DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction to Waterborne Pathogens in Agricultural Watersheds September 2012

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Nutrient Management Technical Note No. 9 United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service September 2012 Introduction to Waterborne Pathogens in Agricultural Watersheds September 2012 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers. If you believe you experienced discrimination when obtaining services from USDA, partici- pating in a USDA program, or participating in a program that receives financial assistance from USDA, you may file a complaint with USDA. Information about how to file a discrimina- tion complaint is available from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex (including gender identity and expression), marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, political beliefs, genetic information, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) To file a complaint of discrimination, complete, sign, and mail a program discrimination complaint form, available at any USDA office location or online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov, or write to: USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call toll free at (866) 632-9992 (voice) to obtain additional information, the appropriate office or to request documents. Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech disabilities may contact USDA through the Federal Relay service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish). USDA is an equal opportunity provider, em- ployer, and lender. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communica- tion of program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). Technical Note No. 9, September 2012 Acknowledgments This technical note outlines the findings from a Cooperative Agreement and a former Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) National Research Initiative (NRI) Competitive Grant study. This is a second edition of the findings of the original studies developed by Barry H. Rosen, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natu- ral Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Watershed Science Institute, School of Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont; Edward R. Atwill, D.V.M., Ph.D., School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis (UC Davis), Davis, California; Richard Croft, NRCS (retired); Susan Stehman, V.M.D., New York State Diagnostic Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Fund- ing for this study was provided by USDA NRCS. This second edition was developed by Edward R. Atwill, D.V.M., Ph.D., Melissa L. Partyka, M.S., Ronald F. Bond, Xunde Li, Ph.D., and Chengling Xiao, M.S., Western Institute for Food, Safety and Security, School of Veterinary Medicine, UC Davis, Davis, California; and Betsy Karle, M.S., UC Cooperative Extension, Glenn County, California. Editorial assistance was provided to the researchers by Luana E. Kiger, Special As- sistant State Conservationist, USDA NRCS, Davis, California. This technical note was developed under the direction of Glenn H. Car- penter, Ph.D., National Leader, Animal Husbandry, USDA NRCS, Ecological Sciences Division (ESD), Washington, DC.; Luana E. Kiger, Special Assis- tant State Conservationist, USDA NRCS, Davis, California. It was reviewed by Bill Reck, Rebecca Challender, William Boyd, Jeff Porter, Cherie Lafleur, Peter Wright, and Dr. Linda Scheffe of USDA NRCS, and Dr. Mark Borchardt, USDA Agricultural Research Service. The authors would like to thank the many landowners, scientists, and re- source agencies that helped provide material and support for this technical note. A special thanks to the staff of the NRCS and the University of Califor- nia Cooperative Extension Farm Advisors who work tirelessly on behalf of conservation, agricultural productivity, and human health to the benefit of all. Technical Note No. 9, September 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Technical Note No. 9, September 2012 Table of Contents 1. Introduction to Waterborne Zoonotic Pathogens .....................................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Sources of waterborne zoonotic pathogens ...........................................................................................................2 1.3 Drinking water ....................................................................................................................................................................4 1.4 Recreational water .............................................................................................................................................................5 1.5 Pathogens of primary concern compared to secondary concern....................................................................5 1.6 References and further reading ....................................................................................................................................9 2. Waterborne Zoonotic Protozoa ........................................................................................................................................11 2.1 Cryptosporidium parvum ...............................................................................................................................................13 2.2 Giardia duodenalis ...........................................................................................................................................................15 2.3 Waterborne protozoa of secondary zoonotic concern ......................................................................................17 2.4 References and further reading ................................................................................................................................17 3. Waterborne Zoonotic Bacteria .........................................................................................................................................19 3.1 Escherichia coli O157:H7 (E. coli O157:H7) ...............................................................................................................19 3.2 Campylobacter ..................................................................................................................................................................21 3.3 Salmonella enterica .........................................................................................................................................................21 3.4 Waterborne bacteria of secondary zoonotic concern ........................................................................................23 3.5 References and further reading ...............................................................................................................................25 4. Other Waterborne Pathogens of Secondary Zoonotic Concern .......................................................................27 4.1 Enteric viruses ...................................................................................................................................................................27 4.2 Enteric fungi ......................................................................................................................................................................28 4.3 Worms (helminthes) .......................................................................................................................................................28 4.4 References and further reading .................................................................................................................................29 5. Harmful Algae and Pfiesteria .................................................................................................................... 31 5.1 References and further reading .................................................................................................................................32 6. Bacterial Indicators of Fecal Contamination .......................................................................................... 33 6.1 References and further reading .................................................................................................................................36 7. Survival of Pathogens in the Environment ............................................................................................. 37 7.1 Media type and factors affecting survival of pathogens ..................................................................................37 7.2 Survival of pathogens ....................................................................................................................................................39 7.2.1 Protozoa ..........................................................................................................................................................................40 7.2.2 Bacteria ............................................................................................................................................................................43
Recommended publications
  • Housed Livestock, Manure Storage, Manure Processing Draft Section for a Guidance Document

    Housed Livestock, Manure Storage, Manure Processing Draft Section for a Guidance Document

    Housed livestock, manure storage, manure processing Draft section for a Guidance Document Prepared by Barbara Amon and Lars Stoumann Jensen (session chairs) For discussion at the workshop on integrated sustainable nitrogen management, Brussels 30 September – 1 October 2019 This draft chapter to a planned Guidance Document on integrated sustainable nitrogen management has been prepared for the Task Force on Reactive Nitrogen under the UNECE Air Convention, with support from the European Commission. The process of drafting the Guidance Document started in connection to a workshop “Towards joined-up nitrogen guidance for air, water and climate co-benefits”, hosted in Brussels, 11-12 October 2016. The current chapter draft is based on the results from that workshop and on discussions and developments since then. It will be presented and discussed in Brussels on 30 September – 1 October at a second workshop jointly organised by the Task Force on Reactive Nitrogen and the European Commission. The content of the draft paper reflects the views only of the authors and the European Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information. 2 Housed livestock, manure storage, manure processing 1. Introduction and background 2. Why do we have emissions and how can they be influenced – the basics behind emission processes Nitrogen can take various forms (Fig. 1). Reactive nitrogen (Nr) includes all forms of nitrogen that are biologically, photochemically, and radiatively active. Compounds of nitrogen that are - - reactive include the following: nitrous oxide (N2O), nitrate (NO3 ), nitrite (NO2 ), ammonia + (NH3), and ammonium (NH4 ). Reactive forms of nitrogen are those capable of cascading through the environment and causing an impact through smog, acid rain, biodiversity loss, etc.1.
  • Manure Management Factsheet

    Manure Management Factsheet

    INDIANA NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE Helping People Help the Land. FACT SHEET Manure Management Properly managed manure can improve soil health, crop yields and reduce the risk of runoff to surface waters. June, 2014 Photo Source: IDEM NRCS works directly with farmers to manage NRCS ASSISTANCE Natural Resources manure as a valuable nutrient source in an BACKGROUND environmentally conscious manner. Properly NRCS helps farmers and landowners identify • Manure is a valuable fertilizer Conservation Service managed manure can improve soil health, natural resources concerns on their farm. containing varying amounts of nitrogen, crop yields, and reduce the risk of runoff to NRCS provides technical assistance at no cost phosphorus, potassium, micronutrients surface waters. to create a conservation plan and identify and organic matter, depending on conservation practices to address resource the livestock species and the manure MANURE MANAGEMENT concerns. handling and storage, as well as application methods. STANDARDS Practices may include nutrient application (590 standard) to address identified water quality • Manure is a cost-efficient form of Through a scientific planning process and or other concerns, or manure storage (313 and fertilizer for crops, that if managed and standards, NRCS works with farmers to 359 standards) to address an identified water applied correctly, can supply plant- address resource concerns on their farms. All quality, odor or other resource concern. nutrient needs and can enhance soil NRCS standards require
  • Commentary Disease Transmission Dynamics and the Evolution

    Commentary Disease Transmission Dynamics and the Evolution

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 96, pp. 800–801, February 1999 Commentary Disease transmission dynamics and the evolution of antibiotic resistance in hospitals and communal settings Simon A. Levin*† and Viggo Andreasen‡ *Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Eno Hall, Princeton University, Princeton NJ 08544; and ‡Department of Mathematics, Roskilde University, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark Despite the tremendous benefits of antibiotics for dealing with sally, exercising little influence on their host under normal a wide range of pathogens, there is by now little doubt that conditions. Antibiotics are typically introduced to treat the their indiscriminate use has led to the emergence of novel true pathogens, and for them the problem of resistance resistant strains and a frightening new set of threats to public introduces questions concerning the length and intensity of health. Hospitals and other community settings provide an treatment, multidrug strategies, and patient compliance. (See, especially fertile ground for the spread of those types; in for example, refs. 2–4). Commensals provide a different sort particular, the recent emergence and proliferation of bacteria of problem, however. Under normal conditions, they live in resistant to both methicillin and vancomycin has engendered such places as the skin or upper respiratory tract, causing little serious concern, threatening the effectiveness of the last or no harm. On occasion, however, they become translocated available options for treatment of potentially fatal Staphylo- to sites that are normally sterile, such as the blood or lungs, coccus strains. where they may have serious harmful effects (6). Many viru- It seems clear that a considered and comprehensive strategy lence factors, for example in Staphylococcus aureus, are carried for antibiotic use is essential, permitting the intelligent de- on plasmids, and can be exchanged among different strains.
  • Valacyclovir Reduced Genital Herpes Transmission in Couples Discordant for Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 Infection Corey L, Wald A, Patel R, Et Al

    Valacyclovir Reduced Genital Herpes Transmission in Couples Discordant for Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 Infection Corey L, Wald A, Patel R, Et Al

    146 THERAPEUTICS Evid Based Med: first published as 10.1136/ebm.9.5.146 on 30 September 2004. Downloaded from Valacyclovir reduced genital herpes transmission in couples discordant for herpes simplex virus type 2 infection Corey L, Wald A, Patel R, et al. Once-daily valacyclovir to reduce the risk of transmission of genital herpes. N Engl J Med 2004;350:11–20. Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care wwwwwwq Infectious diseases wwwwwqq ............................................................................................................................... In heterosexual couples who are serologically discordant for herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) infection, does once Q daily valacyclovir reduce the sexual transmission of genital herpes? METHODS MAIN RESULTS The table shows the results. Design: randomised placebo controlled trial. CONCLUSION In heterosexual couples discordant for herpes simplex virus type 2 infection, valacyclovir reduced transmission of infection. Allocation: concealed.* Commentary Blinding: blinded {participants, healthcare providers, data revious studies have shown that antiviral drugs can reduce the collectors, data analysts, and outcome assessors}À.* frequency of recurrence and subclinical shedding of viral particles.1 Follow up period: 8 months. P This important, large, well designed trial by Corey et al is the first to show an effect on the transmission of HSV-2 infection to an uninfected partner. In this study, the reduction in transmission was limited; 62 partners had Setting: 96 sites in the US, Canada, Europe, Latin America, and to take the drug daily for 8 months to prevent 1 infection, and 57 partners Australia. had to take the drug daily to prevent overall acquisition of HSV-2 infection. 2 independent predictors were found in addition to the drugs: Participants: 1498 couples >18 years who were women as the susceptible partners (hazard ratio [HR] 3.3) and duration immunocompetent, heterosexual, monogamous, in good health, of HSV-2 infection ,2 years (HR 2.9).
  • Manure Management for Water Quality: Costs to Animal Feeding Operations of Applying Manure Nutrients to Land

    Manure Management for Water Quality: Costs to Animal Feeding Operations of Applying Manure Nutrients to Land

    Manure Management for Water Quality: Costs to Animal Feeding Operations of Applying Manure Nutrients to Land Marc Ribaudo, Noel Gollehon, Marcel Aillery, Jonathan Kaplan, Robert Johansson, Jean Agapoff, Lee Christensen, Vince Breneman, and Mark Peters Chapter 1–Introduction Livestock and poultry manure can provide valuable sion affecting the potential for contamination of water organic material and nutrients for crop and pasture resources by manure nutrients (Mulla et al., 1999). growth. However, nutrients contained in animal manure can degrade water quality if they are over- Recent policies and programs for increasing the effi- applied to land and enter water resources through cient use of nutrients and protecting water quality from runoff or leaching. The nutrients of greatest water nutrient runoff all emphasize the importance of proper- quality concern are nitrogen and phosphorus. Animal ly handling animal manure. The Unified Strategy for waste is a source of both. Animal Feeding Operations, jointly developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the A shift in the livestock and poultry industry over the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1999, past several decades toward fewer, larger operations states: “Land application is the most common, and has prompted public concern over the use and disposal usually most desirable method of utilizing manure of animal manure. Manure lagoon spills in North because of the value of the nutrients and organic mat- Carolina and pfiesteria piscicida outbreaks in North ter. Land application should be planned to ensure that Carolina and Maryland have raised public concerns the proper amounts of all nutrients are applied in a about the way manure is stored and handled.
  • Potential for Transmission of Antimicrobial Resistance In

    Potential for Transmission of Antimicrobial Resistance In

    Report of the Scientific Committee of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland 2015 Potential for Transmission of Antimicrobial Resistance in the Food Chain Report of the Scientific Committee of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland Potential for Transmission of Antimicrobial Resistance in the Food Chain Published by: Food Safety Authority of Ireland Abbey Court, Lower Abbey St Dublin 1 DO1 W2H4 Tel: +353 1 8171300 Fax: +353 1 8171301 [email protected] www.fsai.ie © FSAI 2015 Applications for reproduction should be made to the FSAI Information Unit ISBN 978-1-910348-01-7 Report of the Scientific Committee of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland Potential for Transmission of Antimicrobial Resistance in the Food Chain CONTENTS FOREWORD 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 5 ABBREVIATIONS 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 10 1.1 The Scale of the Antimicrobial Resistance Problem ...................10 1.2 Human and Animals – The ‘One Health’ Concept.....................11 1.3 The Background to the Antimicrobial Resistance Problem . .11 1.4 Genetic Diversity, Genetic Determinants and Change in Bacteria . 14 1.5 Selection for Antimicrobial Resistance...............................15 1.6 Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance in Ireland and Europe . .15 1.7 Prudent Use of Antimicrobials – Definition . 15 1.8 Surveillance of Antimicrobial Use in Ireland and Europe ...............16 1.9 Antimicrobials and the Food Chain . .16 1.10 Antimicrobial-resistant Bacteria and the Food Chain ..................16 1.11 Summary . .17 1.12 Chapter Bibliography..............................................17 CHAPTER 2. TERMS OF REFERENCE 20 2.1 Chapter Bibliography..............................................20 1 of 58 Report of the Scientific Potential for Transmission of Committee of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland Antimicrobial Resistance in the Food Chain CHAPTER 3.
  • Zoonotic Diseases Fact Sheet

    Zoonotic Diseases Fact Sheet

    ZOONOTIC DISEASES FACT SHEET s e ion ecie s n t n p is ms n e e s tio s g s m to a a o u t Rang s p t tme to e th n s n m c a s a ra y a re ho Di P Ge Ho T S Incub F T P Brucella (B. Infected animals Skin or mucous membrane High and protracted (extended) fever. 1-15 weeks Most commonly Antibiotic melitensis, B. (swine, cattle, goats, contact with infected Infection affects bone, heart, reported U.S. combination: abortus, B. suis, B. sheep, dogs) animals, their blood, tissue, gallbladder, kidney, spleen, and laboratory-associated streptomycina, Brucellosis* Bacteria canis ) and other body fluids causes highly disseminated lesions bacterial infection in tetracycline, and and abscess man sulfonamides Salmonella (S. Domestic (dogs, cats, Direct contact as well as Mild gastroenteritiis (diarrhea) to high 6 hours to 3 Fatality rate of 5-10% Antibiotic cholera-suis, S. monkeys, rodents, indirect consumption fever, severe headache, and spleen days combination: enteriditis, S. labor-atory rodents, (eggs, food vehicles using enlargement. May lead to focal chloramphenicol, typhymurium, S. rep-tiles [especially eggs, etc.). Human to infection in any organ or tissue of the neomycin, ampicillin Salmonellosis Bacteria typhi) turtles], chickens and human transmission also body) fish) and herd animals possible (cattle, chickens, pigs) All Shigella species Captive non-human Oral-fecal route Ranges from asymptomatic carrier to Varies by Highly infective. Low Intravenous fluids primates severe bacillary dysentery with high species. 16 number of organisms and electrolytes, fevers, weakness, severe abdominal hours to 7 capable of causing Antibiotics: ampicillin, cramps, prostration, edema of the days.
  • The Resistance to Host Antimicrobial Peptides in Infections Caused by Daptomycin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus

    The Resistance to Host Antimicrobial Peptides in Infections Caused by Daptomycin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus

    antibiotics Communication The Resistance to Host Antimicrobial Peptides in Infections Caused by Daptomycin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Md Saruar Bhuiyan 1,† , Jhih-Hang Jiang 1,† , Xenia Kostoulias 1, Ravali Theegala 1, Graham J. Lieschke 2 and Anton Y. Peleg 1,3,* 1 Infection and Immunity Program, Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Department of Microbiology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia; [email protected] (M.S.B.); [email protected] (J.-H.J.); [email protected] (X.K.); [email protected] (R.T.) 2 Australian Regenerative Medicine Institute, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia; [email protected] 3 Department of Infectious Diseases, The Alfred Hospital and Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia * Correspondence: [email protected] † These authors contributed equally to this work. Abstract: Daptomycin is an important antibiotic for the treatment of infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus. The emergence of daptomycin resistance in S. aureus is associated with treatment failure and persistent infections with poor clinical outcomes. Here, we investigated host innate immune responses against clinically derived, daptomycin-resistant (DAP-R) and -susceptible S. aureus paired isolates using a zebrafish infection model. We showed that the control of DAP-R S. aureus infections was attenuated in vivo due to cross-resistance to host cationic antimicrobial Citation: Bhuiyan, M.S.; Jiang, J.-H.; peptides. These data provide mechanistic understanding into persistent infections caused by DAP-R Kostoulias, X.; Theegala, R.; Lieschke, S. aureus and provide crucial insights into the adaptive evolution of this troublesome pathogen. G.J.; Peleg, A.Y. The Resistance to Host Antimicrobial Peptides in Keywords: S.
  • Evolution of Disease Transmission During the COVID-19

    Evolution of Disease Transmission During the COVID-19

    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Evolution of disease transmission during the COVID‑19 pandemic: patterns and determinants Jie Zhu & Blanca Gallego* Epidemic models are being used by governments to inform public health strategies to reduce the spread of SARS‑CoV‑2. They simulate potential scenarios by manipulating model parameters that control processes of disease transmission and recovery. However, the validity of these parameters is challenged by the uncertainty of the impact of public health interventions on disease transmission, and the forecasting accuracy of these models is rarely investigated during an outbreak. We ftted a stochastic transmission model on reported cases, recoveries and deaths associated with SARS‑CoV‑2 infection across 101 countries. The dynamics of disease transmission was represented in terms of the daily efective reproduction number ( Rt ). The relationship between public health interventions and Rt was explored, frstly using a hierarchical clustering algorithm on initial Rt patterns, and secondly computing the time‑lagged cross correlation among the daily number of policies implemented, Rt , and daily incidence counts in subsequent months. The impact of updating Rt every time a prediction is made on the forecasting accuracy of the model was investigated. We identifed 5 groups of countries with distinct transmission patterns during the frst 6 months of the pandemic. Early adoption of social distancing measures and a shorter gap between interventions were associated with a reduction on the duration of outbreaks. The lagged correlation analysis revealed that increased policy volume was associated with lower future Rt (75 days lag), while a lower Rt was associated with lower future policy volume (102 days lag).
  • Chapter 2 Disease and Disease Transmission

    Chapter 2 Disease and Disease Transmission

    DISEASE AND DISEASE TRANSMISSION Chapter 2 Disease and disease transmission An enormous variety of organisms exist, including some which can survive and even develop in the body of people or animals. If the organism can cause infection, it is an infectious agent. In this manual infectious agents which cause infection and illness are called pathogens. Diseases caused by pathogens, or the toxins they produce, are communicable or infectious diseases (45). In this manual these will be called disease and infection. This chapter presents the transmission cycle of disease with its different elements, and categorises the different infections related to WES. 2.1 Introduction to the transmission cycle of disease To be able to persist or live on, pathogens must be able to leave an infected host, survive transmission in the environment, enter a susceptible person or animal, and develop and/or multiply in the newly infected host. The transmission of pathogens from current to future host follows a repeating cycle. This cycle can be simple, with a direct transmission from current to future host, or complex, where transmission occurs through (multiple) intermediate hosts or vectors. This cycle is called the transmission cycle of disease, or transmission cycle. The transmission cycle has different elements: The pathogen: the organism causing the infection The host: the infected person or animal ‘carrying’ the pathogen The exit: the method the pathogen uses to leave the body of the host Transmission: how the pathogen is transferred from host to susceptible person or animal, which can include developmental stages in the environment, in intermediate hosts, or in vectors 7 CONTROLLING AND PREVENTING DISEASE The environment: the environment in which transmission of the pathogen takes place.
  • Influence of Border Disease Virus (BDV) on Serological Surveillance Within the Bovine Virus Diarrhea (BVD) Eradication Program in Switzerland V

    Influence of Border Disease Virus (BDV) on Serological Surveillance Within the Bovine Virus Diarrhea (BVD) Eradication Program in Switzerland V

    Kaiser et al. BMC Veterinary Research (2017) 13:21 DOI 10.1186/s12917-016-0932-0 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Influence of border disease virus (BDV) on serological surveillance within the bovine virus diarrhea (BVD) eradication program in Switzerland V. Kaiser1, L. Nebel1, G. Schüpbach-Regula2, R. G. Zanoni1* and M. Schweizer1* Abstract Background: In 2008, a program to eradicate bovine virus diarrhea (BVD) in cattle in Switzerland was initiated. After targeted elimination of persistently infected animals that represent the main virus reservoir, the absence of BVD is surveilled serologically since 2012. In view of steadily decreasing pestivirus seroprevalence in the cattle population, the susceptibility for (re-) infection by border disease (BD) virus mainly from small ruminants increases. Due to serological cross-reactivity of pestiviruses, serological surveillance of BVD by ELISA does not distinguish between BVD and BD virus as source of infection. Results: In this work the cross-serum neutralisation test (SNT) procedure was adapted to the epidemiological situation in Switzerland by the use of three pestiviruses, i.e., strains representing the subgenotype BVDV-1a, BVDV-1h and BDSwiss-a, for adequate differentiation between BVDV and BDV. Thereby the BDV-seroprevalence in seropositive cattle in Switzerland was determined for the first time. Out of 1,555 seropositive blood samples taken from cattle in the frame of the surveillance program, a total of 104 samples (6.7%) reacted with significantly higher titers against BDV than BVDV. These samples originated from 65 farms and encompassed 15 different cantons with the highest BDV-seroprevalence found in Central Switzerland. On the base of epidemiological information collected by questionnaire in case- and control farms, common housing of cattle and sheep was identified as the most significant risk factor for BDV infection in cattle by logistic regression.
  • Chapter 9 Agricultural Waste Management Systems

    Chapter 9 Agricultural Waste Management Systems

    Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 9 Agricultural Waste Management Systems (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 47, December 2011) Chapter 9 Agricultural Waste Management Systems Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Issued December 2011 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all pro- grams.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for commu- nication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 47, December 2011) Acknowledgments Chapter 9 was originally prepared and printed in 1992 under the direction of James N. Krider (retired), national environmental engineer, Soil Conser- vation Service (SCS), now Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). James D. Rickman (retired), environmental engineer, NRCS, Fort Worth, Texas, provided day-to-day coordination in the development of the hand- book. Authors for chapter 9 included L.M. “Mac” Safley, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC; William H. Boyd, environmental engineer, Lincoln, Nebraska; A.