Investigating effective testing strategies for the control of Johne's disease in western Canadian cow-calf herds using an agent-based simulation model

Johne's disease is an insidious infectious disease of ruminants caused by Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis (MAP). Johne's disease can have important implications for animal welfare and risks causing economic losses in affected herds due to reduced productivity, premature culling and replacement, and veterinary costs. Despite the limited accuracy of diagnostic tools, testing and culling is the primary option for controlling Johne's disease in beef herds. However, evidence to inform specific test and cull strategies is lacking. In this study, a stochastic, continuous-time agent-based model was developed to investigate Johne's disease and potential control options in a typical western Canadian cow-calf herd. The objective of this study was to compare different testing and culling scenarios that included varying the testing method and frequency as well as the number and risk profile of animals targeted for testing using the model. The relative effectiveness of each testing scenario was determined by the simulated prevalence of cattle shedding MAP after a 10-year testing period. A second objective was to compare the direct testing costs of each scenario to identify least-cost options that are the most effective at reducing within-herd disease prevalence. Whole herd testing with individual PCR at frequencies of 6 or 12 months were the most effective options for reducing disease prevalence. Scenarios that were also effective at reducing prevalence but with the lowest total testing costs included testing the whole herd with individual PCR every 24 months and testing the whole herd with pooled PCR every 12 months. The most effective method with the lowest annual testing cost per unit of prevalence reduction was individual PCR on the whole herd every 24 months. Individual PCR testing only cows that had not already been tested 4 times also ranked well when considering both final estimated prevalence at 10 years and cost per unit of gain. A more in-depth economic analysis is needed to compare the cost of testing to the cost of disease, taking into account costs of culling, replacements and impacts on calf crops, and to determine if testing is an economically attractive option for commercial cow-calf operations.