MG in Ontario

I previously posted about the dangers of Micoplasm Gallisepticum ("MG") (see MG (Micoplasm Gallisepticum): Poultry Enemy #1).   I have now got some additional information on MG in Ontario.

Dr.Varga,  a Veterinarian and poultry Specialist employed by Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, is OMAF's lead man on MG, so I asked him:

"I look forward to hearing back from you on MG in Ontario, incidence & prevalence rates."

To which Dr.Varga replied:

"In Ontario every commercial poultry breeder flock can enroll in the MYCOPLASMA MONITORING and send samples to be tested for Mycoplasma gallisepticum (MG) and receive certification under the program if clean. "
"In Ontario MG is not a major problem, however we are seeing sporadically MG positive flocks. Due to privacy legislation, I can not give you exact numbers."

To which I asked:

"Thanks for getting back to me.

What % of breeders have enrolled in the mycoplasm monitoring program?

I understand that MG testing is not 100% effective, as there can be a latent infection but it's well hidden as birds are not shedding the mycoplasm at the point in time of testing.

What are the mandatory or recommended standards, methods, sampling procedures for getting MG certificates? Please provide me a copy of these sampling documents. Who does the actual sampling? For example, if the breeder is more interested in a MG certificate due to the commercial advantages of having that MG certificate, is there significant advantage in sampling in a manner that will have a reduced or no chance of detecting MG, even if it existed in the flock?

Do you sense that these sporatic positives are past sins that reoccur now and again due to incomplete or improper cleaning out of bird facility between flocks?

If no, what do you think are the sources & mechanisms of these sporadic infections?

Is there a geographical clustering to these MG sporatic infections?  "

Which prompted Dr. Varga to respond:

"All major breeder producers are participating in this program. There is a requirement for breeder companies who export hatching eggs to be participating in the MG monitoring program. The monitoring is serological, and at 16-24 weeks of age producers have to submit 300 samples, and usually the serology is done by an ELISA test. After this every 13 weeks they have to submit 150 samples for testing. It is very important to them to identify the MG positives, because the export requirements and also to eliminate the positive flocks, because MG can be transmitted verticaly(via the egg)."

ELISA is Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay which is a test done on liquid or liquified samples that contain viruses, bacteria, mycoplasm, antigens, antibodies, and similar biological components for which we need to get a positive or negative screening test result.

 Which prompted me to ask:

Thanks again.

When you speak of "all major breeder producers" doing MG testing, are you speaking of just turkey, or just chicken, or turkey and chicken, or ducks, or quail, or what?  What about minor breeder producers?

You previously stated that you cannot give specific data on incidence & prevalence rates for MG in Ontario due to privacy legislation.  Please state the sections # of the various privacy statutes, regulations, and rulings upon which you rely to support your claim that this data is private and confidential.

Who actually takes the serum samples?  Is it an independent DVM, or can it be an owner or employee or sub-contractor of the farm?

Is there a mandatory sampling procedure?  All statistically valid sampling and testing of populations require that randomized samples be obtained, unless you are sampling 100% of the population.  For example, with a flock of 1,000 bird, with 300 serum samples required, that is one out of every 3.33 birds.  A sampling protocol may be as follows:

Choose a random number between 1 and 30 from a random numbers table (found in most statistical textbooks), which will be the starting bird #.  Pass the birds through an isolation chute from one area to another, counting the birds as they pass.  When you get to the bird # which is the same as the random # chosen, take a serum sample.  Thereafter, take a serum sample from every third bird passing through the chute without forcing any particular bird into the chute or specific sequence (ie. allow the birds to haphazardly enter the chute).  Continue sampling until 300 samples have been obtained.

The above method has a random sampling start point and therefore every bird had an equal probability of being sampled.  If you are not doing this type of sampling plans, the testing is likely invalid or of limited use.  If biased personnel are selecting which birds are sampled (eg. sample the healthiest looking birds, or the weakest, or the easiest ones to catch, or the ones from Barn #6 because it is the only barn that we've never had MG in, etc.), the sampling is statistically invalid.

I previously asked a number of specific questions that you have not yet answered.  Are you still preparing answers to these questions, or do you intend to ignore these questions?

My outstanding questions for which I would like specific, comprehensive answers are:

1. What are the mandatory or recommended standards, methods, sampling procedures for getting MG certificates?
   

2. Please provide me a copy of these sampling documents.
   

3. Who does the actual sampling?  For example, if the breeder is more interested in a MG certificate due to the commercial advantages of having that MG certificate, is there significant advantage in sampling in a manner that will have a reduced or no chance of detecting MG, even if it existed in the flock?
   

4. Do you sense that these sporatic positives are past sins that reoccur now and again due to incomplete or improper cleaning out of bird facility between flocks?  If no, what do you think are the sources & mechanisms of these sporadic infections?

   Friends and strangers (ie. followers of this renegade Blog) may wish to call or email Dr. Varga and express their condolences that Dr. Varga got caught in the cross hairs of this inquiry into MG in Ontario.  I'm sure the providing of comprehensive answers to these specific questions is not an easy balancing act between the OMAF manderins for whom Dr. Varga reports, the #TurkeyMafia whom he has to deal with on a day-to-day basis who entrust him to keep everything secret and deny all risks and problems exist, and his professional integrity.
   
   

   Csaba Varga, DVM, MSc, Dipl ACVPM
   Lead Veterinarian, Disease Prevention - Poultry
   Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food 
   Veterinary Science and Policy
   Department of Pathobiology, Room 4840
   Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph
   50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON, N1G2W1
   Tel. 519- 824-4120 Ext.54650