|
Bovine Herd Salmonellosis
Version 2 Written 3/1/99 Updated
July 11, 2008
Contents:
Purpose and
Note on Changing Salmonella Nomenclature
The purpose of this webpage is to provide students and practitioners an on-line review
on Salmonella enteritica, some pointers on dealing with
herd outbreaks of salmonellosis, and links to other resources. These materials are updated
from presentations at veterinary practitioner conferences and the associated proceedings.
These conferences include the University of Minnesota Dairy Health Conference, May 22,
1997, and the 31st Annual Conference of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners,
September 26, 1998. This webpage is not intended to provide herd-specific advice and may
not reflect the current state of the veterinary literature.
Changing Salmonella Nomenclature
For those practitioners searching and reading the clinical literature, the following
may reduce some confusion about the changing nomenclature of salmonella. Molecular biology
research is providing a better understanding of the organism, one result being a better
understanding of how the various serotypes are genetically related. While the serogrouping
is based on the phenotypic expression of particular O and H antigens, molecular methods
are based on the organism's genotype. Findings from these molecular methods
are being integrated into the understanding of the relationships between these
organisms. In the meantime, the same organism may have two different names in the
scientific literature. The common salmonella serotypes of concern to bovine practitioners
(e.g. S. anatum, dublin, montevideo, newport, typhimurium) are now classified into a single
species, Salmonella enterica, and are subclassified by their traditional serovar
name. Confusion will rein for some time because other salmonellas, such as S.
enteritidis, are also classified under S. enterica. In the research literature
what was S. typhimurium before the renaming is now Salmonella enterica
serovar Typhimurium or S. Typhimurium rather than S. typhimurium.
Recognizing this renaming will become more important as more papers are published using
this new terminology.
[Return to Contents List]
Tackling Herd Salmonellosis
Problems
Much recent information on bovine salmonellosis is in practitioner literature,
including thorough reviews of the pathogenesis (e.g., Lax et al. 1995) and treatment
(e.g., House and Smith, 1998, McDonough, 1995) of salmonellosis. Two reviews specific to
DT104 are on websites (Dargatz et al. 1998, Hogue et al. 1997). With these in mind, the
following is based on those factors we have observed in investigations of salmonella
outbreaks on livestock farms.
To slow a clinical outbreak:
Several practitioners have found that in the midst of a clinical outbreak in
adult cows, once or twice daily monitoring of rectal temperatures in those animals most at
risk of clinical disease, such as periparturient cows, and initiating systemic antibiotic
treatment upon temperature rise may help. They have observed that body temperatures rise
to 105-107oF a day or so before the diarrhea starts.
Producers should institute such a program only under the guidance of their
veterinarian within a proper veterinary-client-patient relationship, only after a complete
on-farm outbreak workup and only after complete identification of the organism
including
antibiotic sensitivities.
Eleven characteristics of Salmonella and salmonellosis to keep in mind
1. Salmonella infection of a farm is maintained primarily by transmission
of the agent from the feces of infected animals to the mouths of susceptible animals.
The primary transmission route is fecal-oral; the epidemiology of salmonellosis is
primarily the epidemiology of fecal pollution. Transmission by inhaled aerosols occurs as
well as by other routes (e.g., ocular, via teat streak canal, rectal) occurs, but less
frequently.
Action: Enhance within herd biosecurity. Break the links in this chain by
minimizing the opportunity for fecal contamination of feedstuffs, feeding surfaces, water
troughs and equipment.
2. Salmonella infection and subsequent clinical disease (the two are not
synonymous) is a result of:
- The innate resistance of the host animal.
- The infectious dose received by the animal.
- The infectivity and virulence of the particular strain of the organism.
The livestock producer has the most impact on the salmonella cycle through
maximizing 1) and minimizing 2) (and probably in that order) but cannot change 3) once the
strain has invaded the farm. The only option for 3) is minimizing the chance of invasion
by improving herd biosecurity.
Actions:
1) Maximize the resistance of susceptible animals. Pay careful
attention to the transition of the most susceptible animals (periparturient cows, newborn
calves). Concentrate on those things known to decrease host resistance and remember that
above all else salmonella is an opportunist. For newborn calves this means calving them in
a clean maternity pen, getting 4 quarts of clean, high antibody concentration colostrum
into them within the first 2 hours of life before they are exposed to enteric pathogens
and moving them into a clean calf hutch immediately. For closeup and fresh cows, this
means such things as getting them to appropriate body condition before dry off,
maintaining that body condition score through the dry period, avoiding overcrowding of the
closeup and fresh cows, avoiding dominance problems between heifers and mature cows and
maximizing dry matter intake during the transition. The occurrence of any other
periparturient problems, such as dystocia, displaced abomasum, ketosis and hypocalcemia,
are clear indicators that cows are being stressed and thus are more susceptible to this
disease.
2) Minimize the exposure dose. Considering the other points in this
document, eliminate or control all means by which this infectious agent can get from
infected animals to the mouths of susceptible animals either directly or indirectly,
particularly by the contamination of feedstuffs, feeding surfaces, water sources, or oral
treatment equipment such as esophageal feeders, oral speculums, stomach tubes, balling
guns and hands.
One basic way to minimize exposure dose is to isolate susceptible animals from healthy
appearing but potentially infected animals. This is a major weakness of many farm systems.
For example, one of the strongest risk factors for a clinical salmonellosis problem in
adult dairy cows is the practice of placing fresh cows in the hospital pen yet according
to the NAHMS data this is a common practice. Another dangerous practice is holding back
poor doing youngstock, potentially exposing susceptible younger animals in the group.
For general considerations of infectious disease transmission, see
Epidemiology
Concepts for Disease in Animal Groups
3. Salmonella infects anything in the livestock environment that has an
intestinal tract.
Besides cows and calves, salmonella infections occur in feral cats, dogs, rodents,
birds, waterfowl, flies, humans, fish, and indigenous wild mammals (raccoons, porcupines,
deer). Under the right conditions, any of these species (even flies) can serve as
biological multipliers of this organism.
Action: Initiate control programs for rodents, flies, nuisance birds, and feral
dogs and cats. Rodent proof and bird proof feed storage and cattle housing facilities by
removing nesting and roosting opportunities and by removing protective cover.
4. The majority of salmonella infections in a herd over time are subclinical;
the clinical infections are only the tip of the iceberg, even during outbreaks of clinical
disease.
Misunderstanding this "iceberg" effect by both practitioners and producers
leads to inappropriate management of individuals in infected herds, meaning that often
attention is paid only to the animals that are or were clinically ill. Although clinically
affected animals shed much higher numbers of organism in the feces than do subclinically
infected animals, the latter clearly shed enough to provide an infectious dose for many
normal animals and are usually far more numerous in a herd.
Action: In an outbreak, handle all animals as if they were
shedding, not just the sick ones. Institute procedures to protect all animals from all
other animals, such as reducing contamination of water sources by installing guards and
reducing contamination of feed.
5. Septicemic animals shed the agent in oral and nasal secretions and
urine as well as feces. These animals don't necessarily have clinical signs associated
with enteric salmonellosis at the time.
Such animals are very dangerous because they contaminate water bowls, nipples, oral
treatment equipment, and human hands. Often this equipment (e.g. balling guns, esophageal
feeders) is used without proper sanitizing between animals and transmits the infection to
other animals that are in a most susceptible state.
This sanitation failure is likely the biggest weakness of many farm treatment programs.
Action: Implement a sound sanitation program for potentially contaminated
equipment, including training of personnel. All organic matter (e.g., saliva,
manure, milk, milk fat film, blood) must be removed prior to the application of a
disinfectant. The disinfectant must be in sufficient concentration and remain in contact
for a sufficient period to kill the organism. Contact time is dependent on temperature. We
used to recommend chlorhexidine for treatment equipment and orthophenylphenol for items such as
boots and floor mats but now recommend Virkon S. After contact with infected or potentially infected animals and
their discharges, wash hands well, scrubbing for 20 seconds or use an
alcohol rub.
See
Sanitation in the control of livestock infectious disease for additional
information on sanitation procedures.
6. Salmonella has a complex relationship with its animal host, which is
only beginning to be understood.
Why many animals are subclinically infected while some others are clinically affected
is unknown but research is advancing in this area. For example, researchers have found
that S. Typhimurium sends a protein signal through the wall of a nearby intestinal
cell of the host. In response to this signal, the host cell flattens its brush border and
builds a large, projecting pedicle with an interior cytoskelton. Salmonella then attaches
securely to this pedicle. Salmonella and other pathogens are able "trick" the
intestinal mucosal M cells into ingesting them, which gives the bacteria direct access to
the reticuloendothelial system but are protected from it. However, this protein signal is
only produced when the salmonella is near an enteric cell and is not produced during
laboratory fermentation.
Because of this complex relationship, bacterins simply targeted at producing antibodies
against antigens produced during standard laboratory fermentation are not likely to be
highly efficacious. Other than anecdotal experience, little empirical evidence suggests
that current commercial bacterins are or are not beneficial and good clinical trials are
needed in this area (House and Smith, 1997). Bacterins targeted at specific parts of this
relationship, such as blocking the Type III signaling, are more likely to provide
protection.
7. Salmonella are a small part of an extremely competitive, complex, dynamic
microbial environment in intestinal tracts and this competition is a very important part
in resistance to infection.
An understanding the aspects of intestinal microbiology is helpful in developing
strategies to prevent salmonellosis (For a primer on mammalian intestinal microbiology,
see Drasar and Barrow (1985)). Calves are born with a sterile intestinal tract that is at
a neutral pH and provides an excellent environment for bacterial growth. Succeeding waves
of microflora are established that change as the calf develops and its diet changes. The
lactobacilli are normally the first to populate the tract. The strains of lactobacilli
change with time and only those with specific characteristics that enable them to bind to
the mucosal surface persist. The presence of these lactobacilli increases the resistance
of the calf to salmonella infection. Over time, other flora populate the gut until over
400 species of bacteria are present, the numbers of each that are present varying along
the length of the gut. The gram negative fecal coliforms represent less than 1% of the
mass of bacteria present in the normal animal's gut with most being strict anaerobes. Many
of these other species are very important in resisting salmonella infection. Normal mice
require 10,000-fold the infective dose to establish salmonellosis as gnotobiotic mice or
mice treated with streptomycin, which have no or altered competing flora. Because most of
these other species are more sensitive to antibiotics than are salmonella, the use of
antibiotics precipitates clinical salmonellosis in sub-clinically infected humans and
animals in part by allowing overgrowth of the salmonella. Poorly absorbed oral antibiotics
and antibiotics that are secreted into the gut will particularly predispose the gut to an
overgrowth of salmonella by killing the more sensitive competitive microflora. Some
research shows that even those antibiotics to which the salmonella are sensitive will
cause a cessation of salmonella shedding and that shedding resumes when the antibiotic is
withdrawn. Less clear in the ruminant is the effect of antibiotic use on the prolongation
of the carrier state.
This suggests that antibiotics should be used with considerable prudence in
salmonella-infected herds and then only in those cases with systemic involvement.
8. Salmonella are usually killed by exposure to the volatile fatty acids
of fully functioning normal rumens.
The level of VFAs in rumens of most cattle on continual full feed are toxic to most
salmonella (Chambers and Lysons, 1979, Mattila et al. 1988). However, if dry matter intake
drops for any reason, the VFA levels decline rapidly. A drop in DMI may be precipitated
when animals don't have regular access to feed, such as during transport through the
marketing system, for physiologic reasons such as impending parturition, subclinical
ketosis and hypocalcemia, and sudden ration changes or ration maladaptation, and for
husbandry failures, such as inadequate bunk and pen space and mixing submissive heifers
with dominate cows at parturition.
Ration fats may also encapsulate the bacteria, protecting them from the rumen VFAs. S.
Typhimurium DT104 may be more acid resistant and appears to be able to survive in the
rumen of some chronic carrier cows.
Action: Maximize rumen function by maximizing a consistent dry matter intake in
periparturient and early fresh cows.
9. Salmonella survives for long periods under environmental conditions
common on the livestock farm.
Salmonella have several different survival mechanisms (reviewed by Foster and Spector,
1995) that enable the organism to survive sudden environmental changes and to survive for
long periods in different environments. Moreover, the pathogen can quickly turn these
different systems on and off in response to changing environments. Once some of these
systems are turned on in the dehydrated organism, the organism becomes much more resistant
to environmental factors and other control measures, such as heat or disinfectants, that
would otherwise kill it. As a result, it survives very well on surfaces, in dust, and in
dried manure that are protected from sunlight.
These survival times are very long if the organism isn't exposed to sunlight. In an
experiment that simulated a barn floor under defecating cows, salmonella survived for 5 ½
years (Forshell and Ekesbo, 1996). These researchers found S. Typhimurium in an
empty slurry pit that had not been used for 4 years. Once dehydrated, some strains have
been shown to survive exposure to 100o C for one hour (Kirby and Davies, 1990).
Salmonella survives in lagoons and can be recycled back to the herd in the flush water
(Gay and Hunsaker, 1993).
10. Salmonella replicates in moist environments (< 85% dry matter)
even with scarce nutrients.
Salmonella replicates rapidly in mixed feeds and on surfaces (wood!) that have been
washed but have not been adequately sanitized. Other workers found that the bacteria
survived for at least 119 days in contaminated pond water.
Salmonella replicates very well in composted manure solids used for bedding once it
becomes wet, is contaminated and is at a sufficient temperature, which it will often be
when laid upon by resting cows.
Salmonella is often present at low levels in many purchased feedstuffs, such as
vegetable protein sources and both vegetable and animal fat sources. Under warm
environmental conditions, mixing these contaminated feed ingredients with wet feeds, such
as silage or haylage, may allow the organism to replicate until infectious doses for
normal animals are reached if sufficient time between mixing and consumption passes.
Placing wet mixed feeds on contaminated surfaces such as feed alleys may allow the same
consequence.
Action: Minimize replication time, such as by not mixing large batches that are
stored or not mixing well in advance of consumption.
11. Salmonella, particularly Salmonella Typhimurium DT104, in livestock is a significant zoonotic disease risk
for in-contact people, particularly young children.
Human disease due to salmonella is a particular risk to farm families, particularly
young children, and to employees in contact with infected cattle.
Actions:
- Veterinarians dealing with farms infected with this strain are remiss if they do not
warn people associated with the farm about the hazard presented by the exposure of the
very young, the elderly, people who are immunocompromised and those taking antibiotics to
animals shedding this organism.
- Likewise, consumption of raw milk from the farm should be strongly discouraged.
- Outer garments and footwear exposed to infected animals and their discharges should not
be brought into the household.
- Hands should be cleaned well, using soap and warm water and scrubbing
or an alcohol-based handrub for at least 15 seconds,
before returning to the household. The best handwashing guidelines are
the following.
- In the household, food preparers should be particularly cautious about proper food
handling to minimize opportunities for salmonella contamination and for the replication of
this contamination. This includes refrigerating cool enough (<39oF), heating
hot enough (>160oF) and minimizing the time that foods requiring cooking or
refrigeration are exposed to temperatures between 40oF and 140oF.
Prolonged exposures in this temperature range, even when thawing or cooling, allow minimal
salmonella contamination to replicate to above infectious doses.
Use sodium hypochlorite (bleach) to sanitize (3 tablespoons per gallon of water) or to
disinfect (3/4 cup per gallon of water) surfaces and items, allowing at least two minutes
of contact time.
Minimize the opportunities for replication in moist, contaminated items such as dish
cloths and sponges by disinfecting or changing and washing these frequently rather than
reusing these between meals.
As we have isolated this agent from clinically normal domestic pets associated with
infected herds, in the presence of young children these animals should either be
restricted to the household or from the household.
Keeping the above factors in mind when working with a farm facing a salmonellosis
problem will enable you to detect the weak points in the management and the facilities of
that farm and to determine the best places to begin breaking the salmonella cycle. In
herds that don't have a salmonella problem, proactively increasing herd biosecurity will
reduce the likelihood of having an outbreak. Begin implementing bovine food and water
safety. Otherwise, it may be only a matter of time. Far from being a simple organism with
simple functions, salmonella interact with the environment and their animal hosts in very
complex ways that are only beginning to be understood. Salmonella is a very worthy
adversary for the veterinary practitioner.
[Return to Contents List]
On-line Resources:
Current bovine salmonellosis references -
Cornell Consultant
(current
Cornell Consultant salmonella references)
National Library of Medicine
PubMed
NAHMS Reports
Dairy Index
NYSCHAP
Salmonella Module (New York State Cattle Health Assurance Program)
Salmonella Outbreak Risk Assessment
- Emergence of Multidrug-Resistant Salmonella enterica Serotype Typhimurium DT104
Infections in the United States (abstract,
NEJM 338, 1998)
- Emerging Quinolone-Resistant Salmonella in the United States (CDC
Emerging
Infectious Diseases 3(3))
- Experiences with Salmonella on California Dairies (JH Kirk, WM
Sischo, et al.
pdf)
- Flies and Disease (JH Kirk
pdf)
- Molecular Mechanisms of Bacterial Virulence: Type III Secretion and Pathogenicity
Islands (J Mecsas, EJ Strauss
EID 2(4))
-
Salmonella typhimurium DT 104 (Institute of Food Science and Technology (UK))
- Salmonella (Hudson Farm Outbreak -
PowerPoint Presentation, B. Jayarao,
Penn State)
- Spring Preparation for Fly Pests on Your Dairies (JH Kirk, NC Hinkle,
pdf)
- Travel and the Emergence of Infectious Diseases (ME Wilson,
EID 1(2))
- USDA FSIS Situation Assessment: Salmonella Typhimurium DT104 (review of
information as of December, 1997)
Other General On-line Sources:
[Return to Contents List]
Review
(1999) of S. enterica var Typhimurium DT104 (S. typhimurium DT104)
In the early 1990's a new strain of salmonella, Salmonella enterica serovar
Typhimurium variant DT104 (S. Typhimurium DT104), with broad antibiotic
resistance emerged as a pathogen for humans and farmed animal species in the U.S. (Besser
et al. 1997). This epidemic strain is identified by the following characteristics: it is
phage type DT (distinguished type) 104, it had initially an antibiotic resistance pattern
characterized by resistance to ampicillin, chloramphenicol, streptomycin (spectinomycin),
sulfonamides and tetracycline (R-type ACSSuT) and a plasmid profile characterized by the
presence of a single 60 megadalton plasmid. The R-type ACSSuT is not widespread among
strains of serogroup B salmonella and thus can be used as an initial method for screening
and preliminary classification of group B isolates as the epidemic strain. This resistance
to chloramphenicol includes florfenicol, which can also be used as a preliminary marker.
In humans, the CDC reported that R-type ACSSuT increased from 9% of S. Typhimurium
isolates in the U.S. in 1990 to 32% in 1996, when the first group outbreaks were
recognized (Anon., 1997). In a bank of S. Typhimurium isolates collected from
Northwest animals, we found that R-type ACSSuT was absent in cattle isolates obtained
prior to 1986, comprised 13% of the isolates prior to 1991, increased to 64% subsequently
(Besser et al. 1997) and now appears to be declining. We have obtained S. Typhimurium
with this R-type from a broad range of species in both farm and non-farm environments in
the Northwest, having isolated it from the cow, horse, goat, emu, cat, dog, deer, elk,
mouse, coyote, ground squirrel, raccoon, chipmunk and birds (pigeon, starling, pine
siskin).
The epidemic strain was first definitively recognized in England in 1984 in a human
isolate (Threlfall et al. 1994). Human isolates of this phage and R-type had been detected
between 1973 and 1982 in Hong Kong (Ling et al. 1987) but the resistance was
plasmid-mediated (Ling and Chau 1987). In 1990 the epidemic strain began rising rapidly as
a proportion of salmonella isolated from man, becoming second only to S.
Enteriditis. The number of isolates peaked in 1996 and now appear to be declining, having
decreased by 25% in 1997 (Threlfall et al. 1998). Of note is that during this period the
total number of human Typhimurium isolates in England did not increase significantly,
suggesting that this epidemic strain was displacing other Typhimurium strains in humans
rather than occupying new niches. Compared with other Typhimuriums, this variant created
great concern among the public health community (Akkina et al. 1999, Glynn et al. 1998,
Poppe et al. 1998) for the following reasons. First, the genes encoding this broad
antibacterial resistance are integrated into the chromosome, suggesting that this
resistance is likely retained in the absence of the selective pressure of drug use
(Threlfall et al. 1994). Further, these genes are part of a "cassette" or
integron, a mechanism that is easily exchangeable between different bacterial species
(Mecsas and Strauss, 1996). Of further concern is that S. Typhimurium DT104 emerged
in Britain that are also resistant to fluroquinolones (Threlfall et al. 1996), which are
important drugs for the treatment of invasive salmonellosis in humans. This has very
serious implications for antibiotic use in food animals, particularly of the
fluroquinolones. Initial British reports also suggested that this strain had a
significantly higher human morbidity and case mortality than other Typhimurium strains
(Threlfall et al. 1996, Wall et al. 1994, Wall et al. 1995), although this has yet to be
confirmed by subsequent publications. The risk of bacteremia does not appeat to be higher
than other S. Typhimuriums (Threlfall et al. 1998). Finally, human cases are
significantly associated with contact with cattle in Britain, Scotland and the U.S.
(Besser et al. 1997, Calvert et al. 1998, Wall et al. 1994, Wall et al. 1995). In-contact
children appear to be at significantly greater risk of clinical infection than in-contact
adults (Calvert et al. 1998). Also of concern is that we have isolated the agent from
clinical normal pet dogs and cats associated with infected herds, presenting another
potential route of significant exposure for young children.
After S. Typhimurium DT104 has been introduced into a herd, the clinical course
is highly variable. In some herds a significant proportion of the cows, including
mid-lactation cows, and an even larger proportion of the calves are affected. In other
herds only a few postpartum cases or only cases in calves are observed even though the
environment is heavily contaminated (Anon., 1996, unpublished FDIU observations). An S.
Typhimurium DT104 enteric infection persisting for four months (Anon., 1995d) and udder
infection persisting for eight months through a non-lactating period (Sharp and Rawson,
1992) have been documented. In our studies, we have observed a clinically normal carrier
cow shedding over a million salmonella per gram of feces for over six months. At necropsy,
all intestinal lumens including her rumen were salmonella positive, suggesting that her
saliva was likely intermittently positive, potentially contaminating items the environment
such as water troughs. The reasons for the variability have not been delineated, but the
existence of such a wide variation of clinical syndrome suggests that factors in a farm's
environment and management modulate the herd's experience with this agent. The frequency
of these clinically normal, long-term chronic carriers has not been established.
Active surveillance and investigation of farm outbreaks of this agent in British herds
by government personnel has been occurring since the agent was first recognized and
reports of their findings indicate the infectivity of the agent and its risk to livestock,
non-farmed animals, farm families and the rural environment. In one outbreak, 15
isolations were made from 22 normal in-contact calves, indicating that subclinical
infection of the bovine may not be uncommon (Anon., 1995a). We have observed a similar
occurrence in an outbreak affecting a group of 20 in-contact cows, most of which shed on
at least one occasion but none of which ever exhibited clinical signs. In another
outbreak, index bovine cases shed the agent for four months (Anon., 1995d), showing the
persistence of infection in individual cattle. Persistent infection in a herd has been
documented over 8 months (Sharp and Rawson, 1992). The introduction of a large number of
feral cats to control a rat infestation was associated with one livestock outbreak (Anon.,
1995c). The agent was isolated from the cat feces, suggesting that they were an
established part of the salmonella cycle on the premises. The agent was isolated from
another cat with intermittent bloody diarrhea but the cat was not associated with cattle
(Anon., 1994a), from pigeons (Anon., 1994b), and from rabbits, one of which was associated
with a secondary human case (Anon., 1994c). Cats also have been implicated as a common
source of infection for humans (Anon., 1997, Low et al. 1996, Threlfall et al. 1996).
Another human outbreak of approximately 20 cases was traced to milk from a producer whose
bulk tank milk was positive for the agent (Anon., 1995e). In other cattle outbreaks, the
agent was isolated from a healthy dog (Anon., 1994d), healthy ducks (Anon., 1995b), and
from pond water accessible to cattle (Anon., 1995d). Two cattle outbreaks were associated
with exposure to human sewage, suggesting that waterborne routes may permit transfer from
humans to cattle (Anon., 1995d, 1995e). A large number of starlings were noted in one
outbreak, leading investigators to suggest their role in heavily contaminating the
environment and point to their potential danger to surrounding farms (Anon., 1996). The
agent was found in the bird feces from various places on the premises, within the silage
and throughout the buildings even though only two clinical cases had been noted in the
cattle. In our studies, we have isolated the agent from normal members of virtually all
species associated with farms except for humans, which we have not sampled.
In a case-control study of S. Typhimurium DT104 in British cattle herds,
significant associations were found between clinical case occurrence and seven risk
factors (Evans, 1996, Evans and Davies, 1996). These were being a cattle dealer (OR =
14.25) as well as a farmer, introducing newly purchased animals (OR = 2.51), being in the
calving period for seasonally calving herds (OR = 2.48), birds accessing stored feeds (OR
= 1.67), cattle being housed (OR = 1.51), lack of isolation facilities for sick animals
(OR = 1.51) and cats accessing stored feeds (OR = 1.35). A preliminary analysis of our
case-control study suggests that the strongest risk factors are purchasing animals and
using a common area for both calving cows and housing sick cows. We have not detected any
association between prior antibiotic usage and outbreak occurrence.
Neither the future course of this strain or its impact on the bovine industries are yet
clear, although emerging evidence suggests that compared to other Typhimuriums it is not a
super bug. Besides the broad antibiotic resistance, what makes DT104 different from other
S. Typhimurium strains, if indeed it is different? Is a lower infectious dose
required, is it shed in higher numbers by infected animals or does it survive better in
the environment? Our preliminary observations suggest that it can be shed in very high
numbers for long periods by chronic carrier animals. How common these clinically normal
chronic carrier animals are is unknown but evidence is mounting that they exist.
Preliminary work in our lab suggests that it may survive in the environment only
marginally if at all longer than other Typhimuriums. How long and where does it persist on
infected livestock operations? What are the best ways to determine a herd's infection
status? Testing cows or calves? If carrier animals are involved, what are the best means
of detecting them? Performing conventional bacterial culture, using molecular based
methods, running serological or milk-based ELISAs or a combination of these methods? How
often and on what samples? To prevent this infectious agent's spread and to eradicate it
from infected premises, much remains to be learned.
[Return to Contents List]
Evidence from Outbreaks of
Other Salmonellas
Investigations of outbreaks due to other strains and serotypes may be useful for
practitioners dealing with outbreaks of this agent. Investigators have reported that
animals other than cattle are associated with the salmonella cycle of this and other
serovars. These include an association between various bird species contaminating feeds
and the transmission of salmonella to cattle (Coulson et al. 1983, Glickman et al. 1981,
Johnson et al. 1979, Tizzard et al. 1979). The avian species are among the many animal
species that have been identified as susceptible to infection and could be involved in the
spread and survival of S. Typhimurium DT104. The mobility of avian species makes
them of particular concern if they are carriers and shedders of S. Typhimurium
DT104 for extended periods. As birds follow their seasonal migration patterns and mating
instincts, they could potentially disperse S. Typhimurium DT104 over wide
geographic regions. Of particular interest are species that are commonly found on or near
farms and are known to feed on dead animal tissue (e.g. dead carcasses, placentas or
mucous shreds), animal feeds or on material in livestock droppings (e.g., undigested feed,
invertebrates living off of or in the dung). The Corvidae (crows, ravens, magpies), known
carrion feeders and prevalent in the farm environment, could readily ingest such animal
tissues and become infected. Starlings, blackbirds and pigeons are common pests on many
farms and feed either directly from feed bunks or search for food in livestock droppings.
Feeding on the later is likely a means of ingesting large numbers of fecal microorganisms.
Infected starlings, blackbirds or pigeons could readily contaminate cattle feed as well as
the environment. Infected droppings of wild birds have been found in feedmill environments
(Davies and Wray, 1997) and the presence of salmonella-contaminated feeds of swine farms
has been shown to be associated with the lack of bird-proofing (Harris et al. 1997).
Rodents have been implicated in outbreaks in a dairy herd (Tablante and Lane, 1989), in
a beef herd (Hunter et al. 1976) and in poultry flocks (Davis and Wray, 1995, Henzler and
Opitz, 1992). A single rodent fecal pellet from infected mice typically contains up to 104
salmonella (Davis and Wray, 1995). Large rodent populations can be present before their
signs (e.g., rodent droppings and runways) are obvious. Rodents resident in farm buildings
and feed storage areas can be captured using Sherman live traps baited with peanut butter
and rolled oats (Schemnitz 1994). These traps work best if left baited and open for
several days in areas frequented by the rodents before they are set. In our ongoing
studies of affected herds, we have found several in which all rodent fecal collections
were DT104 positive. Live-trapped raccoons have been reported to harbor S.
Typhimurium (Morse et al. 1983). In one outbreak, we found that the feces of raccoons
living in the bale stacks were DT104 positive. Insects may also be vectors (Devi and
Murray, 1991, Kopanic et al. 1994). Flies may function as a biologic vector as well as a
mechanical vector, with S. Typhimurium replicating in flies under the right
conditions (Greenberg et al. 1970). In our ongoing studies of affected herds, we have
found several in which all fly collections (primarily the house fly) were DT104 positive.
That feedstuffs are often contaminated with salmonella and that outbreaks in livestock
can be caused by this contamination is established. In fact, given the frequency of
feedstuff contamination, the unanswered question is why outbreaks due to this
contamination aren't recognized more frequently. Although the recent ruminant protein
feeding ban has potentially eliminated one likely source of exposure, recent evidence
suggests that both animal and vegetable fat sources may be involved in salmonella
infection (Jones et al. 1982, Losinger et al. 1997) and in outbreaks of clinical disease
(Anderson et al. 1997). The epidemic DT104 strain has been reported both in off-farm
(Davies and Wray, 1997) and on-farm (Kyrtenberug et al. 1998) feed samples. In the later
study, S. Typhimurium DT104 replicated in 9 of 10 mixed rations from dairy
farms when inoculated in the laboratory.
Other factors in the farm environment may also perpetuate the salmonella cycle. In a
review of salmonellae in the environment, Murray (1991) states "the predominate
feature of Salmonella spread is human influence on the natural environment, including
animal management practices, waste management and effluent control, all which contribute
significantly to the spread of salmonellae." The use of recycled flush water may have
maintained it on one dairy farm (Gay and Hunsaker, 1993). For other strains of salmonella,
the agent has been shown to persist in cattle or the farm environment for many months or
even years, sometimes persisting after the clinical syndrome has ceased (Gay and Hunsaker,
1993, Giles et al. 1989, Jones et al. 1983, Richardson, 1975, Taylor, 1979). In one study,
a strain of S. Typhimurium (not DT104) persisted in a herd for 3.5 years (Giles et
al. 1989).
[Return to Contents List]
Literature References:
(not current!)
- Akkina JE, AT Hogue, FJ Angulo, R Johnson, KE Petersen, PK Saini, PJ Fedorka-Cray, WD
Schlosser (1999). Epidemiologic aspects, control and importance of multiple-resistant Salmonella
Typhimurium DT104 in the United States. J Am Vet Med Assoc 214:790-798.
- Anderson RJ, RL Walker, DW Hird, PC Blanchard (1997). Case-control study of an outbreak
of clinical disease attributable to Salmonella menhaden infection in eight dairy
herds. J Am Vet Med Assoc 210:528-30.
- Anon. (1994a). SAC Veterinary Services Reports. Vet Rec 135:173.
- Anon. (1994b). SAC Veterinary Services Reports. Vet Rec 135:269.
- Anon. (1994c). SAC Veterinary Services Reports. Vet Rec 135:446.
- Anon. (1994d). SAC Veterinary Services Reports. Vet Rec 135:566.
- Anon. (1995a). SAC Veterinary Services Reports. Vet Rec 136:4.
- Anon. (1995b). SAC Veterinary Services Reports. Vet Rec 136:135.
- Anon. (1995c). SAC Veterinary Services Reports. Vet Rec 136:233.
- Anon. (1995d). SAC Veterinary Services Reports. Vet Rec 137:422.
- Anon. (1995e). SAC Veterinary Services Reports. Vet Rec 137:577.
- Anon. (1996). SAC Veterinary Services Reports. Vet Rec 138:77.
- Anon. (1997). Multidrug-Resistant Salmonella serotype Typhimurium – United States,
1996. CDC MMWR 46:308-310.
- Bender, J (1994). Reducing the risk of Salmonella spread and practical control measures
in dairy herds. Bov Practit 28:62-65.
- Besser TE, CC Gay, JM Gay, DD Hancock, D Rice, LC Pritchett, ED Erickson (1997).
Salmonellosis associated with S. typhimurium DT104 in the USA. Vet Rec
140:75
- Calvert N, WC Stewart, WJ Reilly (1998). Salmonella typhimurium DT104 infection
in people and animals in Scotland: a collaborative epidemiological study 1993-96. Vet
Rec 143:351-4
- Chambers PG, RJ Lysons (1979). The inhibitory effect of bovine rumen fluid on Salmonella
typhimurium. Res Vet Sci 26:273-6.
- Coulson JC, J Butterfield, C Thomas (1983). The herring gull Larus argentatus as
a likely transmitting agent of Salmonella montevideo to sheep and cattle. J Hyg
Camb 91:437-443.
- Dargatz DA, SJ Wells, PJ Fedorka-Cray, J Akkina (1998). The Veterinarian's Role in the
Diagnosis, Treatment and Prevention of Multidrug Resistant Salmonella typhimurium
DT104. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cahm/Shared_Reports/vet10.htm
- Davies RH, C Wray (1995). Mice as carriers of Salmonella enteriditis on
persistently infected poultry units. Vet Rec 137:337-341.
- Davies RH, C Wray (1997). Distribution of salmonella contamination in ten animal
feedmills. Vet Microbiol 57:159-69.
- Devi SJN, CJ Murray (1991). Cockroaches (Blatta and Periplaneta spp.) as reservoirs of
drug-resistant salmonellas. Epid Infect 107:357-361.
- Drasar BS, PA Barrow (1985). Intestinal Microbiology. American Society for
Microbiology, Washington, DC. ISBN 0-914826-71-9, 80 pages.
- Evans S (1996). A case control study of multiple-resistant Salmonella typhimurium
DT104 infection of cattle in Great Britain. Brit Cattle Vet Assoc 4: Part
3:259-266.
- Evans S, R Davies (1996). Case control study of multiple-resistant Salmonella
typhimurium DT104 infection of cattle in Great Britain. Vet Rec 139:557-558.
- Foster JW, MP Spector (1995). How Salmonella survive against the odds. Ann Rev
Microbiol 49:145-174.
- Gay JM, ME Hunsaker (1993). Isolation of multiple Salmonella serovars from a dairy two
years after a clinical salmonellosis outbreak. JAVMA 203(9):1314-1320.
- Giles N, SA Hopper, C Wray (1989). Persistence of S. typhimurium in a large dairy
herd. Epidemiol Infect 103:235-241.
- Glickman LT, PL McDonough, SJ Shin, JM Fairbrother, et al (1981). Bovine salmonellosis
attributed to Salmonella anatum-contaminated haylage and dietary stress. JAVMA 178:1268-1272.
- Glynn MK, C Bopp, W Dewitt, P Dabney, M Mokhtar, FJ Angulo (1998). Emergence of
multidrug-resistant Salmonella enterica serotype typhimurium DT104 infections in
the United States. N Engl J Med 338:1333-8.
- Greenberg B, JA Kowalski, MJ Klowden (1970). Factors affecting the transmission of
Salmonella by flies: natural resistance to colonization and bacterial interference. Inf
Immun 2:800-809.
- Harris IT, PJ Fedorka-Cray, JT Gray, LA Thomas, K Ferris (1997). Prevalence of Salmonella
organisms in swine feed. J Am Vet Med Assoc 210:382-5.
- Henzler DJ, HM Opitz (1992). The role of mice in the epizootiology of Salmonella
enteriditis infection on the chicken layer farm. Avian Dis 36:625-631.
- Hogue A, J Akkina, F Angulo, R Johnson, K Petersen, P Saini, W Schlosser (1997). Salmonellla
Typhimurium DT104: Situation Assessment. http://www.fsis.usda.gov/ophs/stdt104.htm
- House JK, BP Smith (1997). Evaluation of Bovine Salmonella Vaccines. pp. 415-418
in: Proceedings of the 101st Annual United States Animal Health Assoc Mtg, Louisville, KY,
Oct. 18-24, 1997.
- House JK, BP Smith (1998). Current strategies for managing salmonella infections in
cattle. Vet Med 93:756-764.
- Hunter AG, KA Linklater, JA Scott (1976). Rodent vectors of Salmonella. Vet Rec
99:145-146.
- Johnson WS, GK Maclachlan, GF Hopkins (1979). The possible involvement of seagulls
(Larus spp.) in the transmission of Salmonella in dairy cattle. Vet Rec
105:526-527.
- Jones PW, P Collins, GTH Brown, MM Aitken (1982). Transmission of Salmonella
mbandanka to cattle from contaminated feed. J Hyg Camb 88:255-263.
- Jones PW, P Collins, GTH Brown, MM Aitken (1983). Salmonella saint-paul infection
in two dairy herds. J Hyg Camb 91:243-257.
- Kirby RM, R Davies (1990). Survival of dehydrated cells of Salmonella typhimurium
LT2 at high temperature. J Applied Bact 68:241-246.
- Kopanic RJ, BW Sheldon, CG Wright (1994). Cockroaches as vectors of Salmonella:
Laboratory and field trials. J Food Prot 57:124-132.
- Krytenburg, DS, DD Hancock, DH Rice, TE Besser, CC Gay, JM Gay (1998). A pilot survey of
Salmonella enterica contamination of cattle feeds in the Pacific northwestern USA. Anim
Feed Sci Tech 75:75-79.
- Lax AJ, PA Barrow, PW Jones, TS Wallis (1995). Current perspectives in salmonellosis. Br
Vet J 151:351-77.
- Ling J, PY Chau, B Rowe (1987). Salmonella serotypes and incidence of multiply-resistant
salmonellae isolated from diarrheal patients in Hong Kong from 1973-82. Epidem Inf
99:295-306.
- Ling J, PY Chau (1987). Incidence of plasmids in multiply-resistant salmonellae isolated
from diarrheal patients in Hong Kong from 1973-82. Epidem Inf 99:307-321.
- Losinger WC, LP Garber, MA Smith, HS Hurd, LG Biehl, PJ Fedorka-Cray, LA Thomas, K
Ferris (1997). Management and nutritional factors associated with the detection of
Salmonella sp. from cattle fecal specimens from feedlot operations in the United States. Prev
Vet Med 31:231-44.
- Mattila T, AJ Frost, D O'Boyle (1988). The growth of Salmonella in rumen fluid from
cattle at slaughter. Epidemiol Infect 101:337-45.
- McDonough, PL (1995). Salmonellosis: Diagnostic approach to disease control and
epidemiology in the bovine animal. Proc 27th Annual Convention AABP
27:61-68.
- Mecsas JJ, EJ Strauss (1996). Molecular Mechanisms of Bacterial Virulence: Type III
Secretion and Pathogenicity Islands. Emerg Infect Dis 2(4):270-288.
- Morse EV, DA Midla, KR Kasacos (1984). Raccoons (Procyon lotor) as carriers of
Salmonella. J Envir Sci Hlth 18:541-560.
- Murray CJ (1991). Salmonellae in the environment. Rev Sci Tech Off Int Epiz
10:765-785.
- Pacer RE, JS Spika, MC Thurmond, N Hargrett-Bean, ME Potter (1989). Prevalence of
Salmonella and multiple antimicrobial-resistant Salmonella in California dairies. JAVMA
195:59-63.
- Poppe C, N Smart, R Khakhria, W Johnson, J Spika, J Prescott (1998). Salmonella
typhimurium DT104: a virulent and drug-resistant pathogen. Can Vet J 39:559-65.
- Richardson A (1975). Outbreaks of bovine salmonellosis caused by serotypes other than S.
dublin and S. typhimurium. J Hyg Camb 74:195-203.
- Robinson RA, JB Bender (1994). Descriptive epidemiology of Salmonella infection in
Minnesota dairy herds. Bov Practit 28:83-86.
- Schemnitz SD (1994). Capturing and handling wild animals. pp. 106-124. in: T.A.
Bookhout, ed. Research and management techniques for wildlife and habitats. 5th
ed. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD.
- Shar MW, BC Rawson (1992). Persistent Salmonella typhimurium PT104 infection in a
dairy herd. Vet Rec 131:375-376.
- Smith BP, LD Roden, MC Thurmond, GW Dilling, H Konrad, JA Pelton, JP Picanso (1994).
Prevalence of salmonellae in cattle and in the environment on California dairies. JAVMA
205:467-471.
- Tablante NL, VM Lane (1989). Wild mice as potential reservoirs of Salmonella dublin
in a closed dairy herd. Can Vet J 30:590-592.
- Taylor KC (1979). Persistent Salmonella saint paul excretion in a small dairy
herd. Vet Rec 105:35-36.
- Threlfall EJ, JA Frost, LR Ward, B Rowe (1966). Increasing spectrum of resistance in
multiresistant Salmonella typhimurium (letter to the editor). Lancet
347:1053-1054.
- Threlfall EJ, JA Frost, LR Ward, B Rowe (1994). Epidemic in cattle and humans of Salmonella
typhimurium DT 104 with chromosomally integrated multiple drug resistance. Vet Rec
134:577.
- Threlfall EJ, LR Ward, B Rowe (1998). Multiresistant Salmonella typhimurium
DT104 and salmonella bacteraemia. Lancet 352:287-288.
- Tizzard IR, NA Fisk, J Harmeron (1979). Free flying sparrows as carriers of
salmonellosis. Can Vet J 20:143-144.
- Wall PG, D Morgan, K Lamden, M Ryan, M Griffin, EJ Threlfall, LR Ward, B Rowe (1994) A
case control study of infection with an epidemic strain of multi-resistant Salmonella
typhimurium DT104 in England and Wales. Commun Dis Rep 4(11):R130-135.
- Wall PG, D Morgan, K Lamden, M Griffin, EJ Threlfall, LR Ward, B Rowe (1995).
Transmission of multi-resistant strains of Salmonella typhimurium from cattle to
man. Vet Rec 136:591-592.
- Wall PG, EJ Threlfall, LR Ward, B Rowe (1996). Multiresistant Salmonella typhimurium DT104
in cats: A public health risk (letter to the editor). Lancet 348:471.
[Return to Contents List]
|