Contagious Equine Metritis
On December 15, 2008, the State of Kentucky confirmed a case of contagious equine metritis (CEM) in a quarter horse stallion on a premises in central Kentucky. A total of seven stallions have now been found positive for CEM; four of the positives have been confirmed by USDA’s National Veterinary Services Laboratories. Four (4) of the infected stallions are located in Kentucky and three are in Indiana. The Indiana stallions spent time on the index premises in Kentucky during the 2008 breeding season. There are 6 other exposed stallions and 22 exposed mares currently located in Kentucky. An exposed horse is one that was on the index premises in Kentucky and/or one that was bred to a CEM-positive horse, either naturally or via artificial insemination.
Outside of Kentucky, the location of 78 exposed horses plus 3 positive stallions has now been confirmed. The total of 81 horses includes 12 stallions and 69 mares. The 81 horses are located in 27 different States. All CEM-positive horses, and all exposed horses that have been located, are currently under quarantine or hold order. Testing and/or treatment protocols are being put into action for all located horses.
At least 250 additional horses are actively being traced, with owners of those horses located in at least 27 States. Only 12 States have not been involved in the CEM investigation process to date.
What is CEM?
Contagious Equine Metritis (CEM) is an inflammation of the endometrium of mares caused by Taylorella equigenitalis. It is a highly contagious venereal disease, which usually results in temporary infertility. It is a nonsystemic infection, the effects of which are restricted to the reproduction tract of the mare. The disease is resident in mares and transmitted by stallions with infection being spread from the stallion/teaser to mare or from mare to stallion/teaser during mating or teasing. The bacteria can also be spread via semen collected for artificial insemination.
What happens to CEM positive horses?
CEM can be treated with disinfectants and antibiotics. CEM-positive mares, and mares from CEM-positive countries, are required to go through a treatment protocol and remain in quarantine for no less than 21 days. Stallions that have CEM or come from a CEM-positive country are required to remain quarantined until a treatment protocol is completed and they test negative for the disease.
Press Release – John Huninghake – August 1, 2008
Representatives of the Kansas Animal Health Department on July 23 and July 24 seized 160 adult dogs, 24 puppies of various ages and 3 newborn puppies from an unlicensed Marshall County retail breeder facility owned and operated by John Huninghake of Frankfort, according to Debra Duncan, director of the department’s Animal Facilities Inspection Program. The dogs were seized after an inspection of Huninghake’s premises by the department revealed that the living conditions there endangered the dogs’ health, safety or welfare, she said. The dogs’ owner later surrendered them to the Animal Health Department to allow the animals to be adopted out.
Duncan said that inspectors and a department veterinarian who participated in the inspection found dogs that were severely underweight, in some instances to the point of emaciation. Animal pens that were too small and badly overcrowded; the dogs housed in them could not move about the pen, exercise or make normal postural adjustments.
It was obvious, Duncan said, that the dogs’ coats had not been washed or brushed for a long time, if ever, and their hair was matted and filthy; she said that other evidence of neglect included the fact that most or all of the dogs’ toenails were untrimmed; many were so badly overgrown that a number of the animals had toenails dogs’ that were torn or broken, and either actively bleeding or heavily scabbed over; some had infections in an around the toenails.
“Sanitation was terrible, all over the entire facility,” Duncan said, adding that the dogs and the environment were infested with swarms of flies. She said that the veterinarian had found several large maggot populations – the likely source of many of the flies – and that he also said that the conditions generally at the facility were “ideal” for maggots.
Finally, despite the fact that outdoor temperatures were in the upper 90s at the time the dogs were seized, and expected to go still higher by the weekend, the dog pens and houses had little or no shaded space, and were essentially unventilated, either because of faulty construction or because the weeds immediately outside the pens were so high, and so thickly overgrown, that they allowed no air movement to reach the dogs, and no relief from the stifling temperatures.
Duncan said that Huninghake had the right to contest the seizure of the dogs at a hearing, which had originally been scheduled for Thursday, July 31. However, on July 30, one day before the hearing, he relinquished ownership of the dogs, in favor of the Animal Health Department. Duncan said that the animals have been dispersed among different licensed facilities in the state, and are eligible for adoption.
Duncan said that the adult dogs seized included: Bischons, Cairn Terriers, English Bulldogs, Boxers, Bernese Mountain Dogs, Shih Tzu’s, Bull Terriers, Golden Retrievers, Schnauzers, Pomeranians and Huskies. The puppies were Bischons, Cairn Terriers, English Bulldogs and Golden Retrievers, and the newborns were Boxers.
TB Approved Feedlots
Bovine tuberculosis is becoming an animal health issue in the U. S. again. Several states have lost their TB “free” status in the last several years. Currently Minnesota and parts of New Mexico and Michigan are not “free” and have had restrictions put on any cattle from their state that enter interstate commerce. Feeder cattle from these areas can only be placed in a TB “approved” feedlot. Kansas currently has no approved feedlots for these restricted animals. Click here for "Requirements to be an "APPROVED" feedlot".
If you are interested in becoming a TB “approved” feedlot, contact Chasity Flowers or Commissioner Teagarden in our office (785-296-2326). We will put you on a list and send an application within the next couple of weeks.
KANSAS DISCONTINUES BRUCELLOSIS TESTING
Kansas gained “free” status in the national brucellosis eradication program in 1999. Much of the credit for this accomplishment goes to our livestock markets, operators and veterinarians. Producers, who sold test eligible animals, paid a fee to have these animal tested at each point of sale. This surveillance program, paid for by producers and facilitated by the markets, led Kansas to “free” status.
We have maintained the market test program since that time to make sure we had eradicated brucellosis from our cow herd. In 2001, a single brucellosis reactor was found at one of our livestock markets; the last brucellosis positive animal to be found in Kansas.
Last year we quit testing blood at the markets, relying solely on the lab tests as our surveillance program along with blood from the slaughter plants. Earlier this year, the Kansas Animal Health Board recommended that we drop the change of ownership testing requirements for Kansas production sales.
Every state within the United States is now free of brucellosis. The only known reservoir is in the bison and elk within Yellowstone National Park and some of the surrounding area. There is no scientific reason to continue testing cattle for brucellosis at Kansas markets. As of July 1, 2008, the Kansas Animal Health Department will no longer require brucellosis testing at your market. We cannot justify the expense of testing at the markets for a disease that is not present. Surveillance will continue through our cull cow slaughter plants. We will continue to back tag cull, test eligible animals to facilitate the identification of these animals at slaughter.
Changes will have to occur to maintain veterinary inspection at your markets. Brucellosis testing has funded a portion of that cost. Kansas law requires veterinary inspection at the markets. Federal law requires veterinary inspection if a market participates in interstate commerce. At the present time, no substitute has been identified as a replacement for the brucellosis testing revenue.
updated: January 6, 2009
