Naturally Occurring Tuberculosis in White-Tailed Deer

Objective—To determine the distribution of lesions and extent of tissues infected with Mycobacterium bovis in a captive population of white-tailed deer. Design—Cross-sectional study. Animals—116 captive white-tailed deer. Procedure—Deer were euthanatized, and postmortem examinations were performed. Tissues with gross lesions suggestive of tuberculosis were collected for microscopic analysis and bacteriologic culture. Tissues from the head, thorax, and abdomen of deer with no gross lesions were pooled for bacteriologic culture. Tonsillar, nasal, oral, and rectal swab specimens, fecal samples, and samples of hay and pelleted feed, soil around feeding sites, and water from 2 natural ponds were collected for bacteriologic culture. Results—Mycobacterium bovis was isolated from 14 of 116 (12%) deer; however, only 9 of 14 had lesions consistent with tuberculosis. Most commonly affected tissues included the medial retropharyngeal lymph node and lung. Five of 14 tuberculous deer had no gross lesions; however,M bovis was isolated from pooled tissue specimens from the heads of each of these deer. Bacteriologic culture of tonsillar swab specimens from 2 of the infected deer yielded M bovis. Mean (± SEM) age of tuberculous deer was 2.5 ± 0.3 years (range, 0.5 to 6 years). Mycobacterium bovis was not isolated from feed, soil, water, or fecal samples. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Examination of hunter-killed white-tailed deer for tuberculosis commonly includes only the lymph nodes of the head. Results of such examinations may underestimate disease prevalence by as much as 57%. Such discrepancy should be considered when estimating disease prevalence.

STATE REGISTRATION AND LICENSING REGULATIONS: A NEW PROGRAM (OHIO)

We enacted a bill in Ohio this year, Senate Bill 445, that has to do with the application of pesticides. It is a very wide bill as you would normally look at it with most of the meat going to come from the regulations that are presently being written into it. In other words, the framework was developed and accepted by the two houses in our state legislature and empowered the Director of Agriculture to establish the regulations or the so-called teeth to this bill. The governor signed the bill in June and it became effective in September. The committees as of this time are meeting to develop philosophies and regulations that will be promulgated and brought into hearings and sifted through, and eventually, with a target date of December of this year, (1970), brought to the Director of Agriculture's office for acceptance. There is a committee established for rodent and bird control which is very well represented by our industry here in Ohio. John Beck (Rose Exterminator Company) is the chairman of the committee, William B. Jackson (Bowling Green State University) and Robert Yaeger (Cincinnati) are also on the committee. The important feature of this new law, in terms of pest control operators, is the examinations that will be required. We operators and our service people will both be tested and licensed, if sufficient proficiency is demonstrated on the tests. For your information they use a little different terminology in the bill than we in the industry normally use. We think of an applicator in the industry as service people. In the bill an applicator is defined as an operator. Therefore in reading the law the word operator means the man who does the job, the service man. Just the reverse is true in the industry. We think of the operator as the man who owns or manages the company while these people are referred to in the bill as applicators. The Bill calls for the development of schools for the training of our people throughout the state. Those of us who are in bird control should begin to prepare ourselves to meet this request, to be available for the schooling, have our people available for the schooling, and give this program all the co-operation that we can.