1. 1 Materials reviewed by National Johne's Working Group / Johne's Disease Committee / USAHA 2003 Economic Effects of Johne’s Disease (JD) Larry Hutchinson DVM Penn State University

2. 2

3. 3 Economic Effects of Johne’s Disease (JD) (Paratuberculosis) Larry Hutchinson Penn State

4. 4 Regional/National/International Effects Herd or Flock-level Effects Impact on Trade Larry Hutchinson Penn State

5. 5 Regional/National Losses Johne’s Disease $54 million – Wisconsin; Arnoldi 1983 $15.4 million – New England states; Chiodini 1984 $5.4 million – Pennsylvania; Whitlock 1985 $6.4 million – New York; Rossiter 1991 $2.4 million (US dollars) – Australia; Gill 1989 $200-250 million – US; Ott 1999 Larry Hutchinson Penn State

6. 6 Dairy Herd-level Losses Herds with < 10% cull cows showing signs consistent with JD had losses of $40 for each cow in herd Herds with > 10% cull cows showing signs consistent with JD had losses of $227 for each cow in the herd NAHMS survey 1996 Larry Hutchinson Penn State

7. 7 Example Dairy Herd-level Losses 100 cow dairy with > 10% of cull cows showing JD signs experienced a $23,500 loss/year NAHMS 1996 Larry Hutchinson Penn State

8. 8 Dairy Herd-level Losses Losses are primarily caused by lower production, higher replacement-cow costs from premature culling, and reduced cull-cow revenue NAHMS survey 1996 Larry Hutchinson Penn State

9. 9 Dairy Herd-level Losses Decreased production 32% Veterinary and treatment costs 2% Reduced value at slaughter 20% Loss due to idle production facilities 3% Unrealized future income 43% Benedictus 1987 Larry Hutchinson Penn State

10. 10 Dairy Herd-level Losses Groenendaal 1999 Larry Hutchinson Penn State

11. 11 Benefits from management changes and testing (over a 20 year period in a 100 cow herd) Management Management Changes (2)Changes + Testing Net Present Value (1) $70,000 $81,000 (1)NPV = discounted $ value of future benefits (2)Management Changes – single-use maternity stall, colostrum from own dam, milk replacer, hygienic raising to prevent cow and manure contact by calves Groenendaal 1999 Larry Hutchinson Penn State

12. 12 Economic losses in beef, sheep, goat and other species operations are largely unknown! Larry Hutchinson Penn State

13. 13 Spanish Study of Sheep Flocks 31% of flocks test positive for JD 2 – 5% of sheep test ELISA or AGID positive Lower milk production in sero-positive ewes Aduriz 1994 Larry Hutchinson Penn State

14. 14 Direct Costs of Johnes Disease Clinical disease Subclinical disease (production losses) Increased susceptibility to other diseases, infertility, shortened life expectancy Control costs Kennedy 2001 Larry Hutchinson Penn State

15. 15 Indirect costs of Johnes Disease Restrictions on market access Preventive medicine costs Loss of genetic potential through early marketing Kennedy 2001 Larry Hutchinson Penn State

16. 16 Dairy Herd Production Losses 1838 pounds less milk (305d ME) from culture positive, non-clinical cows Abbas 1983 750 pounds less milk (305d ME) from culture positive, non-clinical cows Dinsmore 1986 Larry Hutchinson Penn State

17. 17 Dairy Herd Production Losses Non-clinical, infected cows produced 6% and 16% less ME milk in their next-to-last and last lactations before culling compared to their earlier lactation ME milk Benedictus 1987 Larry Hutchinson Penn State

18. 18 Dairy Herd Production Losses Production effect of JD depends on parity, stage of disease, and stage of lactation Subclinically infected cows had no significant difference in ME milk, fat or protein Johnson 2001 Larry Hutchinson Penn State

19. 19 Dairy Herd Production Losses No difference in ME production between culture positive and negative cows on average, but significantly less ME milk production in culture positive cows > 100 DIM in 2 nd lactation and for all subsequent lactations Wilson 1993 Larry Hutchinson Penn State

20. 20 Dairy Herd Production Losses 829 pounds lower milk ME production (4% reduction) in cows with positive JD ELISA results Nordlund 1996 Larry Hutchinson Penn State

21. 21 Dairy Herd Production Losses Significantly lower 305d milk production for cows with positive JD ELISA test when all lactations pooled Significantly lower production in 1 st and 5 th lactation; not significantly lower in 2 nd and 4 th lactation cows Van Leeuwen 2002 Larry Hutchinson Penn State

22. 22 Dairy Herd Production Losses JD infected herds with < 10% of cull cows with JD signs had 228 lb./cow less milk than JD test negative herds JD infected herds with > 10% of cull cows with JD signs had 1559 lb./cow less milk than test negative herds NAHMS 1996 Larry Hutchinson Penn State

23. 23 JD Test and Cull Program is Profitable when JD causes more than 6% production loss JD herd prevalence is greater than 6% JD testing is $4 per cow Larry Hutchinson Penn State

24. 24 Trade Implications Intrastate and interstate trade Most states don’t limit trade except for organism-based test-positive animals which may move only to slaughter States may require information on herd of origin JD status for additions to herds on herd status programs Larry Hutchinson Penn State

25. 25 Trade Implications (cont.) International trade Individual country or OIE guidelines may restrict entry to JD test negative animals only Larry Hutchinson Penn State

26. 26 Johnes Disease Economic Losses Conclusions: Major losses = lower production, increased culling, lost future income (premature culling) Control Programs – generally cost effective IF management changes are a major part of program Larry Hutchinson Penn State

27. 27