Arthur Rylah Institute Management of on-farm risk to livestock from bovine TB in white-tailed deer within Deer Management Unit 452: Predictions from a spatially-explicit model David Ramsey, Daniel O’Brien, Rick Smith, Melinda Cosgrove, James Averill, Stephen Schmitt, Brent Rudolph

Arthur Rylah Institute Spatial model of bTB in WTD in DMU452 Recent development of a spatial model of TB in WTD has examined the efficacy of management options for DMU452 [Ramsey et al J. Wildl. Manage 78(2): ] Modelled scenarios included Increase in harvest Vaccination Increase in harvest + vaccination The effect of baiting All scenarios were examined as to their efficacy to eradication of TB from WTD within 30 years

Arthur Rylah Institute Findings from the deer TB model Current MDNR management is unlikely to eradicate TB over the next three decades Eradication is possible within three decades, but is likely to require substantial increases in current harvest and/or vaccination TB establishment in a previously TB-free region is ~8 times more likely if baiting occurs during the hunting season In the meantime, cattle on farms within DMU 452 continue to be at- risk of TB infection from WTD

Arthur Rylah Institute The way forward? If complete eradication of TB from WTD is too difficult, should focus change to risk mitigation for livestock? Acceptable management options may exist that will minimize risk of on-farm transmission from WTD to livestock Extend current spatial model to include transmission of TB from WTD to livestock

Arthur Rylah Institute Modelling livestock transmission A spatial “livestock” layer was created for the existing model using records from the Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development –Farm location –Area of cleared pasture –Stocking rate Data on the TB cattle herd infection (aka breakdown) rate 2003 – 2012 was also collated and used to calibrate transmission TB transmission dependent on stocking rate and contact rate with infected WTD

Arthur Rylah Institute DMU 452, farm locations & their relative areas

Arthur Rylah Institute Mean cattle herd infection rate/year vs predicted

Arthur Rylah Institute On-farm risk by location (no mitigation) High risk Mod risk Low risk

Arthur Rylah Institute Effect of management on transmission to livestock Evaluate effects of various management options on the risk of transmission to livestock (herd infections/breakdowns) Management of WTD within DMU452 –Increasing harvest rate –Vaccination –Increase harvest + vaccination On-farm management practices –Restricting contact between WTD and cattle on farms –Local WTD control in the vicinity of farms Scenarios examined with and without baiting

Arthur Rylah Institute Effect of management of WTD in DMU452 on cattle herd infection rates on farms

Arthur Rylah Institute Increasing harvest rates current 1.25x 1.5x 2x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x Multiple of current harvest Harvest rate AntleredAntlerless Scenarios

Arthur Rylah Institute Effects of increasing harvest on HB (with baiting) 1.5x 1.25x 2.0x 2.0x 3.0x AntlerAntlerless

Arthur Rylah Institute Effects of increasing harvest on HB (no baiting) 1.5x 1.25x 2.0x 2.0x 3.0x AntlerAntlerless

Arthur Rylah Institute Harvest + 90% vaccinated annually (with baiting) 1.5x 1.25x 2.0x 2.0x 3.0x AntlerAntlerless

Arthur Rylah Institute Harvest + 90% vaccinated annually (no baiting) 1.5x 1.25x 2.0x 2.0x 3.0x AntlerAntlerless

Arthur Rylah Institute Vaccination only (with baiting)

Arthur Rylah Institute Vaccination only (no baiting)

Arthur Rylah Institute Effect of on-farm management

Arthur Rylah Institute Restriction of contact between WTD and cattle Baseline model assumes unrestricted contact between WTD and cattle on farms Examined the effect of restricting contact on cattle herd infections Practically this can be achieved (for example) by –Improved fencing –Restricting access to food sources

Arthur Rylah Institute On-farm contact reduction (%) No reduction High risk Mod risk Low risk

Arthur Rylah Institute On-farm contact reduction (%) 20% reduction High risk Mod risk Low risk

Arthur Rylah Institute On-farm contact reduction (%) 50% reduction High risk Mod risk Low risk

Arthur Rylah Institute On-farm contact reduction (%) 80% reduction High risk Mod risk Low risk

Arthur Rylah Institute On-farm contact reduction (%) 90% reduction High risk Mod risk Low risk

Arthur Rylah Institute Local control of WTD Manage WTD in the vicinity of farms only Less expensive option than management of deer across the entire DMU What size buffer would be adequate to achieve significant reduction in herd infections?

Arthur Rylah Institute 5 km buffer around farms (32% of total DMU area)

Arthur Rylah Institute Local vaccination within 5km buffer (no baiting)

Arthur Rylah Institute Local control within 5km buffer (no baiting)

Arthur Rylah Institute An aside: If prevalence in deer has gone down, why are cattle herds still getting infected? Speculation that because cattle herds are still becoming infected, there must be some wild species (other than deer) infecting cattle At least two existing lines of evidence argue against such speculation –Modelling –Spatial variations in deer prevalence

Arthur Rylah Institute Figure 3A, Ramsey et al., 2014, J. Wildl. Mgt. 78(2):245. Effects of increasing harvest on HB (with baiting) 1.5x 1.25x 2.0x 2.0x 3.0x AntlerAntlerless ~4 years Deer prevalence: ~0.7%

Arthur Rylah Institute Figure 3A, Ramsey et al., 2014, J. Wildl. Mgt. 78(2):245. Effects of increasing harvest on HB (with baiting) 1.5x 1.25x 2.0x 2.0x 3.0x AntlerAntlerless ~8 years Deer prevalence: ~0.6%

Arthur Rylah Institute Figure 3A, Ramsey et al., 2014, J. Wildl. Mgt. 78(2):245. Effects of increasing harvest on HB (with baiting) 1.5x 1.25x 2.0x 2.0x 3.0x AntlerAntlerless 30 years Deer prevalence: ~1.1%

Arthur Rylah Institute Figure 3A, Ramsey et al., 2014, J. Wildl. Mgt. 78(2):245. Effects of increasing harvest on HB (with baiting) 1.5x 1.25x 2.0x 2.0x 3.0x AntlerAntlerless ~18 years Deer prevalence: ~0.05%

Arthur Rylah Institute TB prevalence in deer varies locally N 6E: 3.0% DMU452: 1.7%

Arthur Rylah Institute TB prevalence in deer varies locally N 6E: 3.0% DMU452: 1.7% N 5E: 3.1% DMU452: 2.3% N 5E: 4.9% DMU452: 2.3%

Arthur Rylah Institute TB prevalence in deer varies locally N 6E: 3.0% DMU452: 1.7% N 5E: 3.1% DMU452: 2.3% N 5E: 4.9% DMU452: 2.3% N 5E: 5.6% DMU452: 1.7%

Arthur Rylah Institute The future: predicting local variations in TB prevalence

Arthur Rylah Institute Conclusions (DMU wide control) Compared with TB control in WTD directly, management aimed at reduction of cattle herd infections requires much less effort ($) But… management needs to continue in perpetuity as TB remains in the wider deer population –Gains will be rapidly lost once management ceases (e.g. lifting of baiting bans) A 25% increase in harvest and no baiting would halve the rate of cattle herd infections within 3-5 years and reduce it by 95% within 15 years Vaccination each year achieving 50% coverage would also achieve the same result

Arthur Rylah Institute Conclusions (farm level control) Substantial reduction in the risk of herd infections is achieved if contact between WTD and cattle on farms is reduced by at least 80% Local control measures can also be effective –Vaccinating at least 50% of WTD within 5 km of farms will reduce the cattle herd infection rate by 95% within 13 years –Culling 50% of deer in addition to harvest within the 5 km buffer would reduce the herd infection rate by 95% within 10 years

Arthur Rylah Institute Conclusions That cattle herd infections continue to occur annually despite reductions in TB in deer is expected, and consistent both with modeled predictions and what we already know about TB in deer Results suggest that without effective wildlife risk mitigation, TB prevalence in deer at the DMU452 scale will need to be maintained well below 1% before cattle herd infections do not consistently occur every year, and well below 0.1% before there is a high probability of having no annual cattle herd infections

Arthur Rylah Institute Thank you