North American Deer Farmers Magazine Winter 2019

Winter 2019

nADeFA.org

North American Deer Farmer

7

10

North American Deer Farmer

nADeFA.org

Winter 2019

18

North American Deer Farmer

nADeFA.org

Winter 2019

Winter 2019

nADeFA.org

North American Deer Farmer

19

30

North American Deer Farmer

nADeFA.org

Winter 2019

Winter 2019

nADeFA.org

North American Deer Farmer

31

52

nADeFA.org

Winter 2019

58

North American Deer Farmer

nADeFA.org

Winter 2019

Winter 2019

nADeFA.org

North American Deer Farmer

59

Âť INDUSTRY UPDATE

WCFF, NADeFA, and DBC in Process of Funding Phase 2.5 on CWD Research To Our Members: now that we have completed Phase 1 and Phase 2 of your organizations supported research (review on web page), the WCFF, NADeFA and DBC are in the process to fund continuing CWD research in a Phase 2.5 (CWD+ Deer) for the underlying causes of CWD in live deer and a Phase 3 research continuance for the deer left on the quarantined farm.

Phase 2.5 will provide a follow-up to the two deer (orange 1 / yellow 1 ) that were found to be positive with CWD prions through IHC rectal biopsy detection in April of 2018 (see full report). As the season progressed and environmental sampling continued re: deer health, Orange 1 was found dead unexpectedly on August 5th, 2018. Upon

72

North American Deer Farmer

gross necropsy the initial report notated internal organ anomalies with pending sample pathologies to be further investigated. NVSL on confirmatory testing showed Orange 1 to be positive with CWD in both lymph nodes and obex.

On December 26th, 2018, Yellow 1 was unexpectedly found dead. This was a surprise since she was doing well the week prior during my farm visit for routine monitoring.

Initial findings by the herd veterinarian noted this Doe was probably gored by the buck within this group. NVSL confirmatory testing for CWD prion detection was also confirmed. Gross necropsies were performed on these two deer for which important biological sampling was conducted for further investigations.

nADeFA.org

Winter 2019

» NEWS

31 Elk Dead in Rare Collision with Freight Train

In the early morning hours of Jan. 25, a herd of elk standing on railroad tracks was hit by a Union Pacific freight train traveling between Montpelier and Soda Springs.

A total of 31 elk died in the collision that the Idaho Department of Fish and Game is calling a rare occurrence.

No people were injured in the collision, which Fish and Game officials first released information about on Friday via a press release.

Fish and Game said wild animals often walk on train tracks in the winter in Idaho because the tracks are usually not covered by snow, but collisions between wild animals and trains are still rare.

Fish and Game conservation officers arrived at the scene on Jan. 25 and euthanized the injured elk as well as coordinated the removal of the carcasses from the railroad tracks. Of the 31 elk killed by the train, 10 were salvageable for meat and distributed to members of the community. A 74

North American Deer Farmer

local citizen volunteered his time and front-end loader to load the salvageable elk carcasses into people’s trucks.

Last year, 47 antelope were killed by a freight train near Dietrich, Idaho, and before that 58 deer were hit and killed near Dietrich in 2004.

Perhaps one of the most memorable wildlife versus train collisions in Idaho history was when 132 antelope were killed by a train west of American Falls in 1976.

Montana has had multiple instances over the years of wild animal herds being hit by trains. In 2016 near Helena, Montana, a herd of elk was hit by a freight train resulting in 23 of the animals dying.

Idaho Fish and Game officials said they do not believe the loss of the 31 elk in the Jan. 25 collision between Soda Springs and Montpelier is going to have any impact on the animal’s population locally because there are several large elk herds in Southeast Idaho. u nADeFA.org

Winter 2019

» NEWS

The Contiguous United States Just Lost Its Last Wild Caribou

By David Moskowitz Science Mag The last caribou known to inhabit the contiguous United States has been removed from the wild. This week, a team of biologists working for the Canadian province of British Columbia captured the caribou—a female—in the Selkirk Mountains just north of the U.S.-Canada border. They then moved it to a captive rearing pen near Revelstoke as part of a controversial, last-ditch effort to preserve highly endangered herds. The female caribou is believed to be the last member of the last herd to regularly cross into the lower 48 states from Canada.

The 14 January capture of the caribou was “like losing a piece of the tribe in some way,” says Bart George, a wildlife biologist for the Kalispel tribe in Usk, Washington. It is one of two indigenous nations in the United States that have been pushing governments to maintain the cross-border caribou herd and protect its habitat.

78

North American Deer Farmer

In about a month, the British Columbia biologists plan to release the caribou—along with two other animals from another endangered herd—back into the wild, into a larger and more stable Canadian herd. The ultimate fate of these animals, however, is unclear. They are mountain caribou, a distinct ecotype of caribou found only in a forested swath of northwestern North America, which have become endangered because of habitat loss and other factors.

Conservation efforts have failed to reverse population declines or prevent the complete extirpation of some herds at the southern end of the mountain caribou’s range, where they inhabit inland temperate rainforests. And biologists can’t say whether any caribou will again inhabit the contiguous United States. (There are herds of other types of caribou in Alaska.) u nADeFA.org

Winter 2019

80

North American Deer Farmer

nADeFA.org

Winter 2019

94

North American Deer Farmer

nADeFA.org

Winter 2019

» CWD RESEARCH

Help Needed from Elk Owners for Groundbreaking ERF Project 1902 The Elk Research Foundation is collecting DNA samples from farmed elk across the United States and Canada in hopes of learning more about elk sequencing technologies. The ERF is working with Dr. Chris Seabury of Texas A&M University, who is developing a whitetail and mule deer genome.

96

North American Deer Farmer

Dr. Seabury recently presented the benefits of his ongoing research on the whitetail and mule deer genome at the United States Animal Health Association (USAHA) conference. In contrast, very little research of this kind has been performed on North American Elk. The Elk Research Foundation hopes to change that in the future.

The technology for deer is allowing the possibility for more genetic trends to be identified, which may help pin point susceptibility to diseases such as Chronic Wasting Disease.

The ERF is currently collaborating with Dr. Seabury on how comprehensive sequencing and a genome for elk can be accomplished.

There are several steps to take place in the process, but collecting elk DNA samples is the first targeted goal.

In the coming months, the ERF is requesting elk owners pull DNA hair samples from their animals when they run them through their handling facilities. The animal’s age does not matter, therefore owners working calves this winter can provide the necessary samples.

Samples will be mailed to the ERF office at the following address: Elk Research Foundation 9086 Keats Ave SW Howard Lake, MN 55349 DNA samples will need to be collected very similar to samples collected for parentage.

Each sample needs to be in its own sealed small envelope labeled with the following information: Tag Number Male or Female Ranch Name City, State/Province Minnesota elk owner, Mark Luedtke, attended the Seabury seminar at the USAHA conference and saw the need for the elk industry to join the research. “It was evident how much is being learned about whitetail deer and the elk industry is falling behind on this research. I encourage the ERF and industry breeders to provide samples and see what we can learn in this direction,” Luedtke said. u nADeFA.org

Winter 2019

samples may not replace CSF in routine RT-QuIC-based prion disease diagnosis, they may be helpful when prion disease is suspected but CSF is either unavailable or RTQuIC-negative."

The study results build upon previous work by Zou and colleagues showing that autopsy skin samples from human prion disease patients exhibit prion seeding and infectivity.

The next step will be to develop and validate the skin prion tests for clinical use.

Said Zou, "Since the skin is readily accessible and skin biopsy is minimally invasive, detection of skin prions will be very useful for monitoring disease progression and assessing therapeutic eďŹƒcacy during clinical trials or treatments when prion therapy becomes available in the future."

Zou and Kong were recently awarded a $2.9 million

Winter 2019

nADeFA.org

grant from the National Institutes of Health to validate the test methods using human skin samples. They will determine if skin prions could serve as a diagnostic biomarker for CJD or a source of prion transmission.

The researchers believe the methods may also be adapted for diagnosis of other diseases involving misfolded proteins. "Sensitive, minimally invasive detection of various misfolded proteins in skin, such as tau in Alzheimer's disease and alpha-synuclein in Parkinson's disease, could be highly valuable for disease diagnosis and monitoring of disease progression and eďŹƒcacy of treatments," Zou said. "It's possible that the skin will ultimately serve as a mirror for us to monitor these misfolded proteins that accumulate and damage the brain in patients with these conditions." u

North American Deer Farmer

101

» WDFO UPDATE

2019 WILL BE A BUSY YEAR FOR WDFO Hello deer friends, As I write this update this morning I am sure thankful for a warm office to be in as it is -7 this morning with a wind chill of -23.

It looks like 2019 will be another busy year for WDFO. Our annual Spring Meeting is coming up fast. The Spring Meeting will be held March 30 at the Heritage Community Center in Berlin oh. If you have never been to Ohio I would like to invite you to come and join us for the day. There are always lots of fun raffles going on and plenty of food.

August 29-30 brings the second annual nADeFA eastern regional Fall Convention and Annual ohio Fall Auction. The Fall Convention in 2018 was a blowout with great attendance and lots of good auction items donated. If

102

North American Deer Farmer

you missed the 2018 event you will definitely want to plan to attend this year as the committee is working hard to make it even bigger and better than last year.

The Ohio Fall Auction always brings excitement as it is the first major fall event in the industry. The auction committee has decided to try something a little different this year with the buck auction. In previous years only Ohio farms could sell bucks. For 2019 the auction will be opened up to 50 premium bucks from other states. All bucks sold in the auction will be selected by jury and no damaged or lopsided bucks will be accepted. u Mark Mast President, Whitetail Deer Farmers Of Ohio 330-473-2419 info@buckeyewhitetailauctions.com

nADeFA.org

Winter 2019

Winter 2019

nADeFA.org

North American Deer Farmer

103

104

North American Deer Farmer

nADeFA.org

Winter 2019

» WOLF PREDATION

« CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE

nutritional condition,” Metz said. “The individuals who are in the best condition are the first to drop their antlers to get “Antlers are the product of sexual selection, where males a leg up on growing larger antlers for the next season and are competing over breeding opportunities in a short time therefore gain the greatest reproductive success. Wolves window in the fall,” Metz said. “Here we show that the mostly target individuals who are very young, old or in poor evolution of antlers was also influenced by other things in an nutritional condition, which are characteristics that make elk’s environment, like wolf predation, and that a secondary them vulnerable. Here we identified a new, unexpected function also helped to shape the characteristics of this vulnerability – shedding antlers early.” structure, such as when antlers are shed.”

The study highlights an evolutionary Catch-22: Metz, a longtime Yellowstone wolf researcher, analyzed Weapons come with both benefits and costs. Bulls who drop over a decade’s worth of data from the Yellowstone Wolf their antlers early may grow relatively larger antlers in the Project, a long-term study recording interactions between upcoming year, winning more cows, but they’re also at wolves and their prey. greater risk to become dinner first.

Wolves in Yellowstone often kill bull elk during the For younger bulls unlikely to be successful in the winter months, but Metz and his co-authors found that upcoming rut anyway, the risk is too high. These males are wolves strongly preferred to kill individuals who had already among the last to cast their antlers. shed their antlers – even though they were often in better Metz earned a B.S. in wildlife biology from UM and has condition than bulls who still had their rack. The results studied predator-prey dynamics in Yellowstone since 2002. showed that antlers are indeed an important predatory “The study first came about through observations that I deterrent for elk – a secondary function that could help had when I worked as a seasonal field technician for the explain variation in antler retention time across species in Yellowstone Wolf Project in the early 2000s,” he said. “We temperate climates. usually see antler-casting starting at the tail-end of March.

“These males that shed their antlers first are more vulnerable to being killed by wolves despite being in better CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE» 108

North American Deer Farmer

nADeFA.org

Winter 2019

» WOLF PREDATION « CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE

But the winter of 2004-05 was milder, and bulls were shedding their antlers a little earlier.”

One day he and another researcher spotted a wolf-killed elk.

“We hiked into it, and it was an antlerless male in early March,” Metz said. “We hadn’t seen any living bull elk without antlers yet on the landscape. We thought, ‘That’s kind of interesting.’ We just started to notice this relationship where we would observe wolves encountering male elk, and they seemed to be focusing on those who had already shed their antlers. It took 13 years of data to actually test this idea.”

Along the way, Metz pulled in other co-authors, including UM professors Hebblewhite and Emlen.

“To me, one of the coolest things about this project is how it started,” said Hebblewhite, a wildlife biology professor in UM’s W.A. Franke College of Forestry and Conservation who focuses on large-mammal predator-prey systems. “It started with Matt just being observant, noticing something in nature, and then diving into it over a decade to find out why. This is the heart of the scientific process.”

Hebblewhite has studied wolves and their prey for a quarter century, but this is the first time he’d stopped to consider what makes antlers antlers. “A lot of the time, the reasons we study nature are to control or manage it, to make it do something we want for us,” he said. “This is a case of wonder at its finest.”

Emlen, an evolutionary biologist and professor in the Division of Biological Sciences, said what was most fun about the project was the nature of the collaboration, which crossed

110

North American Deer Farmer

departments and disciplines.

“Matt is a wolf biologist. And Hebblewhite is an elk biologist, but he doesn’t focus on antlers,” Emlen said. “I work on rhino beetles, and I study animal weapons – beetle horns. I spend most of my time thinking about why weapons are so big.

It’s been a blast to work on antlers, because those are giant weapons. It’s been a wild ride. That a beetle biologist who studies weapons can collaborate with elk and wolf biologists adds a fun twist to the story.”

The study was funded in part by the National Science Foundation’s Long Term Research in Environmental Biology program, which aims to help sustain research projects lasting 10 years or longer.

“This is a really sophisticated look at a complicated behavior,” said Kendra McLauchlan, NSF program director.

“They were able to make this discovery because of 13 years of careful observations. Sometimes it is really important to have that long-term record of observations.”u

Research conducted by Matt Metz, Ph.D. candidate, matthew.metz@umontana.edu; Mark Hebblewhite, UM professor of ungulate ecology, 406-2436675,mark.hebblewhite@umontana.edu; Doug Emlen, UM biology professor, doug.emlen@mso.umt.edu.

nADeFA.org

Winter 2019

» EHD VACCINE « CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE

previously required for licensing of new vaccine formulations.

Using this approach, it will be possible to provide vaccine formulations targeted to the main circulating strains of EHD, as well as to provide targeted formulations including Bluetongue strains of local need and potentially additional targets as well. In order to guarantee the safety and efficacy of this approach, the USDA requires that prior to using this rapid approach, the company must first be granted a full license for a target using the same “platform” approach. Simply put, once a full license has been granted using a system for producing efficacious vaccine, that same system may be used to produce additional vaccine targets so long as the production system is conserved. It is to this end that Medgene has spent the last several years developing an efficacious vaccine against EHD Serotype 2. To understand the time and challenges of development of this vaccine, we’ll outline the general requirements for development of any new vaccine, the challenges associated with doing this for the EHD virus, our results using the vaccine in White Tailed Deer, and the fieldefficacy data to be obtained over the next year.

WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A STRONG VACCINE?

The basis of vaccination is to “educate” the immune system to respond to a disease agent without actual exposure to that agent. The process takes advantage of the ability of the immune system to remember encounters with pathogens, such that during a secondary exposure they respond much more effectively and “shut down” the infection prior to disease. Natural exposure to chicken pox as a child establishes immunological memory to the chicken

114

North American Deer Farmer

pox virus so the disease can not reoccur. The challenge to immunology is to develop vaccines that sufficiently mimic the disease agent to promote strong, protective memory responses without causing disease themselves. In some cases, appropriate methods to induce this immunity are well known through years of research (e.g. Influenza), whereas in other cases we are far less certain about the best way to protect against disease (e.g. HIV). This therefore is the first challenge – establishing the components required to formulate a strong vaccine. Once that knowledge is available, the next challenge is to demonstrate effectiveness of the new vaccine prior to introduction to the field. At a practical level, the most effective means of carrying out this proof-ofconcept is to “challenge” vaccinated and non-vaccinated animals with the infectious agent in a controlled environment. Assuming that animals are available that can be demonstrated to have never been exposed to the agent, and that the infectious agent causes disease when experimentally introduced into the target species, this approach is the most common. However, in many cases disease agents are not effective when directly injected into target animals, in which case “surrogate” methods must be used to define potential effectiveness of the vaccine. The method of choice in this case is to monitor the ability of blood serum taken from exposed or vaccinated animals to inhibit the ability of virus to infect cells in a cell-culture system in the lab, termed a “serum neutralization” assay. The more that the serum can be diluted and still hamper virus replication, the stronger the protective immune response in the host animal. For any given infectious agent, a key aspect is knowing the appropriate dilution of serum that corresponds to protection of the animal from infection.

nADeFA.org

Winter 2019

ARE THESE FACTORS AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE EHD VACCINE?

There is good news and bad news when it comes to development of the EHD vaccine. The good news is that significant research performed on Bluetongue and related viruses has clearly given the required composition of the final vaccine to obtain protection. The first requirement for development of the vaccine is therefore available. However, there are distinct challenges in demonstrating efficacy. EHD, like Bluetongue and other viruses in the same family, are naturally transmitted by insect bites. A problematic characteristic of insect-borne viruses is that in many cases, they require the insect in order to effectively transmit disease.

Experiments with EHD have demonstrated that direct injection of the virus has little disease-causing ability, and there are significant problems in attempting to use midges directly to transmit the virus. As a result, the first option for demonstration of efficacy – an animal challenge model – is not feasible. To that end, researchers have defined a cellculture based assay that appears to correlate with protection.

It is this assay, termed a serum neutralization assay, that is commonly used to predict vaccine protection for the EHDfamily of viruses.

Dakota. While this study demonstrated that a majority of the deer produced protective responses, it also demonstrated a need for further work on scale-up to produce large numbers of doses for commercial sale. We are currently working on procedures to perfect the scale-up, and anticipate having vaccine available mid-2019 if all continues to go well.

WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS?

While we are confident in our ability to produce a vaccine formulation that is protective against EHD, we do have some work to continue over the next few months.

Firstly, we will be working to scale-up our production procedures to large scale production in our USDA Licensed Production facility. Once completed, we anticipate a confirmatory study to demonstrate efficacy of the vaccine against multiple EHD Serotypes. Finally, we will be carrying out a USDA-regulated large scale field efficacy study in partnership with NADeFA. Given that a definitive challenge study in White Tailed Deer with EHD is impractical for the reasons already stated, the USDA is permitting Medgene to partner with NADeFA to make the EHD Serotype 1,2, and 6 vaccine available for sale under the condition that (a) the vaccine can only be ordered by a licensed veterinarian and (b) Medgene will collect data from this field experience to support full licensing. Once this efficacy data is available, WHY DO WE BELIEVE THAT THIS VACCINE IS Medgene can then formulate targeted vaccines including PROTECTIVE AGAINST EHD? In an effort to define the effectiveness of the vaccine Bluetongue, and potentially other target viruses, to support formulation in deer, Medgene has partnered with NADeFA the deer farming community. members to fully define the final vaccine. In partnership with Chuck Blaine and Twin Creek Farms, we have examined CONCLUDING THOUGHTS several studies to fully define the effectiveness of the target The production of an efficacious, targeted, and adaptable vaccine. As a first step, we demonstrated that vaccination vaccine to protect the North American Deer Farming with high doses of our target formulation produced 100% community from EHD has been an extended process, protective responses (as determined by the cell culture assay) involving cooperation and collaboration between Federal within 14 days of the second dose of the vaccine. This Agencies, NADEFA, and Medgene Labs. We are nearing the demonstrated very clearly that we had defined the end of this process, and look forward to further partnerships appropriate formulation, and next chose to determine the appropriate dose for protection in white tailed deer. In this to meet the needs of the deer industry. Development has second study, we demonstrated that 6 of 6 animals produced been challenging, due in part to some of the rather unique responses above the minimal protection threshold when challenges associated with working with this particular virus vaccinated with a minimal dose of the vaccine formulation. and deer as a target species. Nonetheless, Medgene remains Both of these vaccine trials had been carried out using small- dedicated to working with the deer farmers to produce scale preparation, and we then proceeded to a large-scale efficacious products to support the industry. Thank you for study in conjunction with Schafer Whitetails of North your patience and continued support. u Winter 2019

nADeFA.org

North American Deer Farmer

115

Winter 2019

nADeFA.org

North American Deer Farmer

119

Insecticidal screens are an effective control method, however, there are always drawbacks with any strategy...

FieLD eFFiCACY oF DeLtAMetHrin inCorPoRAteD SCreen A total of 3043 Culicoides were caught throughout the study (90 trap-nights in all). Of these, 20 different Culicoides species were identified, with C. multipunctatus and C. stellifer being the two most abundant species trapped overall (55.1% and 17.8% respectively) and females comprising a vast majority of the catch (2521 individuals or 83%).

Comparisons of untreated and deltamethrin incorporated screen to the unscreened control trap resulted in significantly reduced Culicoides abundance in trap captures (Est. = -0.8887, SE = 0.3969, P < 0.05; and Est. = 3.1303, SE = 0.4288, P < 0.0001; respectively).

This study demonstrates the efficacy of an insecticide incorporated screen at an optimal height to block Culicoides species from entering an enclosure in a field setting. Results support the ability of a treated barrier as another tool to reduce the number of biting midges entering an enclosure.

Consistent with the hypothesis vertical barriers impede and potentially block Culicoides, the number of Culicoides on captive cervid operations captured inside the deltamethrin incorporated mock animal enclosures using CO2-baited CDC mini light traps were 92.4% lower than the traps in open areas and 86% lower than the numbers captured in untreated barriers.

Insecticidal screens are an effective control method, however, there are always drawbacks with any strategy.

Treatment on the barriers, although formulated to be ultraviolet resistant and long-lasting, will not last indefinitely.

Therefore, a new treated barrier is necessary when the efficacy of the installed barrier begins to decline or a new treatment applied to the old barrier. Dirt and dust deposited on barriers from weather related events can bind to the treatment and inactivate it. Therefore, periodic cleaning of barriers will be required to ensure efficacy of the treatment. Additionally, barriers may begin to fray, tear, wear, etc. over time due to Winter 2019

nADeFA.org

weather or livestock/equipment contact and would again need to be replaced or mended.

Unlike the untreated penetrable barrier, the insecticidal barrier reduces the amount of Culicoides entering an enclosure (> 80% reduction in trap capture compared to untreated penetrable barriers) and kills 97% of those midges contacting the treatment. Significant proportions of C. sonorensis initially contacting the barrier will die, decreasing total population numbers both immediately and over time. Conditionally, barriers applied to fencing may not be economically or physically feasible (i.e. too much fencing) Alternatives to installing a treated barrier around the entire periphery of livestock enclosures is stabling the animals or constructing smaller sheltering structures for larger, more open areas.

Stabling of livestock during peak vector biting periods would reduce the probability of exophilic species feeding and treated barriers applied to stable entrances (windows and doors) to prevent entrance of endophilic vector species (Meiswinkel et al. 2000; Baker et al. 2015). Construction of smaller shelters such as wind breaks and/or shade structures lined with treated barriers in large open areas may not provide as much protection as smaller enclosures or stabling, but could still provide some level of protection to livestock from insect vectors.

ConCLuSion This study established the efficacy and feasibility of using a long-lasting UV stable deltamethrin incorporated barrier screen to impede Culicoides and mosquitoes approaching livestock enclosures from the periphery. The use of treated vertical barriers on a much larger scale can reduce Culicoides populations inside and outside of livestock enclosures. Vertical treated barriers offer another tool to be incorporated with other management strategies to achieve maximal Culicoides control. u North American Deer Farmer

123