Pink Eye James Reecy Annette O’Connor Abebe Hassen Gary Snowder

Pink Eye Reported in the USA since 1889 Reported in the USA since % of Missouri herds have endemic IBK 45% of Missouri herds have endemic IBK Average prevalence = 8% Average prevalence = 8% More common in the young – 10-60% More common in the young – 10-60% Immunity develops with age Immunity develops with age No gender affinity No gender affinity

How Effective Are We At Controlling Pink Eye? Kansas ranchers reported it as the 2 nd most common infectious disease in 1993 Kansas ranchers reported it as the 2 nd most common infectious disease in 1993 NAHMS : diseases with economic impact NAHMS : diseases with economic impact Internal/ external parasites (way in front) Internal/ external parasites (way in front) Open cows Open cows Pink eye Pink eye Foot rot Foot rot Between 17 and 65 lbs decrease in weaning weight Between 17 and 65 lbs decrease in weaning weight $150 million yearly $150 million yearly

General Information What causes “pink eye” What causes “pink eye” Moraxella bovis, ……, is considered to be the cause of IBK” Moraxella bovis, ……, is considered to be the cause of IBK” Gellatt “ food animal ophthalmology” page 1131 Gellatt “ food animal ophthalmology” page 1131

What Causes “Pink Eye” Moraxella bovis Moraxella bovis Brannamella ovis? Brannamella ovis? High UV light High UV light Dust Dust IBR infection IBR infection IBR vaccination IBR vaccination Mycoplasma infection Mycoplasma bovoculi Mycoplasma infection Mycoplasma bovoculi Trauma Trauma Face flies- Musca autumnalis (since 1946) Face flies- Musca autumnalis (since 1946)

What Causes “Pink Eye”? M. Bovis UV Light Long Grass Stress

What Causes “Pink Eye”? M. Bovis UV Light Face Flies

Why Do Only Some Calves Get Pink Eye? Individual differences Individual differences Genetics Genetics Dam colostral immunity Dam colostral immunity

Options For Control/ Prevention Remove reservoirs for M.bovis Remove reservoirs for M.bovis Cattle ( sub-clinical carriers) Cattle ( sub-clinical carriers) Face Flies, Stable Flies, Horn Flies ( for 3-4 days) Face Flies, Stable Flies, Horn Flies ( for 3-4 days) Wildlife ? Wildlife ?

Options For Control/ Prevention Are the technologies up to the job? Are the technologies up to the job?

Options For Control/ Prevention Not up to the job Not up to the job Vaccines Vaccines Fly control Fly control Dust control Dust control Pasture clipping Pasture clipping

Options For Control/ Prevention Vaccines: Vaccines: Pilated forms of M bovis are virulent – allows attachment Pilated forms of M bovis are virulent – allows attachment At last count there were 7-8 pili groups, they do not provide much cross protection At last count there were 7-8 pili groups, they do not provide much cross protection Each pilis type is associated with specific ab production Each pilis type is associated with specific ab production Failure in vaccines is due to low cross protection and emergence of new pili. Failure in vaccines is due to low cross protection and emergence of new pili. Also naturally animals produce lacrimal IgA to M bovis, vaccines stimulate serum IgG, IgM, and secretory IgA Also naturally animals produce lacrimal IgA to M bovis, vaccines stimulate serum IgG, IgM, and secretory IgA

Why Does Control/ Prevention Fail? Fly control Fly control Adulticides, traps, larvicide's rarely achieve > 50% control Adulticides, traps, larvicide's rarely achieve > 50% control Due to small amount of time spent on animal Due to small amount of time spent on animal At any one time, < 5% of the entire female population ( only females) on cattle At any one time, < 5% of the entire female population ( only females) on cattle Overlapping generations means that traps don’t work Overlapping generations means that traps don’t work Local migration is easy – they moved from Nova Scotia to in 1950’s to North Dakota in 1960: renewing populations constantly Local migration is easy – they moved from Nova Scotia to in 1950’s to North Dakota in 1960: renewing populations constantly

What The Future Options Genetic selection Genetic selection Improved vaccines Improved vaccines Better treatment Better treatment

Assumptions Genetic variation in resistance/ susceptibility to the pinkeye exists Genetic variation in resistance/ susceptibility to the pinkeye exists Low heritability (<.15) Low heritability (<.15) Disease incidence is low ~10% Disease incidence is low ~10%

Requirements of the project Serve as a model for disease resistance/susceptibility research Serve as a model for disease resistance/susceptibility research Internal parasites - nematodes Internal parasites - nematodes Respiratory Respiratory Use field records Use field records Need to develop data collection scheme Need to develop data collection scheme Need ~8,000 records Need ~8,000 records

Data Collection Two seasons Two seasons When cases are actively observed When cases are actively observed Weaning Weaning Scoring system Scoring system Data sheets Data sheets

ACTIVE LESIONS: SHEET 2 Score 1 – An active lesion involving less than one- third of the cornea. Score 2 – An active lesion involving one-third to two- thirds of the cornea.

Score 3 – An active lesion involving more than two- thirds of the cornea. Score 4 – An active lesion with perforation of the cornea

Current data collection Iowa State – Rhodes Research Farm Iowa State – Rhodes Research Farm American Angus Association American Angus Association Contacted a few breeders to start collecting data Contacted a few breeders to start collecting data Iowa, Missouri, Indiana, Wisconsin Iowa, Missouri, Indiana, Wisconsin Universities Universities Ohio State Ohio State Kentucky Kentucky

August Severity Call October Severity Call Change in Severity Over Time

No Abrasion Abrasion Abrasion3566 Abrasion Abrasion1876 August Severity Call October Severity Call Right Left

Data Analysis No sex or eye effect No sex or eye effect Heritability Heritability MTDFREML MTDFREML Model Y =  + CG +animal +PE + error Model Y =  + CG +animal +PE + error CG = Sex-weaning group (4) CG = Sex-weaning group (4) PE = permanent environmental PE = permanent environmental h 2 = 0.18 h 2 = 0.18

MARC Pinkeye data Gary Snowder Gary Snowder 19 years of data 19 years of data Calves listed as being treated in the herd book Calves listed as being treated in the herd book Number of records Number of records 907 to 10,947 head per breed 907 to 10,947 head per breed 1.3 to 22.4% incidence 1.3 to 22.4% incidence

BreedNIncidence h 2 h 2 Angus6, Hereford4, Red Poll Charolais2, Simmental1, Limousin Gelbvieh2, Pinzgauer Braunvieh MARC I 4, MARC III 10,

Future Direction Moraxella bovis infection rate vs. Corneal abrasion Moraxella bovis infection rate vs. Corneal abrasion Field data collection Field data collection Mechanism? Mechanism?