÷ütlü derebaúı ılıcasu 13.09.05 B HORASAN bahçe horumlar muratba÷ı 14.09.05 B HORASAN yüzören kırkgözeler karabıyık 15.09.05 A HORASAN akkeren danıúment hacıhalil 16.09.05 A TORTUM karli ziyaret alapinar Çaylica 17.09.05 B cevizli TORTUM serdarli (u.dere) 18.09.05 B

43 Foot and Mouth Disease/Swine Vesicular Disease

Suspect Premises Report Form

Annex 2. Last date FMD outbreak per district

Number of Number of FMD outbreaks observed in villages

Districts 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 øSPøR 3 1 2 7 NARMAN 5 4 1 8 ùENKAYA 6 6 9 KARAÇOBAN 3 2 1 10 KARAYAZI 10 9 1 11 KÖPRÜKÖY 4 - 2 1 1 12 PASøNLER 5 2 2 1 13 AùKALE 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

44 Foot and Mouth Disease/Swine Vesicular Disease

Suspect Premises Report Form

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

District Surveyed village Time of the Sources of the Pattern of the outbreak outbreak disease at least for three years occurred HINIS bellitaú 2004 ovaçevirme village 2002- 2003-2004 erence May-05 erzurum animal 2003-2004-2005 market halilçavuú May-05 2002-2003-2004 ovakozlu May-05 erzurum animal 2003-2004-2005 market tipideresi 2002 2004-2003-2002 yayla konak Jun-05 2003-2004-2005 TEKMAN Baúdere May-03 2001-2002-2003 Düzyurt Jun-05 güzeldere 2002-2003-2004 Güzeldere Jun-05 erzurum animal 2002-2003-2004 market Karatepe Aug-05 erzurum animal 2002-2003-2004 market Toptepe May-05 erzurum animal 2002-2003-2004 market HORASAN akkeren May-05 sheep came from 2003-2004-2005 Igdır bahçekoy May-05 erzurum and horasan 2003-2004-2005 animal market danıúment May-05 2003-2004-2005 hacıhalil May-05 sheep came from 2003-2004-2005 Igdır horumlar Aug-04 2002-2003-2004 karabıyık Jun-05 erzurum and horasan 2003-2004-2005 animal market kırkgözeler May-04 2002-2003-2004 muratba÷ı Jul-05 erzurum and horasan 2003-2004-2005 animal market yüzören Jun-05 erzurum and horasan 2003-2004-2005 animal market ÇAT Aúa÷ıçat May-04 2002-2003-2004 Çayırtepe May-98 1998 Çiriúli Jun-04 2002-2003-2004 Muratçayır Jun-03 2001-2002-2003 Sarıkaya Jun-03 2001-2002-2003 Tüysüz May-05 erzurum animal 2003-2004-2005 market MERKEZ arıbahçe Jun-05 erzurum animal 2003-2004-2005 market derebo÷azı May-05 erzurum animal 2002-2003-2004 market güzelyurt Sep-05 erzurum animal 2003-2004-2005 market kırmızıtaú May-05 erzurum animal 2003-2004-2005 market kümbet Apr-05 erzurum animal 2003-2004-2005 market so÷ucak May-05 erzurum animal 2003-2004-2005 market

45 Foot and Mouth Disease/Swine Vesicular Disease

Suspect Premises Report Form

toparlak Jun-05 erzurum animal 2003-2004-2005 market umudum 2003 2001-2002-2003 yolgeçti Jun-05 erzurum animal 2003-2004-2005 market øSPøR baúköy Jun-02 2000-2001-2002 çamlıkaya Jun-02 2000-2001-2002 nahiyesi sırakonaklar Aug-05 neighbouring village 2003-2004-2005 NARMAN Araköy May-05 neighbouring village 2003-2004-2005 Gökda÷ May-Jun- 2001-2002-2003 2003 Kıúlaköy Apr-05 narman market 2003-2004-2005 Sütpınar Jun-05 narman market 2000-2001-2002 Yukarıyayla Jun-05 narman market 2003-2004-2005 ùENKAYA baúpınarlar May-05 aúkale,sgöle,únkaya 2003-2004-2005 hayvan pazarları dörtyol Jun-05 Oltu animal market 2003-2004-2005 hoúköy Jun-05 2003-2004-2005 köúk Aug-05 2003-2004-2005 sö÷ütler Jun-05 aúkale,göle and 2003-2004-2005 úenkaya animal market yo÷urtçular Jul-05 aúkale,göle and 2003-2004-2005 úenkaya animal market KARAÇOBAN Çatalgül 2005 muú bulanık animal 2003-2004-2005 market Karaköprü 2005 muú bulanık animal 2003-2004-2005 market Molladavut 2004 2002-2003-2004 KARAYAZI Anıtlı Jun-05 a÷rı ve horasan 2003-2004-2005 animal market Aúa÷ı øncesu Jun-05 karayazı animal 2003-2004-2005 market Çaltılı Jun-05 karayazı animal 2002-2003-2004 market Duruca E May-05 neighbouring village 2003-2004-2005 Göktepe Jun-05 neighbouring village 2003-2004-2005 Köyce÷iz Jun-05 erzurum animal 2003-2004-2005 market Karabey May-05 Villages from Tutak, 2003-2004-2005 Agri Sukonak May-05 2003-2004-2005 Ulucanlar 2005 erzurum animal 2003-2004-2005 market Yalındal 2004 2002-2003-2004 KÖPRÜKÖY savatlı Aug-04 2002-2003-2004 y.sö÷ütlü Aug-03 2001-2002-2003 derebaúı 2001 1999-2000-2001 ılıcasu 2004 2002-2003-2004 PASøNLER B.tuy 2005 erzurum animal 2003-2004-2005 market

46 Foot and Mouth Disease/Swine Vesicular Disease

Suspect Premises Report Form

Karavelet 2004 2002-2003-2004 Pelitli Jun-03 2001-2002-2003 Ügümü Apr-05 animal markets 2003-2004-2005 Y.daniúment Jun-04 2002-2003-2004 AùKALE çiftlik Aug-05 2003-2004-2005 kavurmaçukuru Jul-05 erzurum animal 2001-2002-2003 market ortabahçe Apr-05 aúkale 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 Paúayurdu 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 fromTaúoluk village 2003-2004-2005 Karli 2005 dumlu village and 2003-2004-2005 erzurum animal market Serdarli bld Jul-05 erzurum,tortum and 2002-2003-2005 oltu animal markets 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 Yarbaúı Sep-98 1998 OLUR çataksu Jun-05 2002-2003-2005 ormana÷zı Jun-05 2002-2003-2005 yukarı karaca Jun-05 2002-2003-2005

47 Foot and Mouth Disease/Swine Vesicular Disease

Suspect Premises Report Form

Annex 4. Vaccination achievements figures (2003-2005)

FMD vaccination FMD vaccination FMD vaccination coverage in 2003 coverage in 2004 coverage in 2005 Districts (spring + autumn) (spring + autumn) (only spring ) MERKEZ 90781 79417 50859 AùKALE 28729 33435 28943 ÇAT 14790 6412 13844 HINIS 13491 20910 14868 HORASAN 35322 54337 25961 ILICA 27760 34290 26907 øSPøR 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 PASøNLER 19311 27765 30185 PAZARYOLU 7080 5270 5478 ùENKAYA 21075 23718 23654 TEKMAN 20650 10100 17390 TORTUM 33264 30620 20260 UZUNDERE 3598 2108 1812

48 Clinical and Epidemiology Report of Investigations

EuFMD ETC1

Eastern Anatolia Region, Erzurum, Turkey June 2009 Clinical and Epidemiology Report of Investigations

EuFMD ETC1

Executive Summary 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.

EuFMD ETC1

50 Clinical and Epidemiology Report of Investigations

EuFMD ETC1

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. x 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. x 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. x FMD history

51 Clinical and Epidemiology Report of Investigations

EuFMD ETC1

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

52 Clinical and Epidemiology Report of Investigations

EuFMD ETC1

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 Vesicular Age of Samples Salivation lesions lesions taken

TR 2514/58327 Y Y Y 7d Epithelium

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

53 Clinical and Epidemiology Report of Investigations

EuFMD ETC1

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

Nasal and 8d+ and TR 2516/05822 Y Y Y foot 3d on 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).

Virus excretion: range and highest excretion periods relative to appearance of first lesions Day of -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 first lesions

Cattle

Sheep

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

54 Clinical and Epidemiology Report of Investigations

EuFMD ETC1

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 FMD-Ag Clinical symptoms Remarks antibodies

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

2 samples TR 2516/05822 +ve +ve -ve +ve LFD +ve (epithelium) LVD –ve (clove)

TR 2516/05849 Nd +ve -ve +ve

TR 2515/84181 Nd +ve -ve +ve

The rest of the results of animal TR2515/14745 TR 2515/14745 +ve is missing

55 Clinical and Epidemiology Report of Investigations

EuFMD ETC1

Table 3 Final Summary of Lab results from the National (SAP) Reference laboratory Village Air-tag no SPECIE SAMP LPBE- LPBE- LPBE- NSP Ag PCR Probang S LE O A Asia ELISA Detection ELISA Kevenlik 251458327 cattle Epithel ND ND ND ND NEG NEG ium Kevenlik 251584181 cattle serum >4096 362 512 POZ

Kevenlik 251478945 cattle Serum >4096 1400 1024 POZ Poz by POZ +Epith 3rd Inoc. (O) elium (O). Kevenlik 251605832 cattle serum >4096 362 712 POZ

Kevenlik 251605822 cattle Serum >4096 712 362 POZ Poz by POZ +Ephel 3rd Inoc. (O) ium (O). Kevenlik 251605874 cattle Serum 712 362 256 POZ POZ by +Proba PCR ng Kevenlik 251605850 cattle serum 1400 192 712 POZ

Kevenlik 251504745 cattle serum >4096 712 256 POZ

Kevenlik 251605825 cattle serum 1400 362 192 POZ

Kevenlik 25311911 cattle serum 712 2048 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 >256 96 96 POZ NEG +Proba ng+

56 Clinical and Epidemiology Report of Investigations

EuFMD ETC1

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 Date of movement Ear tag No. Sex Date of birth Birth town to Kevenlik Not recorded in TR 2514/58327 Female 01.04.2006 Bahcelievler Turkvet

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

57 Clinical and Epidemiology Report of Investigations

EuFMD ETC1

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? x Complete clinical examination of all the animals to assess the intra-herd spread. x Additional value: No value for this outbreak this far out in the disease outbreak. x 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? x 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. x 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? x Additional value: Could give an idea about sub clinical disease in the sheep herd. x 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 x 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. x 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.

58 Clinical and Epidemiology Report of Investigations

EuFMD ETC1

x 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. x 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. x 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. x 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. x 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. x 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.

59 Clinical and Epidemiology Report of Investigations

EuFMD ETC1

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 x Movement control on all animal, products, people and equipment that can function as a vector for the virus. x Ensure 100% coverage of vaccination and only accept movement and trade of vaccinated animals. x Ensure good documentation of all animal movements from markets, middlemen, and private trade. This requires a 100% fulfilment of tagging requirements.

60 Clinical and Epidemiology Report of Investigations at Çatakök y Village EuFMD ETC2

Eastern Anatolia Region, Erzurum, Turkey June 2009 Clinical and Epidemiology Report of Investigations at Çatakök y Village

EuFMD ETC2

x 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 ÇatakkĘy 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). x 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. x 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. x The livestock owners in ÇatakkĘy regularly visit the live animal market in Oltu and occasionally buy animals which are then returned to the mountain village. x 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 ÇatakkĘy 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. x The spread of infection from ÇatakkĘy 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

62 Clinical and Epidemiology Report of Investigations at Çatakök y Village

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. ÇatakkĘy is a mountain village in the district of Oltu, and Oltu is one of the 18 provinces in Erzurum. The economy of ÇatakkĘy 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 ÇatakkĘy. Oltu also has a market where cattle, sheep and goats are traded. Each farmer in ÇatakkĘy 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 ÇatakkĘy 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 ÇatakkĘy 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

63 Clinical and Epidemiology Report of Investigations at Çatakök y Village

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 ÇatakkĘy 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 ÇatakkĘy 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 ÇatakkĘy 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

64 Clinical and Epidemiology Report of Investigations at Çatakök y Village

EuFMD ETC2 4

Table 1: Details of clinically affected animal Animal ID Sex Date of birth Date of movement to ÇatakkĘy 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 ÇatakkĘy 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 ÇatakkĘy Animal ID Sample LPBE-O LPBE-A LPBE- NSP Ag Detection PCR Asia ELISA ELISA Calf 1 Serum 45 96 Neg Neg Calf 2 Serum 96 96 96 Neg Calf 3 Serum 45 96 45 Neg Calf 4 Serum Neg 96 45 Neg Calf 5 Serum 96 96 96 Pos Calf 6 Serum 45 45 45 Neg Calf 7 Serum 45 192 192 Neg Calf 8 Serum 96 192 128 Calf 9 Serum 192 362 192 Neg TR 251641602 Serum 1400 192 192 Neg TR 251641602 Probang Neg

EuFMD ETC2

65 Clinical and Epidemiology Report of Investigations at Çatakök y Village

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 ÇatakkĘy FMD outbreak in Oltu in Oltu bought 3 Cattle visit group EUFMD 10 16 30 9 th th th th June2009 Ma Ma Ma y y y 2009 2009 2009

Lesion age estimation Incubation period Most likely date of infection

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

EuFMD ETC2

66 Clinical and Epidemiology Report of Investigations at Çatakök y Village

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 ÇatakkĘy 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

x How many animals are actually clinically infected in this outbreak? x Is FMD present in the sheep and goat population of the village? x What is the clinical status of the milking herd and other cattle on the pasture? x How many animals are actually present on the village, the surrounding hills and the pastures?

Further action if this was an ongoing outbreak investigation

x Determine the actual number of susceptible animals in the village. x Carry out a clinical examination of the entire large and small ruminant population of the village. x Implement appropriate movement controls and restriction zones. x Seek further information on which villages are visited frequently by farmers from ÇatakkĘy. x Seek further information on whether vehicles and machinery from ÇatakkĘy are used in other villages. x Clinically examine and sample animals in neighbouring villages in order to clarify if spread had occurred in either direction. x Trace the source of the three bought-in animals and examine and sample animals from this herd or herds for evidence of FMD. x 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. x Isolate the five affected animals again. x Advise on the disinfection procedures that should be followed to prevent spread of FMD.

EuFMD ETC2

67 Clinical and Epidemiology Report of Investigations at Çatakök y Village

EuFMD ETC2 7

Clinical Report of Investigations at Yurtbasi

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

68 Clinical and Epidemiology Report of Investigations at Çatakök y Village

EuFMD ETC2

Table 6: Test results of animals sampled in Yurtbasi Animal ID Sample LPBE-O LPBE-A LFD* NSP Ag Detection PCR ELISA ELISA 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.

EuFMD ETC2

69 Notes

70 Foot and Mouth Disease/ Swine Vesicular Disease

Suspect Premises Report Form Page 1 of 16

Foot and Mouth Disease/Swine Vesicular Disease

Suspect Premises Report Form

Section 1 VI Code Date Reported by

Time Position

Contact No.

A. General Information

Herdowner Name Herd Number/Identifier

Address

Co-ordinates X

Address of suspect premises, if different

Telephone: Home Office Mobile E-mail

Fax Email

Address of outfarms 1 2

Rented/Owned Rented/Owned

72 Page 2 of 16 Foot and Mouth Disease/Swine Vesicular Disease Suspect Premises Report Form

B. Farm Profile

Please indicate below the type of farm enterprises: Yes or No Dairy Suckler Beef Mixed Pig Pig Fattener Sheep Deer Other Breeding

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

Name Address Herd No (if any)

73 Foot and Mouth Disease/Swine Vesicular Disease Page 3 of 16

Suspect Premises Report Form

Section 2 Clinical Findings

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

Number with Perinatal Number in Species Group/Type clinical Number dead deaths (PD) or Housed or pasture group disease abortions (A) 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

74 Foot and Mouth Disease/Swine Vesicular Disease

Suspect Premises Report Form

Page 4 of 16

(A) (A) or Abortions Perinatal deaths Perinatal (PD) first

when I f yes, I f yes, noticed

Y/N Y/N Drop in Drop Milk Yield Milk lesions lesions of vesicular Estimated age Estimated Y/N Y/N Vesicular Vesicular lesions lesions Y/N Y/N Probable Likely Possible Unlikely Eliminated salivation salivation Excessive Excessive Temp.

If Yes, noticed noticed When first When first Y/N Y/N Lameness Lameness

Animal I.D.

Clinical Examination possibility the of previously Assess ill animals being detectednot Conclusions: seen: lesion oldest of age Estimated

Section 2a Section

75 Foot and Mouth Disease/Swine Vesicular Disease Suspect Premises Report Form 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

76 Foot and Mouth Disease/Swine Vesicular Disease Page 6 of 16 Suspect Premises Report Form

Section 3 SAMPLING

Samples taken YES/NO

If Yes, By Whom

Date & Time of Dispatch

Dispatched to:

Sampling Details

Species Group/Type Number Blood Epi Y/N Lesion age/comments Sampled Y/N 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

77 Foot and Mouth Disease/Swine Vesicular Disease

Suspect Premises Report Form

affected affected (YES/NO) Group into into Group introduced which animals which

Page 7 of 16 animals animals affected (YES/NO) Introduced Introduced Identity used of Transporter Identity if involved involved if Identity Identity of Mart,

(if applicable) (if Herd Number Number Herd

Contact Investigations: include all movements from today back to 14 Contact days Investigations: prior include to all estimated movements date from today of first appearance of lesions

Date Date Type/Group Number - Name Source & Address Movement of animals onto farm onto of animals Movement

5 6 7

Comments: Section 4 1 2 3 4

A. 78 Foot and Mouth Disease/Swine Vesicular Disease

Suspect Premises Report Form

) Page 8 of 16 (YES/NO YES/NO YES/NO re comrades now affected affected now comrades re A Name & Address of sources sources of NameAddress & Identity used of Transporter Identity Is own household waste household own Is used

Dates Dates if involved involved if Collection Identity Identity of Mart,

YES/NO (if applicable) (if Herd Number Number Herd If Yes, is it a a isit Yes, If premises registered

Name & Address of sources sources of NameAddress & YES/NO

Is Swill fed Swill Is

Date Type/Group Number Address & Name - Buyer Dates Dates Collection Collection Movement of animals off the farm Swill

Details of source

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 C. B. 79 Foot and Mouth Disease/Swine Vesicular Disease Page 9 of 16 Suspect Premises Report Form

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) Contact with Herd Number or If irregular, animals on other Type of Name Address & Phone No. Herd Identifier (if date of last farms enterprise applicable) contact (YES/NO) 1

E. Other personnel movements onto or off farm

(I) Veterinary Surgeon

Now showing clinical Date Name, Address & Phone No. Animal Groups Contacted signs (YES/NO) 1

(II) Artificial Insemination Operator

Now showing clinincal Date Name, Address & Phone No. Animal Groups Contacted signs (YES/NO) 1

80 Foot and Mouth Disease/Swine Vesicular Disease Page 10 of 16

Suspect Premises Report Form

Section 4

(III) Farm Relief Service Operatives

Now showing clinical Date Name, Address & Phone No. Animal Groups Contacted signs (YES/NO) 1

(IV) Neighbouring/Associated herdowners visiting/assisting

Now showing Herd Number Animal Groups Date Name, Address & Phone No. clinical signs Identifier Contacted by visitor (YES/NO) 1

(V) Visiting/Assisting at Neighbouring/Associated farms

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

81 Foot and Mouth Disease/Swine Vesicular Disease Page 11 of 16

Suspect Premises Report Form

Section 4 (VI) Movement of Livestock Vehicles/Trailers onto or off the farm (other than associated with animal movements described above) Loaned inwards If contact, now Date Name, Address & Phone No. (IN) or loaned If in, Animal Groups Contacted showing clinical out (OUT) signs (YES/NO) 1

(VII) Milk Collection - (if applicable)

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

(VIII) Use of Contractors

If contact, now Animal Groups Date Name, Address & Phone No. Work carried out showing Contacted clinical signs (YES/NO) 1

82 Foot and Mouth Disease/Swine Vesicular Disease Page 12 of 16

Suspect Premises Report Form

Section 4

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

If contact, Loaned inwards now Date Name, Address & Phone No. (IN) or loaned If in, Animal Groups Contacted showing out (OUT) clinical signs (YES/NO) 1

(X) Teagasc Advisor

If contact, Contact with now Date Name, Address & Phone No. animals showing YES/NO clinical signs (YES/NO) 1

(XI) Feed Supplies

If contact, Contact with now Date Name, Address & Phone No. animals showing YES/NO clinical signs (YES/NO) 1

83 Foot and Mouth Disease/Swine Vesicular Disease Page 13 of 16

Suspect Premises Report Form

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

Contact If contact, Type of with now showing Date Name, Address & Phone No. contact animals clinical signs YES/NO (YES/NO) 1

(XIII) Off-farm Work Activities of Household Personnel

Name Work Activity/Location Contact with animals/infective material - Explain 1

(XIV) Other Visitors to Farm/Household - Guest House, Relations etc.

Contact with Date Name, Address & Phone No. Type of visitor Country of origin animals 1

(XV) Any Other Risk Factor in the Locality

Possibility of Activity (& date if appropriate) Address & Phone Number Distance (KM) animal contact 1

84 Foot and Mouth Disease/Swine Vesicular Disease Page 14 of 16

Suspect Premises Report Form

Section 4

F. Comments on contact tracing

85 Foot and Mouth Disease/Swine Vesicular Disease Page 15 of 16

Suspect Premises Report Form

Section 5

Contiguous and Associated Herds

Area Aid Maps available YES/NO Attached YES/NO

Contiguous Herds

Previously Herd Number Enterprise identified in Name Address Identifier Type contact tracing (Y/N) 1

86 Foot and Mouth Disease/Swine Vesicular Disease Page 16 of 16

Suspect Premises Report Form

Section 5

Associated Herds

Previously Herd Number Enterprise identified in Name Address Identifier Type contact tracing (Y/N) 1

Comments on contiguous and associated herds:

87 Notes