Abstract
Recently, the survival of Mycobacterium bovis on livestock mineral blocks has been confirmed, but little is known about its implication in the transmission of animal tuberculosis (TB) under field conditions. The objective of this study was to describe the shared use of mineral supplements in four extensive beef cattle farms from a high TB prevalence area in South Central Spain, to identify the main factors explaining their use, and characterize its potential role for the transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Complex (MTC). This is relevant to design control measures at the wildlife-livestock interface. Animal activity was monitored by camera-trapping at 12 mineral supplementation points during spring and fall. Additionally, swabs were periodically taken from the mineral substrates and analyzed by PCR searching for MTC DNA. Cattle, pig, goat, sheep, wild boar, and red deer were all recorded licking on mineral supplementation points. Livestock species were the main users and presented a diurnal use pattern. Wild ungulates presented a nocturnal-crepuscular use pattern, with scarce overlapping with livestock. Wild boar presence was positively related to cattle presence at mineral supplementation points, whereas red deer presence was higher in supplemental points closer to forested areas and in farms without hunting pressure. We recorded 266 indirect wildlife-livestock interactions (i.e., two consecutive visits that occurred within 78 h), all of them derived from 21 unique wildlife visits. All the analyzed swabs resulted negative to MTC DNA. Comparing to other environmental sources of MTC in our study area, mainly water ponds, this research evidenced that mineral blocks are less attractive to wildlife. However, the potential for interspecific transmission of MTC or other pathogens cannot be discarded. The risk for interaction at mineral supplementation points and further transmission can be prevented by implementing specific measures in the context of integral biosecurity plans at the wildlife-livestock interface, which are proposed.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Data availability
The datasets generated for this study can be found in the Mendeley Data repository (https://doi.org/10.17632/bndtp9sx7w.1). Link: https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/bndtp9sx7w/1.
References
Acevedo P, Prieto M, Quirós P et al (2019) Tuberculosis epidemiology and badger (Meles meles) spatial ecology in a hot-spot area in atlantic spain. Pathogens 8:292. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens8040292
Barasona JA, Torres MJ, Aznar J et al (2017a) DNA detection reveals Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex shedding routes in its wildlife reservoir the eurasian wild boar. Transbound Emerg Dis 64:906–915. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12458
Barasona JA, Vicente J, Díez-Delgado I et al (2017b) Environmental presence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in aggregation points at the wildlife/livestock interface. Transbound Emerg Dis 64:1148–1158. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12480
Baubet E, Ropert-Coudert Y, Brandt S (2003) Seasonal and annual variations in earthworm consumption by wild boar (Sus scrofa scrofa L.). Wildl Res 30:179–186. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR00113
Berentsen AR, Miller RS, Misiewicz R et al (2014) Characteristics of white-tailed deer visits to cattle farms: Implications for disease transmission at the wildlife-livestock interface. Eur J Wildl Res 60:161–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-013-0760-5
Bernáldez FG, Benayas JMR, Levassor C, Peco B (1989) Landscape ecology of uncultivated lowlands in Central Spain. Landsc Ecol 3:3–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00157752
Böhm M, Hutchings MR, White PCL (2009) Contact networks in a wildlife-livestock host community: identifying high-risk individuals in the transmission of bovine TB among badgers and cattle. PLoS One 4 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005016
Bonnot N, Morellet N, Verheyden H et al (2013) Habitat use under predation risk: hunting, roads and human dwellings influence the spatial behaviour of roe deer. Eur J Wildl Res 59:185–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-012-0665-8
Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2004) Model selection and multimodel inference. Springer
Carrasco-García R, Barasona JA, Gortazar C et al (2016) Wildlife and livestock use of extensive farm resources in South Central Spain: implications for disease transmission. Eur J Wildl Res 62:65–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-015-0974-9
Cooper SM, Morgan Scott H, De La Garza GR et al (2010) Distribution and interspecies contact of feral swine and cattle on rangeland in south Texas: implications for disease transmission. J Wildl Dis 46:152–164. https://doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-46.1.152
Cowie CE, Hutchings MR, Barasona JA et al (2016) Interactions between four species in a complex wildlife: livestock disease community: implications for Mycobacterium bovis maintenance and transmission. Eur J Wildl Res 62:51–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-015-0973-x
Drewe JA, O’Connor HM, Weber N et al (2013) Patterns of direct and indirect contact between cattle and badgers naturally infected with tuberculosis. Epidemiol Infect 141:1467–1475. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268813000691
Fine AE, Bolin CA, Gardiner JC, Kaneene JB (2011) A study of the persistence of Mycobacterium bovis in the environment under natural weather conditions in Michigan, USA. Vet Med Int 2011:1–12. https://doi.org/10.4061/2011/765430
Fitzgerald SD, Kaneene JB (2013) Wildlife reservoirs of bovine tuberculosis worldwide: hosts, pathology, surveillance, and control. Vet Pathol 50:488–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300985812467472
Gormley E, Corner LAL (2018) Pathogenesis of Mycobacterium bovis Infection: the badger model as a paradigm for understanding tuberculosis in animals. Front Vet Sci 4:247. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2017.00247
Gortázar C, Che Amat A, O’Brien DJ (2015) Open questions and recent advances in the control of a multi-host infectious disease: animal tuberculosis. Mamm Rev 45:160–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12042
Gortázar C, Ferroglio E, Lutton CE, Acevedo P (2010) Disease-related conflicts in mammal conservation. Wildl Res 37:668–675. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR10031
Humblet MF, Boschiroli ML, Saegerman C (2009) Classification of worldwide bovine tuberculosis risk factors in cattle: A stratified approach. Vet Res 40 https://doi.org/10.1051/vetres/2009033
Kaneene JB, Hattey JA, Bolin CA et al (2017) Survivability of Mycobacterium bovis on salt and salt-mineral blocks fed to cattle. Am J Vet Res 78:57–62. https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.78.1.57
Krebs JR, Anderson RM, Clutton-Brock T et al (1998) Badgers and bovine TB: Conflicts between conservation and health. Science 279(80):817–818. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.279.5352.817
Kukielka E, Barasona JA, Cowie CE et al (2013) Spatial and temporal interactions between livestock and wildlife in South Central Spain assessed by camera traps. Prev Vet Med 112:213–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.08.008
Lavelle MJ, Henry C, LeDoux K et al (2015) Deer response to exclusion from stored cattle feed in Michigan, USA. Prev Vet Med 121:159–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.06.015
Lavelle MJ, Kay SL, Pepin KM et al (2016) Evaluating wildlife-cattle contact rates to improve the understanding of dynamics of bovine tuberculosis transmission in Michigan, USA. Prev Vet Med 135:28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.10.009
Lavelle MJ, Phillips GE, Fischer JW et al (2014) Mineral licks: motivational factors for visitation and accompanying disease risk at communal use sites of elk and deer. Environ Geochem Health 36:1049–1061. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-014-9600-0
Little AR, Webb SL, Demarais S et al (2016) Hunting intensity alters movement behaviour of white-tailed deer. Basic Appl Ecol 17:360–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2015.12.003
Lone K, Loe LE, Meisingset EL et al (2015) An adaptive behavioural response to hunting: Surviving male red deer shift habitat at the onset of the hunting season. Anim Behav 102:127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.01.012
Moustakas A, Evans MR (2015) Coupling models of cattle and farms with models of badgers for predicting the dynamics of bovine tuberculosis (TB). Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 29:623–635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-014-1016-y
Payne A, Chappa S, Hars J et al (2016) Wildlife visits to farm facilities assessed by camera traps in a bovine tuberculosis-infected area in France. Eur J Wildl Res 62:33–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-015-0970-0
Core Team R (2019) A language and environment for statistical computing. R Found. Stat. Comput. 2:https://www.R--project.org
Santos N, Almeida V, Gortázar C, Correia-Neves M (2015) Patterns of Mycobacterium tuberculosis-complex excretion and characterization of super-shedders in naturally-infected wild boar and red deer. Vet Res 46:129. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-015-0270-4
Santos N, Richomme C, Nunes T et al (2020) Quantification of the animal tuberculosis multi-host community offers insights for control. Pathogens. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens9060421
Silk MJ, Drewe JA, Delahay RJ et al (2018) Quantifying direct and indirect contacts for the potential transmission of infection between species using a multilayer contact network. Behaviour 155:731-757. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568539X-00003493
Triguero-Ocaña R, Laguna E, Jiménez-Ruiz S et al (2020) The wildlife-livestock interface on extensive free-ranging pig farms in central Spain during the “montanera” period. Transbound Emerg Dis. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.13854
VerCauteren KC, Lavelle MJ, Campa H (2018) Persistent spillback of bovine tuberculosis from white-tailed deer to cattle in Michigan, USA: Status, Strategies, and Needs. Front Vet Sci 5:301. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00301
Woodroffe R, Donnelly CA, Ham C et al (2016) Badgers prefer cattle pasture but avoid cattle: implications for bovine tuberculosis control. Ecol Lett 19:1201–1208
Woodroffe R, Donnelly CA, Ham C et al (2017) Use of farm buildings by wild badgers: implications for the transmission of bovine tuberculosis. Eur J Wildl Res 63:6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-016-1065-2
Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS (2010) A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol 1:3–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2009.00001.x
Acknowledgements
We thank ASAJA, COVAP, the regional administration (JCCM), and independent livestock farmers for their collaboration and interest.
Funding
Research funding was provided by project AGL2016-76358-R (MINECO-FEDER, UE). JMG was supported by a FPI grant (BES-2015–072206). PA is supported by an extension of “Ramón y Cajal” contract (RYC-2012–11970, MINECO-UCLM). This is also a contribution to EU FEADER PDR projects “Alcudia” and “GOSTU” on farm biosafety.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Jordi Martínez-Guijosa, Christian Gortázar, Pelayo Acevedo, and Joaquín Vicente conceived and designed the study. Material preparation and data collection were performed by Jordi Martínez-Guijosa. Laboratorial analysis was performed by Maria José Torres. Data analysis and interpretation were performed by Jordi Martínez-Guijosa, Adrían López-Alonso, and Joaquín Vicente. Jordi Martínez-Guijosa and Adrían López-Alonso wrote the paper, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
The authors confirm that the ethical policies of the journal, as noted on the journal’s author guidelines page, have been adhered to. No ethical approval was required as there were not sample collection from animals or humans.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Martínez-Guijosa, J., López-Alonso, A., Gortázar, C. et al. Shared use of mineral supplement in extensive farming and its potential for infection transmission at the wildlife-livestock interface. Eur J Wildl Res 67, 55 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-021-01493-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-021-01493-3