MG Testing Methods for Poultry

Can the current government testing programs for MG (Mycoplasm gallisepticum) infections in turkeys help us?  Is there adequate cost-benefit for this testing?  Is MG testing being used as a smoke & mirrors distraction that mis-leads customers, thereby helping the #TurkeyMafia maximize profits?

In previous Blog postings (see MG in Ontario and MG (Micoplasm Gallisepticum): Poultry Enemy #1 ), we discussed a number of issues on how the #TurkeyMafia have failed to properly address this infectious disease.  Is MG infections an indicator of the turkey industries success in biohazards and prevention?

A research paper describes the  MG testing methods typically used today in North America.  The paper says there were 3 houses of about 15,000 birds per house, so we calculate 45,000 birds total on this farm.  To test for MG, 150 serum samples were taken, using an unknown sampling method, and an unknown sampling source (ie. which of the three barns).  Were samples taken from the one house, all three houses, the first chickens they were able to grab, etc.?  We don't know.  The testing found there were 10 positives out of 150 samples, or 6.66% prevalence.

The section of the paper titled "MG isolation and culture" details a different sampling, this time with 10 birds per house.  It appears this occurred after the initial 150 bird sampling.  At least we know geographically where the samples were taken.   However, we are still left to guess who and how did they pick 10 birds out of a house flock of 15,000 birds.  That is 0.067% sample size.  To me, with such a small sample, you had better be VERY careful on how you choose that 10 bird sample, or the results and conclusions are likely may be misleading and spurious.  Small samples like this are always suspect, dangerous, and of questionable value.

Statistical Sampling Methods
I suggest this scientific paper demonstrates poor reporting, or poor sampling methodology, or both.  Poor sample selection leaves significant doubt about the quality, believability, and usefulness of everything else that follows.  Very unfortunate.  A statistically valid sampling protocol which is valid, useful, feasible, fast, cheap, and effective means to get a 150 bird sample collected 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.

As close as possible, every bird in the flock should have equal probability of being selected for sampling.  That's the purpose of the randomized starting point, then the consistent sequence thereafter. 

I hope to get the informed opinion of a commercial turkey farmer, or a DVM, or a statitician as to the feasibility of this sample selection methodology, so leave your comments below. Be sure to fully explain your reasons for your opinion.

NPIP-2009
The US developed the National Poultry Improvement Plan, the latest version being passed into prescriptive law in 2009.  Since about 18% of the US chicken flocks get exported, the US would be at a competitive disadvantage if they were hotbeds of MG or other diseases in their poultry flocks.  By testing and isolating infected flocks, the spread and damage from these infectious diseases is minimized.

According to NPIP-2009 on e-CFR, Section 145.43 (c) US M. Gallisepticum Clean states [emphasis added by me]:

(c) U.S. M. Gallisepticum Clean. (1) A flock maintained in accordance with the conditions and procedures described in §147.26 of this chapter, and in which no reactors are found when a random sample of at least 10 percent of the birds in the flock, or 300 birds in flocks of more than 300 and each bird in flocks of 300 or less, is tested when more than 12 weeks of age, in accordance with the procedures described in §145.14(b): Provided, That to retain this classification, a minimum of 30 samples from male flocks and 60 samples from female flocks shall be retested at 28-30 weeks of age and at 4-6 week intervals thereafter.

Section 145.11 states:

§145.11   Supervision.

(a) The Official State Agency may designate qualified persons as Authorized Agents to do the sample collecting provided for in §145.14 and may designate qualified persons as Authorized Testing Agents to do the sample collecting and blood testing provided for in §145.14.
(b) The Official State Agency shall employ or authorize qualified persons as State Inspectors to perform the qualification testing of participating flocks, and to perform the official inspections necessary to verify compliance with the requirements of the Plan.
(c) Authorities issued under the provisions of this section shall be subject to cancellation by the official State agency on the grounds of incompetence or failure to comply with the provisions of the Plan or regulations of the official State agency. Such actions shall not be taken until a thorough investigation has been made by the official State agency and the authorized person has been given notice of the proposed action and the basis therefor and an opportunity to present his views.

Section 145.14 states [emphasis added by me]:

§145.14   Testing.

Poultry must be more than 4 months of age when tested for an official classification: Provided, That turkey candidates under subpart D of this part may be tested at more than 12 weeks of age; game bird candidates under subpart E of this part may be tested when more than 4 months of age or upon reaching sexual maturity, whichever comes first; and ostrich, emu, rhea, and cassowary candidates under subpart F of this part may be tested when more than 12 months of age. Samples for official tests shall be collected by an Authorized Agent, Authorized Testing Agent, or State Inspector and tested by an authorized laboratory, except that the stained antigen, rapid whole-blood test for pullorum-typhoid may be conducted by an Authorized Testing Agent or State Inspector. For Plan programs in which a representative sample may be tested in lieu of an entire flock, except the ostrich, emu, rhea, and cassowary program in §145.63(a), the minimum number tested shall be 30 birds per house, with at least 1 bird taken from each pen and unit in the house. The ratio of male to female birds in representative samples of birds from meat-type chicken, waterfowl, exhibition poultry, and game bird flocks must be the same as the ratio of male to female birds in the flock. In houses containing fewer than 30 birds other than ostriches, emus, rheas, and cassowaries, all birds in the house must be tested.

Section 145.33(j) states [emphasis added by me]:

(j) U.S. M. Gallisepticum Monitored. (1) A multiplier breeding flock in which all birds or a sample of at least 30 birds per house has been tested for M. gallisepticum as provided in §145.14(b) when more than 4 months of age: Provided, That to retain this classification, a minimum of 30 birds per house shall be tested again at 36 to 38 weeks and at 48 to 50 weeks at a minimum: And provided further, That each 30-bird sample should come from 2 locations within the house (15 from the front half of the house and 15 from the back half of the house). A representative sample of males and females should be sampled. The samples shall be marked “male” or “female.”

Section 145.14 Testing  states, in part:

"...Samples for official tests shall be collected by an Authorized Agent, Authorized Testing Agent, or State Inspector and tested by an authorized laboratory, except that the stained antigen, rapid whole-blood test for pullorum-typhoid may be conducted by an Authorized Testing Agent or State Inspector. ..."

OMAF has stated that they have adoped NPIP.  I have therefore asked OMAF to disclose who is authorized to collect samples, their training and certified capability (ie. did they learn anything in the NPIP training they attended, if any), and their random & representative sampling methods that adopt CFR 145 for NPIP-2009 as an official policy, guideline, or program of OMAF.

Section 145.14(b)(4) of NPIP states:

(4) Any drug, for which there is scientific evidence of masking the test reaction or hindering the bacteriological recovery of mycoplasma organisms, shall not be fed or administered to poultry within three weeks prior to a test or bacteriological examination upon which a Mycoplasma classification is based.

Does OMAF's MG program ensure that this restrictive requirement is met in all cases?  How is this issue confirmed and documented in a positive manner?  For example, an extra draw of serum can be drawn on a random basis while drawing the main sample, and these secondary samples could be screened for drug and probiotic residues and metabolites.  Does OMAF have any management, inspection, or auditing program to independently and objectively verify that this requirement is met?  If not, why not?

Statistical Acceptance Criteria
Section 145.43(c) states a flock can be designated "U.S. M. Gallisepticum Clean." upon negative results from testing all birds, or testing 300 birds for flocks of more than 300 birds. 

Using a Binomial distribution, alpha=0.1 (ie. a 10% probability of rejecting a good lot; a typical industry-wide standard value) and beta=0.05 (ie. a 5% probability of accepting a bad lot, a typical industry-wide standard value), we calculate the AQL (Acceptable Quality Level) as 0.1186% of birds are MG infected and the UQL (Unacceptable Quality Level) is 0.765% of birds are MG infected, thereby creating the statistical test of passing the flock is no birds are positive, and rejecting the flock is just 1 bird tests positive.

I wonder if anybody at OMAF knows what a binomial distribution, AQL, UQL, and Type I and II errors are, and how these factors significantly affect MG testing?  If they don't, it's no wonder that we still have spurious outbreaks of MG throughout Canada, including Ontario.  Is OMAF satisfied with this sampling plan and its resulting AQL of 0.1186%, and the UQL  of 0.765%? If not, what are OMAF's comments on these calculated quality levels?

Testing Lab Capabilities
Once the samples are collected, somebody has to test them to see if MG can be detected.  Can a Chicken Farmer, or anybody else just look at the glass vials of blood and accurately and consistently see the MG in the blood?  No, we need a laboratory to test the blood.  It must be done so it's accurate and repeatable.  The above calculation assumes that the lab test is 100% accurate and sensitive.  Where is the data on the sensitivity, selectivity, accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility of the laboratory that does the MG screening tests?

What are the qualifications, certifications, and proven capabilities (eg. accuracy, bias, repeatability, stability, linearity, sensitivity, selectivity, reproducibility, etc.) of all Ontario labs used or authorized to perform and/or produce these MG test results?  Are any of these labs third party registered (under Standards Council of Canada's authority) for ISO 17025?  If not, why not?

Trust & Verification
OMAF scientists have repeatedly suggested that everybody involved in MG testing wants accurate results.

I'm not so sure.

After a career of 25 years as a quality assurance auditor across thousands of organization and almost all industry sectors, throughout North America and the rest of the world, I am continuously reminded that "people work the way they are measured".  In other words, they do what they have to, to make their measuring sticks look good.

For example, during the Chineese Melamine Scandal, melamine plastic powder was repeatedly and purposefully added to fluid milk, infant formula, and other protein based foods in China, because the supply chain was measured on % protein content in the food, and melamine showed up as protein by the "standard test".  Supposedly, testing for %Protein in milk prevented the diluting down of the milk with water.  A solution almost always has unintended consequences.  Perhaps that's why it's best if the governments of the world stop trying to help.  In China, with the misleading %Protein tests, food samples always looked great, with 100% passing all %Protein tests, until they were caught adding melamine after some babies died.  Eventually, a total of 19 babies died, 300,000 people were poisoned acutely.  In the long term, almost everybody who survived has serious chronic health consequences.

Why did the Chinese Melamine Scandal occur?   Mainly greed, and because people work the way they are measured.

For MG in Canada, I suggest that 0% to 5% of breeder/growers will get MG tested, even if the government said No!, even if it cost them big money.  They'd do it because it was the right thing to do.  For the next 40%, they'll get tested if it's a reasonable commercial price to do so and there are business case advantages for them on a selfish 1-sided basis (save your breath on "save the world" reasons).  The next 40% will do it if it's free or heavily subsidized by the government and your pressure  them to comply.  The last 15% will refuse, or do it only while the government is standing there watching them, and won't leave them alone until they do it.  How does this compare with your reality?

I suggest the majority of turkey farmers don't want MG testing, they just want the MG certificate so they can export their birds and get their cash.  For many, if they get their profits with or without a pretty MG-certificate, they're fine with it, regardless of the true MG-status of their flocks.

Is a MG-free certificate for Canadian turkeys the same as a melamine-induced %Protein certificate for Chinese milk?  In other words, is the government issued MG-free certificate a tool for enabling fraud to be perpetrated onto the #TurkeyMafia's customers?

What are OMAF's plans for when a customer of a Canadian turkey farm buys an alleged MG-free flock with a pretty government issued MG-free certificate (CFIA or OMAF), but some birds they bought are soon discovered to be sick &/or dead on shipment arrival, and the customer's Vet reports MG-contamination in the flock?

What if soon after the first MG surprise, it happens again?

Soon, everybody is testing for MG in spite of the pretty government issued MG-free certificates which were heavily subsidized by the government for the nice boys on the Canadian Supply Management turkey farms.  Remember, these Supply Management Turkey farms and their Marketing Agency are totally self-funding; except for MG testing, and many other exceptions that aren't even listed in the fine print.

One day soon, in this atmosphere of misleading MG-free certificates, there will be a sudden realization of a poultry epidemic at hand.  Suddenly, in a panic on Bird Flu or some other issue, what they have repeatedly turned a blind eye to before, will suddenly get the full spotlight.

Suddenly, they no longer trust Canadian turkeys, nor will they trust the pretty government issued MG-free certificates, so these customers will ban all Canadian turkey imports.  Other countries soon follow suit.  A world-wide embargo similar to Mad Cow Disease might soon be imposed on Canada's MG turkeys and misleading MG-free certificates, and Canada is at the epi-center. They will accuse Canada of knowingly giving out dubious MG-free certificates so as to unfairly and callously facilitate exporting, a breach of trust by Canada of their duty to other countries.

I believe that day is coming soon.  OMAF and the #TurkeyMafia can get ready now, or wait till it blows up like Mad Cow, Avian Flu, etc.

Today, there are 531 turkey farms, 9 hatcheries, and 20 turkey processing plants in Canada which produce 160.2 Million kg of turkey each year, which adds $377.8 Million per year to Canada's GDP.  Of that, 13.1% gets exported.  Could all of that be put at risk because of phony, misleading MG certificates?

Once Mad Cow was identified as causing CJD, and prions were in the food system in 1986, how long did it take for the British beef industry to be destroyed?  I suggest it took less than a year.

Look at China and SE Asia today with its Bird Flu and the ongoing losses and poultry industry decimation.  Look at pork in the US today with their virus.  Is the #TurkeyMafia truly 100% confident that they are completely immune to MG, and all similar epidemics?

Remember, Ontario's Premier Wynne want to Double our agri-food exports before 2020, not cut them in half.  We can't double if nobody trusts us and our disease-free certifications.  If we were found or suspected of having mis-leading MG-free certificates, this will likely tarnish all government certifications, not just MG.

All of this is occurring during the current government's watch.  Are they aware?  Are the mandarins watching? Are they competent and effective if we need them to handle an outbreak?

For Ontario, we have 186 turkey farms, and 3 hatcheries; all of which produce about 63 Million kg per year of eviscerated turkey meat, which is about 45% of the Canadian total production, with a farm gate live bird value of $160.8 Million per year.  With an average live bird weight of 8.509 kg., and an average eviscerated to live weight of 77.39% (ie. an average eviscerated weight of 6.585 kg,), the average Ontario quota-based turkey farm raises 9.567 Million turkeys per year are raised in Ontario.  With an average commercial grow-out period of 95 days, there are 3.84 grow cycles per year.  Therefore the average Ontario turkey farm has 13, 395 birds on-range at any one time.  The 2012 average farm gate live price was $1.98/kg., so the quota-based farmer has $26,522 at risk to an MG epidemic at all times during the year.  If MG hits, the recommended practice is to remove birds, clean, sanitize, and sit empty for 6 weeks (ie. 1.56 grow cycles). Loss of opportunity plus the costs thrown away give a net total MPPD (Maximum Probable Property Damage) of $67,896 per MG incident.

If they don't clean & sanitize properly after an MG incident, they are likely to suffer a second incident immediately following the first.  I suggest they don't need too many MG incidents for their banker to notice a significant change in the financial status of the #TurkeyMafia.

Cascade an MG incident through the entire economy, for an MG incident will affect hatcheries, feed mills, vets, suppliers, turkey meat processors, and retail; justifying a 4 fold multiplier.  Therefore, it is estimated that one MG incident has a $271,585 hit to the Ontario economy.

What is the effect as we cascade an MG incident through the entire economy of Ontario?  An MG incident at a farm will also affect hatcheries, feed mills, vets, suppliers, turkey meat processors, and retail; justifying a 4 fold multiplier.  Therefore, it is estimated that one MG incident at a turkey farm in Ontario has a $271,585 hit to the Ontario economy.

The Avian Flu incident in Fraser Valley, BC is estimated to have cost in excess of $300 Million.  Only $65 Million of this was a direct expense to the government under Health of Animals Act.  Is this not a subsidy of the Supply Management system, contrary to their insistence that they are 100% self-funded?

Isn't there significant Moral Hazard associated with these obsolete government programs?  Today, the #TurkeyMafia takes the risk as they please.  If they get caught, the public pays the cost.  If the #TurkeyMafia's gamble works for them, they get to keep 100% of the resulting profits.

What is your opinion about this $271,585 per incident MPPD calculation?  When you multiply that single average loss by the average number of MG incidents per year (confidential data to OMAF), we can only guess the total Province-wide annual loss.   Where does that loss sit on OMAF's priority list?

StatsCan reports in CANSIM Table 004-0004 that in 2011, there were 2,767 turkey farms with an aggregate total of 8,221,500 turkeys, and therefore had an average of 2,899 turkeys per farm.  We conclude that the SM turkey farms are 4.6 times bigger than the average Canadian turkey farm. 

Turkey Farmers of Canada reported in 2012 that they had 531 turkey farms under the Supply Management quota system.  We therefore calculate that there are 2,236 Small Flock quota-exempt turkey farms in Canada, which is 80.8% of the total number of Canadian turkey farms.  Again, the Supply Management system has constructed another apartheid system of the minority to overpower and oppress the majority.

We will have to wait for OMAF's answers, and whether any of the dystopian predictions above actually come true.

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

MG (Micoplasm Gallisepticum): Poultry Enemy #1

MG (Mycoplasm gallisepticum) is a major disease for turkeys, somewhat for chickens, costing the industry millions of dollars per year, but is off the radar in Canada, for both the #TurkeyMafia, the #ChickenMafia, and Small Flockers. Why?

In a 2005 USDA research report, MG was identified as the #1 mycoplasm disease in poultry.  The annual economic impact of MG infections in the United States was estimated at between $118 and $150 million for the layer industry alone in 1994.

For turkeys, BC has made MG a reportable disease, so as to allow neighbouring farms to be alerted so they can take additional biosecurity precautions.  While mycoplasms have a very limited life on surfaces, and can be somewhat easy to deactivate or kill, once a flock is infected, there is no known method to totally eradicate the disease.  The farm usually has to be totally de-populated, cleaned, disinfected, and left vacant for 6 weeks.  If not, the next flock will likely be infected as well.

World-wide, the interest in MG, as shown by Google search terms, began in March 2008, and has been steady since Aug. 2009.  In the USA, interest started in Nov 2009 and has been steady since Nov. 2010.  At least there is talk and growing awareness about MG outside Canada. Here are the search results on Google for the last 13 years:

Figure 1:  Insufficient searches on MG in Canada for Google Trends

In Canada, there is so little activity on MG, Google Trends is unable to provide search history trends on MG (same goes for a search for "Mycoplasm gallisepticum").

To see in greater detail, we had to go to Google Adwords Keyword Planner to see the activity in the last year.  In short, Figure 2 shows not much activity, just 10 to 50 searches per month within Canada.

Figure 2:  Google Adword KeywordPlanner shows just
10 to 50 searches on MG in Canada during the last year.

While few to nobody in Canada are seeking info on MG, would you guess that the governments and industry bureaucracies are hard at work on MG?

Nope.

Figure 3:  No mention of MG on Turkey Farmers of Canada website

An advanced Google search of website for Turkey Farmers of Canada finds nothing on MG (see Figure 2).  They are too busy celebrating their 40th anniversary to be worried about something messy like MG.  Party on!

How about Ontario Turkey Farmers website?

Figure 4:  Turkey Farmers of Ontario has nothing on MG

Nope. Wrong again.  Nothing on MG here either (see Figure 3).

BC?  BC is a pretty progressive place.  They got hit bad by Avian Influenza  a few years ago.  Surely they have something on MG too.

Figure 5:  BC Turkey website draws a blank on MG too

Nope.  BC Turkey Farmers draws a blank on MG too.  Lots of great recipes for turkey.  I guess that's where there focus lies.

Figure 6:   57 documents referencing MG on CFIA's website

CFIA.  Of course!  The Federal Government's font of all knowledge on infectious animal diseases.  The protector of our borders for import and export of animals.  Surely they are aware of MG, and have a huge system for protecting Canada and Canadians from MG.

A search of CFIA's website using Google's Advanced Search finally hits paydirt.  CFIA has 57 documents linked to MG.  Unfortunately, most of these documents are forms that Canadian Veterinarians can fill out about a planned export of Canadian eggs, chicks or birds to other countries.

For example, Taiwan wants a 6 months clean bill of health, including MG on all live bird imports coming into Taiwan.  The EU wants 6 weeks isolation and clean bill of health for MG and other avian diseases.

A quick scan of the list fails to shows anything of interest for detection, education, prevention, eradication, isolation, MG incidence rate, MG prevalence rates, geographical distribution, testing programs, or anything else on MG.

I wonder why?

There is an MG brochure produced by the BC Ministry of Agriculture  Seems like a pretty good brochure, a good starting point for building awareness.

Searching Ontario's Ministry of Agriculture's website, we turn up just 1 hit for MG. In this article, Martine Boulianne - Department of Clinical Sciences/University of Montreal claimed in Nov. 1999:

"Some vertically transmitted diseases of economical importance have been eradicated from commercial poultry flocks. These programs, established by the industry, have seen the disappearance of Salmonella gallinarum, Salmonella pullorum, Mycoplasma gallisepticum, Mycoplasma synovia, and Mycoplasma meleagridis in all commercial poultry flocks. Mycoplasma synovia is the only mycoplasm that we very infrequently encounter in commercial laying hens."

Eureka!  Maybe this is a non-problem, solved long ago.  Maybe I have been crying wolf when the hide of the last wolf is already mounted and stuffed.

To confirm this assertion without objective evidence, I called Dr. Csaba Varga, Poultry Disease Specialist at Ontario Ministry of Agriculture.  Dr. Varga said MG is not a reportable disease in Ontario, so he is reluctant to instantly confirm eradication of MG in Ontario's commercial poultry flocks.  He promised to check with one of his colleagues, and get back to us.  We're standing by.

Since BC is very proactive on MG, I called Dr. Victoria Bowes, Poultry Specialists for BC's Ministry of Agriculture.  She confirmed that in 1996, there was a breakout of MG at a commercial turkey farm in BC (note that this 1996 is 3 years after the 1999 claim of eradication).  It was felt that the infection arrived via pigeons that were entering the commercial turkey barns due to a lack of screening, and the pigeons allegedly picked up the MG from nearby small flock poultry farm(s).  Dr. Bowes agreed that the pigeon and small flock vector theory was "wild speculation" by the commercial turkey industry, with no proof nor reasonable & probable grounds to lay those accusations; it was just a hunch on their part.  BC did make the disease reportable for commercial turkey flocks at the request of the industry at that time.

Dr. Bowes also informed us that all commercial breeders do control and monitoring for MG under NPIP (National Poultry Improvement Plan), so there is MG surveillance from Day 1 at flock of origin.  If & when a flock tests positive for MG, it is immediately taken out (ie. destroyed or sent to slaughter early before the losses mount), and the facilities are cleaned and re-filled with certified MG-free chicks.  To the best of Dr. Bowes knowledge, BC commercial turkey farms are MG-free.

Not so for small flocks.  Dr. Bowes estimates that 60% of small flocks in BC test positive for MG.  This is the "auction barn disease", where unknown, known, or suspect birds are exposed or traded to others, thereby spreading the infection.

BC has been highly subsidizing the testing of small flocks for MG.  BC has not yet been successful in passing obligations on to the small flock owners once they know their status.  Many people choose to not know, so they are under no moral or legal compulsion to act once they know their flock's true status.  I suggested that this sounds a lot like HIV testing in the 1990's.  Today, we have learned (or most of us have learned) not to be judgemental, but take a public policy of harm reduction for maximum effectiveness and minimizing the spread of the disease.  Dr. Bowes agreed.

Unfortunately, the low cost testing and education programs offered by BC have not yet caused the incidence rate of MG in backyard flocks to diminish.  Perhaps that's where we come in. Certainly, there are crusaders against MG out there.  This posting was prompted by a flurry of emails and Facebook messages between SFPFC and Funky Fowl Farms

Further research found scientific reports demonstrating that MG can also invade human cells when tested in vitro. In vivo (ie. a live human), this human infection with MG may be prevented by some unknown immune system response, but maybe not. Could indiscriminate use of antibiotics create an evolution of MG into a superbug?  Mycoplasms aren't bacteria, for example mycoplasms have no cell wall, and they are parasites on their host organism for 100% of their nutrients.  Nobody fully understands how they work, so maybe it's possible.  What we are sure of, is that allowing the MG prevalence to rise may eventually lead to a SARS-like or Avian Flu-like human epidemic.  It seems prudent to minimize the spread of MG.  Perhaps we need to take the same or similar approach we have for smallpox or TB, shooting for total eradication.

Other research reports say transmission to wild flocks is possible.  The pandemic, wide spread prevalence of MG in wild flocks is a different genetic strain that that in domestic poultry.  Vaccination and regular testing for MG may be prudent in that case. Both smallpox and TB were pandemic world-wide infections at one point, yet today, smallpox is eradicated, and TB is very close to being defeated.

It has been found that QAC (Quartenary ammonium compounds) are ineffective against MG, probably because QAC generally attacks cell walls, and mycoplasms have no cell wall.  I had suggested that hydrogen peroxide solutions after thorough cleaning may be the best method.  Dr. Bowes was unaware of this QAC report, and also unsure about hydrogen peroxide.

There are known tests for MG, using SPA, HI as well as PCR, and genome sequencing.  Are these recommended by CFIA, or Canada's Supply Management Mafia?  Is there a  testing program available?  In BC there is, what about the rest of Canada?  Unknown at this time.


Perhaps this is a golden opportunity for small flockers to partner with government and the Supply Management Mafia.  There are numerous case studies that show when people work on a project with a shared, common goal, there is a significant gain in understanding, acceptance, and teamwork.

Lord knows that Canada and all Canadians could benefit for lots more of that.

SFPFC is willing.  Are the other two groups willing?  If you are a member in giovernment and/or the Supply Management Mafia (or know somebody who is), perhaps you can share this posting and this offer with them, and ask them to participate.  A future career as a matchmaker could await you.

* * * 

2014/01/07 Addendum:  I have now emailed CFIA, and all of the commercial turkey marketing agencies and Boards across Canada, asking them where they stand and what they understand about MG ( see Email here ).  It should be interesting to see what they say, if anything at all.  Be warned, the Supply Management Mafia tends to stonewall, deny, and ignore questions that they don't like.  Maybe they will have turned over a new wing feather, just for MG and my questions.  We'll have to wait and see.

2014/01/12 Addendum:   Susan Tritt, from Funky Fowl Farm, is an advocate for an intensive approach against MG.  Susan notes:

2013/10/30 1:06 PM   "Unfortunately the only vaccine available in Canada only works to suppress the disease. It doesn't actually kill the organism, so you are still left with the probability of depopulation. The other issue with the vaccine is that it only comes in 1000 dose size. So not suited for small flock farmers."

2014/01/11 11:06 PM   "An update on the vaccine. It is no longer available in Canada. The drug company that holds the distributorship did not make enough money on it so they will no longer produce it. I'm happy to report that we have finished testing our flock [at her farm], and can say that we are MG free."

2014/01/11 11:22 PM   "Read your blog [this Blog posting]. Fabulous write up. Hopefully we can encourage others to test. The only thing I would add to your information is that, you can treat sick birds, and they can appear well again, but they will always be carriers and are prone to reoccurances of illness, and are always shedding the organism and infecting new flock members."