Foot and Mouth Disease

S Foot and mouth disease (FMD) is a highly contagious viral disease that
l affects cloven-hooved livestock and wildlife. Outbreaks can severely
i disrupt livestock production, result in embargoes by trade partners, and
d Foot and Mouth Disease require significant resources to control. Significant direct and indirect
e economic losses are not uncommon.
Fiebre Aftosa
1
[Note to Presenter: Additional information to correspond with this
presentation can be found in the CFSPH Technical Factsheet at
http://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/DiseaseInfo/factsheets.php].

This presentation was last reviewed: December 2017

S This presentation provides an overview of foot and mouth disease. It will
Overview
l describe the organism responsible for the disease, the epidemiology of the
• Organism disease, and its impact on animal health. It will cover the species affected,
i • Species Affected
d • Epidemiology how it is transmitted, prominent clinical and post mortem signs, and how
• Economic Impact the disease can be diagnosed and treated. Prevention and control
e • Transmission
2 • Clinical Signs measures for the disease will be discussed, as well as actions to take if
• Diagnosis and Treatment foot and mouth disease is suspected.
• Prevention and Control
• Actions to take
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

[Photo sources: (Top) USDA ARS/Keith Weller; (Middle) Danelle Bickett-

Weddle/CFSPH; (Bottom) Pam Zaabel/CFSPH]
S
l
i
d THE ORGANISM
e
3

Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

S Foot and mouth disease is an ancient disease (described possibly as early

The Virus
l as 350 BC) and has been recognized as one of the most significant
• Picornaviridae,
i Aphthovirus epidemic diseases threatening livestock since the sixteenth century.1 The
d
– Noneveloped, RNA virus
– 7 distinct serotypes
causative agent (a virus) was not discovered until the late 19th century.
e • A, O, C, Asia 1, SAT 1,
SAT 2, SAT 3
FMDV is considered one of the first viruses of vertebrates to ever be
4 – More than 60 strains discovered.1 Since that time FMD has occurred in almost every part of the
– Many are not cross
protective which makes world, causing major losses in livestock.2 Foot and mouth disease virus
vaccination difficult
(FMDV), a small, nonenveloped RNA virus, that is a member of the
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

genus Aphthovirus in the family Picornaviridae. There are seven major

viral serotypes: A, O, C, Asia 1, and SAT (Southern African Territories)
1, SAT 2, and SAT 3. Serotype O is the most common serotype
worldwide; other serotypes also cause serious outbreaks. Some FMDV
serotypes are more variable than others, and collectively, there are more
than 60 strains of the virus; new strains spontaneously develop. Immunity
to one FMDV serotype may not protect an animal from other serotypes
making effective vaccination difficult with new outbreaks. Protection
from strains within a serotype varies with their antigenic similarity.

1. Mahy BW, Introduction and history of foot-and-mouth disease virus. Curr Top
Microbiol Immunol. 2005;288:1-8
2. Jamal SM, Belsham GJ. Foot-and-mouth disease: past, present and future.
Veterinary Research 2013;44:116

Center for Food Security and Public Health 2017 1

Foot and Mouth Disease

[Photo: Electronmicrograph of the foot and mouth disease virus. Source: FBI
Laboratory via Wikimedia Commons]

S Information on the survival of FMDV in the environment is limited, but

The Virus
l most studies suggest that it remains viable, on average, for three months
• Survival in the environment or less. However, in very cold climates, longer survival – up to six
i – Up to 3 months
d – Longer survival months – may be possible. Additionally, the presence of organic matter,
• In very cold climates
e • In the presence of organic matter
as well as protection from sunlight also promote longer survival times.
• If protected from sunlight
5 The virus is sensitive to pH. It can be inactivated at pH below 6.0 or
• Inactivation at pH <6 and >9
– Survives in bones, glands, milk, above 9.0. Due to this characteristic, the virus can persist in meat and
milk products
other animal products when the pH remains above 6.0, but is inactivated
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

by acidification of the muscles during rigor mortis. Since acidification

does not occur to this extent in the bones and glands, FMDV may persist
in these tissues. The virus can also survive in milk and milk products,
with stability increasing at lower temperatures.
S FMDV primarily affects cloven-hooved (two-toed) mammals of the order
Species Affected
l Artiodactyla. Important livestock hosts include cattle, pigs, sheep, goats,
• Cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, yak, water buffalo, and yaks. Other susceptible species include cervids such as
i water buffalo
d • Over 70 species of wild artiodactyls deer, elk, and reindeer. Experimental infections in alpacas and llamas
– Cervids: deer, elk, reindeer have been reported, but there have been no confirmed cases from the
e – African buffalo, bison, moose,
6 wildebeest, giraffes, warthogs, others field. Experiments suggest Bactrian camels can develop FMD, but
• Experimentally: alpacas, llamas, Bactrian camels
• Other species: hedgehogs, bears, armadillos, dromedary camels have little or no susceptibility. FMDV has been
kangaroos, nutrias, Asian elephants, capybaras
• Horses NOT susceptible reported in at least 70 species of wild artiodactyls, including African
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

buffalo, bison, giraffes, wildebeest, warthogs, several species of deer,

antelopes and gazelles, and others. FMDV can also infect a few animals
that are not members of Artiodactyla, such as hedgehogs, bears,
armadillos, kangaroos, nutrias, and capybaras. Cases have been reported
in captive Asian elephants, but there are few reports of FMDV in African
elephants, and the latter species is not considered susceptible under
natural conditions in southern Africa. Horses are not susceptible to
FMDV.
S FMD was once distributed worldwide. It has now been eradicated from
Geographic Distribution
l many countries and regions. The disease is endemic in parts of Asia,
i Africa, the Middle East and South America. While serotypes O and A are
d widely distributed, SAT viruses occur mainly in Africa (and periodically
e Photo source: Jamal, 2013
in the Middle East) and Asia 1 is currently found only in Asia. North
7 Endemic in parts of Asia, Africa, the Middle East, America has not had FMD reported for more than 60 years; Central
and South America
Disease-free countries: North America, Iceland,
America, New Zealand, Australia, Greenland, Iceland and western
Central America, New Zealand, Australia,
western Europe
Europe are also free of FMDV. FMD outbreaks have occurred in Taiwan,
South Korea, Japan, Mongolia, Britain, France, and the Netherlands.
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

Recent outbreaks of FMD have occurred in Russia, Mongolia, and

Korea. This map (from Jamal-open access article) shows a representation
of the geographical distribution of various serotypes of the foot and
mouth disease virus globally.

[Photo source: Jamal SM, Belsham GJ. Foot-and-mouth disease: past, present
and future. Veterinary Research 2013;44:116. (open access article available at
https://veterinaryresearch.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1297-9716-44-
116)]

Center for Food Security and Public Health 2017 2

Foot and Mouth Disease

S FMD is considered to be the most economically devastating livestock

Economic Impact
l • Endemic countries
disease virus in the world. It results in direct losses due to the reduced
• Direct costs
i – Loss of production
– 6.5 to 21 billion
USD per year
production (e.g., decreased weight gains, decreased milk production), the
d – Loss of animals • Previously loss of animals (e.g., increased mortality among young animals,
• Indirect costs FMD-free countries
e – Eradication costs – Over 1.5 billion abortions), as well as indirect costs such as loss of trade and eradication
– Loss of per year
8 trade/exports costs. Related industries, such as processing plants, feed suppliers,
– Loss to affiliated
industries Economically equipment manufacturers, food service and distribution, and textile
– Consumer fear Devastating industries that rely on agricultural products can also be impacted.
Consumer loss of confidence could affect the cost of the food supply.
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

Even though FMD is not a public health risk, consumption of red meat
and dairy products could be reduced. It has been estimated that the costs
associated with FMD in endemic areas ranges between 6.5 to 21 billion
USD annually.1,2 Outbreaks in previously FMD-free countries are
estimated to cost more than 1.5 billion USD per year.1 Estimates of
indirect costs due to lost exports for the U.S. have been estimated at $6.3
billion in beef exports and about $5.6 billion in pork exports each year.3,4

• Paarlberg PL, Lee JG, Seitzinger AH. Potential revenue impact of an

outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the United States. JAVMA.
2002:220(7):988-992.
• Knight-Jones TJD, Rushton J. The economic impacts of foot and
mouth disease - What are they, how big are they and where do they
occur? Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2013;112 (3-4): 161-173.
Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016758771300239
0?via%3Dihub;
• National Pork Board. 2016 U.S. pork exports show impressive
progress. 2016. Available at: http://www.pork.org/2016-u-s-pork-
exports-show-impressive-progress/.
• U.S. Meat Export Federation. Global beef exports held steady in
2016. Available at: https://www.usmef.org/global-beef-exports-held-
steady-in-2016/.
S Let’s look at a few examples of some outbreaks. Prior to 1929, FMD was
History
l 1929
1951-
1997
present in several U.S. states, generally due to the importation of infected
1952

i United States Canada Taiwan

animals or their products. The largest outbreak was in 1914 as the virus
d 9 outbreaks
prior to 1929
42 premises
5000 animals
6,147 premises
4 million pigs spread throughout a Chicago stockyard. In 1929, restrictions were
depopulated
$5 billion USD
e
25 states
6000 herds 1952:
$560 million USD imposed on imported animals and products from infected countries,
300,000 animals Last case reported

9 All ended by
reducing the number of outbreaks. All of the outbreaks were controlled
eradication
1929:
by stop movement and eradication of affected herds. In all, the U.S. had 9
Last case in U.S.
outbreaks of FMD, involving 25 states, nearly 6,000 herds, and more than
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

300,000 animals. The U.S. has remained FMD free since the last outbreak
in 1929. Similarly, FMD outbreaks occurred in Canada and Mexico.
From 1951–1952, Canada had an FMD outbreak that affected only 42
premises and led to the depopulation of fewer than 5,000 animals.1
However, the outbreak still cost approximately $722 million Canadian,
plus one year’s loss of livestock and livestock product trade (nearly $5
billion USD in 2015 dollars). This outbreak demonstrates that even a
small outbreak can have substantial economic impacts. FMD has not been
reported in Canada since 1952. Outbreaks have also occurred in Mexico;
the last case of FMD occurred in 1953. A 1997 FMD epidemic in Taiwan
resulted in the destruction of more than 4 million pigs on 6,147 premises.
The epidemic cost the country roughly $560 million USD when

Center for Food Security and Public Health 2017 3

Foot and Mouth Disease

indemnities, vaccines, carcass disposal, and loss of market value were

considered.2

• Sellers RF, Daggupaty SM. The epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease in

Saskatchewan, Canada, 1951–1952. Can J Vet Res. 1990;54(4):457–64.
• Yang PC, Chu RM, Chung WB, et al. Epidemiological characteristics and
financial costs of the 1997 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in Taiwan. Vet
Rec. 1999;145(25):731–4.

S One of the largest foot and mouth disease outbreaks in recent history
History
l 2001
2010-
2017
occurred in the United Kingdom in 2001. resulting in total estimated
2011

i United Kingdom South Korea

losses of approximately £3.1 billion (~$6.3 billion USD dollars) from
d
6.5 million animals
depopulated
3700 farms
3.5 million cattle
Outbreaks
continue to occur
losses in agriculture and the food chain, plus an addition 2.7 to 3.2 billion
e
3.1 billion pounds
in losses
and pigs
depopulated
in endemic and
FMD free countries pounds from lost tourism (roughly 10 billion U.S. dollars total).1 The
3 billion pounds $1.9 billion USD

1 from lost tourism United Kingdom attempted FMD control and elimination through a ring
10 billion USD total

0 Spread to other depopulation and “stamping out” approach. All susceptible animals
European countries
within a 3 kilometer radius, regardless of infection status, were
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

depopulated. More than 4 million animals were destroyed to control this

disease, and an additional 2.5 million were euthanized for welfare
reasons. Despite all control and elimination efforts, the virus spread from
the United Kingdom to Ireland and mainland Europe, including France
and the Netherlands. A 2010-2011 outbreak in South Korea was the
largest ever to be reported for that country, with about 3,700 farms
affected. Both depopulation and emergency vaccination were
implemented; nearly 3.5 million cattle and pigs were depopulated. This
outbreak has caused estimated losses of nearly $1.9 billion USD in 2015
dollars. Sporadic outbreaks continued to occur in South Korea during
2016 and 2017. These outbreaks have occurred despite vaccination efforts
being used in the country since 2010. All of these outbreaks demonstrate
that despite control efforts, the disease spreads quickly, affects large
numbers of animals, and results in substantial economic impacts. Many
countries had long periods of freedom from the disease prior to their
outbreaks.

• Thompson D, Muriel P, Russell D, et al. Economic costs of the foot and

mouth disease outbreak in the United Kingdom in 2001. Rev Sci Tech.
2002;21(3):675–87.
• Carpenter TE, Kim H, Yoon H, et al. Direct costs of five foot-and-mouth
disease epidemics in the Republic of Korea, from 2000 to 2011. Prev Vet
Med. 2013;37(4):163–8.
• Park JH, Lee KN, Ko YJ, et al. Control of foot-and-mouth disease during the
2010–2011 epidemic, South Korea. Emerg Infect Dis. 2013;19(4):655–9.
S
l
i
d TRANSMISSION
e
1
1

Center for Food Security and Public Health 2017 4

Foot and Mouth Disease

S FMDV is transmitted via direct or indirect contact with infected animals.

Transmission
l The virus can be found in all secretions and excretions from acutely
• Virus in all secretions and excretions infected animals, including expired air, saliva, milk, urine, feces and
i – Enters body by inhalation, ingestion,
d skin abrasions, mucous membranes semen, as well as in the fluid from FMD-associated vesicles, and in
• Respiratory aerosols
e amniotic fluid and aborted fetuses in sheep. Transmission primarily
• Direct contact
1 – Vesicular fluid occurs via respiratory aerosols and direct or indirect contact with infected
– Ingestion of infected animal parts
2 animals and contaminated fomites. Aerosol transmission requires proper
• Indirect contact via fomites
– Boots, hands, clothing temperature and humidity; the virus may travel long distances. Virus is
also found in large quantities in vesicle fluid; peak transmission usually
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

occurs when vesicles rupture. Direct contact with vesicular fluid and
contaminated animal parts can also spread the disease. Contact with
contaminated fomites can also be a source of infection. People can act as
mechanical vectors for FMDV, by carrying the virus on boots, hands, or
clothing. Humans may rarely harbor FMD virus in their respiratory tract
and may not be detected in nasal secretions following exposure after 12
hours.1

• Wright DV, Gloster J, et al. Short-lived carriage of foot-and-mouth disease

virus in human nasal cavities after exposure to infected animals. Vet Rec.
2010 Dec 11;167(24):928-31.
S FMDV carriers are defined as animals in which the virus can be found for
Transmission
l more than 28 days after infection. Animals can become carriers whether
i or not they had clinical signs. How long an animal can remain a carrier of
d
Cattle Swine Sheep/Goats
the virus varies with the species. Most cattle carry FMDV for six months
Disease Indicators Amplifying Host Maintenance Host

e Often first species to Produce large or less, but some can remain persistently infected for up to 3.5 years.
show signs amounts of

1 Can carry the virus

aerosolized virus
Rare, Can carry/shed the
Cattle are considered indicator hosts because they are often the first
for up to 6 months possibly carry the virus for up to

3 Some animals may

virus up to
28 days
4 months for goats
and 12 months for
species to demonstrate clinical signs. Pigs are not thought to become
remain infected for sheep
up to 3-1/2 years carriers; however, they are considered amplifying hosts, as they produce
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

large amounts of aerosolized virus. The virus is shed for a short time and
swine are not considered long-term carriers; there have been a few reports
documenting the presence of viral nucleic acids after 28 days. Sheep and
goats are considered maintenance hosts and may shed the virus for up to
12 months in sheep and up to 4 months in goats.
S
l
i
d DISEASE IN ANIMALS
e
1
4
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State
University, 2017

S Morbidity from FMD varies with the animal’s species, breed and pre-
Morbidity/ Mortality
l existing immunity, as well as the dose of virus and other factors. The
• Morbidity morbidity rate can approach 100% in naïve cattle or swine herds, but
i – Up to 100% in naïve cattle and swine
d • Mortality some FMD viruses can disappear from a sheep flock after infecting a
– Adult livestock do not usual die relatively low percentage of the animals. Adult livestock do not usually
e • 1-5% case fatality

1 – Deaths can occur in young animals die from FMD (the case fatality rate is approximately 1-5% for most
• Up to 94% lambs

5 • Up to 80% calves strains), but deaths can occur in young animals. In lambs, reported
• Up to 100% suckling piglets
mortality rates range from 5% to 94%. Mortality has also been reported to
reach 80% in some groups of calves, and 100% in suckling piglets (with
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

lower rates in older piglets).

Center for Food Security and Public Health 2017 5

Foot and Mouth Disease

S While there is some variability in the clinical signs between species,

Clinical Signs
l FMD is typically an acute febrile illness with vesicles (blisters) localized
• Incubation period: 1-14 days on the feet, in and around the mouth, and on the mammary gland.
i • Fever
d • Vesicles Vesicles (blisters) on the feet, mouth, nares, muzzle and teats are the
– Feet, mouth, nares
e muzzle, teats
characteristic lesions of FMD. The incubation period can vary with the
1
• Lameness, species of animal, the dose of virus, the viral strain and the route of
reluctance to move,
6 sloughing of hooves inoculation, but most infections usually appear in 2 days; some
• Abortion
• Death in young animals
experiments report clinical signs in as little as 18-24 hours). Vesicles
eventually progress to erosions which cause the affected animal to have
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

clinical signs associated with the lesioned area. Pain and discomfort from
the lesions leads to a variety of symptoms including depression, anorexia,
excessive salivation, lameness and reluctance to move or rise. In severe
cases, the hooves may be sloughed. Abortion can occur in adults and
death in young animals without any other clinical signs. Animals
generally recover in two weeks but secondary infections can lead to
longer recovery time.

[Photo: Vesicles of hoof pad and ruptured vesicles of dewclaws of a pig. Source:
USDA APHIS Foreign Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory and the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Primus Visual Information Services at
the Plum Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC)]
S Cattle with FMD often have severe clinical signs. Clinical signs in cattle
Clinical Signs: Cattle
l include oral lesions such as vesicles on the tongue, dental pad, gums, soft
• Oral vesicles
i – Tongue, dental pad, palate, nostrils or muzzle. This leads to excess salivation, drooling, and
gums, soft palate,
d nostrils, muzzle nasal discharge. Affected animals are typically reluctant to eat and may
e – Excess salivation,
drooling, nasal
lose condition rapidly.
discharge
1 • Reluctant to eat,
loss of body
[Photo: Top: Linear erosion on dental pad with fibrin; Bottom: Multifocal and
7
condition coalescing erosions and ulcers with fibrin on dorsal surface of tongue. Source:
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017
USDA APHIS Foreign Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory and the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Primus Visual Information Services at
the Plum Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC)]
S Teat lesions can occur and a decrease in milk production commonly
Clinical Signs: Cattle
l results. Mastitis may also be a sequelae. Hoof lesions in the interdigital
• Teat lesions space and on the coronary band are also common- leading to lameness
i – Decreased milk
d production and a reluctance to move.
– Mastitis
e • Foot lesions
– Interdigital space [Photos: Top: A ruptured vesicle on the end of the teat. Source: Plum Island
1 – Coronary band Animal Disease Center/CFSPH; Bottom Extensive necrosis of interdigital skin
8 – Lameness
with granulation tissue. Source: USDA APHIS Foreign Animal Disease
– Reluctant to move
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017
Diagnostic Laboratory and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Primus Visual Information Services at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center
(PIADC) ]
S Pigs usually develop the most severe lesions on their feet. In this species,
Clinical Signs: Pigs
l initial signs may be lameness and blanching of the skin around the
• Hoof lesions
i – Coronary band, heel, coronary bands. Vesicles then develop on the coronary band and heel, and
interdigital space
d – Lameness
in the interdigital space. The lesions may become so painful that pigs
e • Vesicles on snout crawl rather than walk. The horns of the digits are sometimes sloughed.
• Oral lesions Vesicles are often seen on the snout. Mouth lesions are usually small and
1 less common

9 • Sudden death less apparent than in cattle; drooling is rare. Affected pigs may have a
in young
decreased appetite, become lethargic and huddle together. Young pigs (up
to 14 weeks of age) may die suddenly from heart failure.
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

Center for Food Security and Public Health 2017 6

Foot and Mouth Disease

[Photos: Top: Multifocal deep ulcers, hoof pad, and dewclaws at the coronary
band. Bottom: Ulcerative and erosive lesions of the skin on the lower jaw, lower
snout, and the unilateral commissure. Source: USDA APHIS Foreign Animal
Disease Diagnostic Laboratory and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) Primus Visual Information Services at the Plum Island Animal Disease
Center (PIADC) ]

S Clinical Signs: Although severe cases can occur, FMD tends to be mild in sheep and
l Sheep and Goats goats. Infected animals may be asymptomatic or have few lesions.
• Mild, if any Common signs in small ruminants are fever and mild to severe lameness
i – Fever
d – Lameness of one or more legs. Vesicles occur on the feet but they may rupture and
– Oral lesions be hidden by foot lesions from other causes. Mouth lesions are often not
e – Decreased milk

2 production noticeable and generally appear as shallow erosions. Vesicles may be

– Abortion
0 – Death of young
noted on the teats, and rarely on the vulva or prepuce. Milk production
may drop, and rams can be reluctant to mate. Significant numbers of ewes
abort in some outbreaks. Young lambs and kids may die due to heart
failure or from emaciation. The clinical signs in young animals can
include fever, tachycardia and marked abdominal respiration, as well as
collapse.

[Photo: Oral lesions on the tongue of a sheep. Source: Institute for Animal
Health, UK at http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/news/food-security/2011/110505-pr-
better-understanding-of-foot-and-mouth.aspx]
S Cattle Pigs Sheep and Goats
Horses, Donkeys,
Mules Clinically, all vesicular diseases produce a fever with vesicles that
All vesicular diseases produce a fever with vesicles that progress to

l erosions in the mouth, nares, muzzle, teats, and feet

• Oral lesions,
salivation, drooling,
• Severe hoof
lesions, hoof
progress to erosions in the mouth, nares, muzzle, teats and feet. Vesicular
Foot and sloughing,

i Mouth
Disease
• Hoof lesions,
lameness,
• Abortions, death in
young animals
• Lesions on snout
(vesicles)
• Less severe oral
lesions
• Mild signs, if any • Not affected
diseases are clinically indistinguishable from one-another, especially in
d Vesicular
Stomatitis
• Vesicles in oral
cavity, mammary
glands, coronary • Same as cattle • Rarely show signs
• Oral and coronary
band vesicles
• Drooling, rub
swine as this chart shows. Any disease with vesicles and fever should be
bands, interdigital mouths on objects

e Swine
space
• Lameness
• Salivation
• Lameness
reported to a state or federal veterinarian.
• Not affected • Neurological • Not affected • Not affected
Vesicular
signs
Disease

2 Vesicular
• More severe
in young
• Deeper lesions
with granulation • Not affected • Not affected
Exanthema of • Not affected

1 Swine
tissue formation
on the feet
• Oral and feet
lesions
Senecavirus A • Not affected • Neonates may be • Not affected • Not affected
neurologic or
have diarrhea
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

S The characteristic lesions of foot and mouth disease are single or

Post Mortem Lesions
l multiple, fluid-filled vesicles or bullae; however, these lesions are
• Vesicles transient and may not be observed. The location and prominence of FMD
i – Single or multiple
d – Various stages
of development
lesions can differ with the species ; however, common sites for lesions
e – Fibrin coating include the oral cavity and snout/ muzzle; the heel, coronary band and
• Sloughed
2 hooves feet; the teats or udder; pressure points of the legs; the ruminal pillars (in
• Tiger ruminants); and the prepuce or vulva. The earliest lesions can appear as
2 heart
small pale areas or vesicles, while ruptured vesicles become red, eroded
areas or ulcers. Erosions may be covered with a gray fibrinous coating,
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

and a demarcation line of newly developing epithelium may be noted.

The rumen pillars may also have vesicular lesions. In young animals,
cardiac degeneration and necrosis can result in irregular gray or yellow
lesions, including streaking, in the myocardium; these lesions are
sometimes called “tiger heart” lesions.

[Photo: Top: Multiple large mucosal erosions and ulcers on tongue. Bottom:
Irregularly shaped erosions on the pillar of the rumen mucosa. Source: Plum
Island Animal Disease Center/CFSPH]

Center for Food Security and Public Health 2017 7

Foot and Mouth Disease

S Differential diagnosis in swine includes Seneca Valley virus, vesicular

Differential Diagnosis
l stomatitis, swine vesicular disease, vesicular exanthema of swine, foot
• Swine rot, and chemical and thermal burns. In cattle, oral lesions later in the
i – Vesicular stomatitis
d – Swine vesicular disease disease can resemble rinderpest, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR),
– Vesicular exanthema of swine
e – Seneca Valley virus in swine
bovine virus diarrhea (BVD), malignant catarrhal fever (MCF), and
2 • Cattle bluetongue. In sheep, the lesions can be confused with bluetongue,
– Rinderpest, IBR, BVD, MCF, bluetongue

3 • Sheep contagious ecthyma, and lip and leg ulceration.

– Bluetongue, contagious ecthyma
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

S Before collecting or sending any samples from animals with a suspected

Sampling
l foreign animal disease, the proper authorities should be contacted.
• Before collecting or sending any Samples should only be sent under secure conditions and to authorized
i samples, the proper authorities
d should be contacted laboratories to prevent the spread of the disease.
e • Samples should only be sent under
2 secure conditions and to authorized
laboratories to prevent the spread of
4 the disease

Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

S Clinically, vesicular diseases are indistinguishable from one another.

Clinical Diagnosis
l However, if salivation and lameness are present with vesicular lesions,
• Vesicular diseases FMD should be considered a differential. Fever is often the first clinical
i are clinically
d indistinguishable! sign; that should prompt examination of the mouth and feet for early
• Suspect animals with lesions. Laboratory confirmation is necessary, as all vesicular diseases
e salivation or lameness
2 and vesicles have almost identical clinical signs.
• Laboratory testing
5 essential
[Photo: Several healing vesicles on this bovine tongue have yellow-tan margins.
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

Source: Dr. D. Gregg, Noah’s Arkive, Plum Island Animal Disease

Center/CFSPH]
S If you suspect FMD, contact the state or federal veterinary authority prior
Laboratory Diagnosis
l to obtaining samples. Samples must be properly obtained, securely
• If you suspect FMD, contact your packaged, and sent to authorized laboratories for diagnosis. Testing for
i state or federal veterinary authority
d • Initial diagnosis foot-and-mouth disease varies with the stage of the disease and purpose
– Virus isolation of the test. The virus is generally identified with ELISAs or RT-PCR;
e – Virus identification
2 • ELISA, RT-PCR, complement fixation however, complement fixation is still in use in some countries or for some
• Serology
6 – ELISA and virus neutralization
purposes. Some serological tests used include ELISAs and virus
– Nonstructural protein neutralization tests, and are serotype specific. Because FMDV vaccines
also induce antibodies to structural proteins, these tests can only be used
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

in unvaccinated animals. Nonstructural protein (NSP) tests are not

serotype specific, and can be used in both vaccinated and unvaccinated
animals if the vaccines used have been purified to have the NSPs
removed. However, they are less sensitive and may not detect cases with
limited virus replication, including some vaccinated animals that become
infected. Due to such limitations, serological tests that detect antibodies
to NSPs are generally used as herd tests rather than individual animal
tests.

Center for Food Security and Public Health 2017 8

Foot and Mouth Disease

S There is no specific treatment for FMD, other than supportive care. Due
Treatment
l to the grave economic impact, infected or exposed animals may be
• No treatment available destroyed or will be quarantined and animal movement controls placed to
i • Supportive care
d reduce risk of transmission.
• Quarantine
e
• Movement controls
2 [Graphic: Do Not Enter sign. Source: Center for Food Security and Public
7 Health]
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

S
l
i
d DISEASE IN HUMANS
e
2
8

S Foot and mouth disease is not considered to be a public health problem,

Disease in Humans
l as infections seem to be very rare and their consequences mild. In the
• Not a public health concern past, people who worked with FMDV in vaccine laboratories developed
i • Clinical disease very rare
d – 40 cases since 1921 antibodies to this virus, but there were few clinical cases. One laboratory
– Mild, short-lived and self-limiting reported only 2 cases in more than 50 years. It may be that exposure to
e – Flu-like signs and vesicular lesions
2 – Entry through broken skin extremely large amounts of virus or a predisposing condition is necessary
9 for infections. Only 40 cases of human FMD have been reported since
1921. Many of those were not confirmed with laboratory testing.
Symptoms included vesicular lesions and influenza like symptoms and
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

the disease was generally mild, short-lived, and self-limiting. Broken skin
was a recognized route of entry for some human cases. Person-to-person
transmission has never been reported.

S
l
i
d PREVENTION
e AND CONTROL
3
0
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State
University, 2017

S Import regulations help prevent FMDV from being introduced from

Prevention
l endemic regions in infected animals or contaminated foodstuffs fed to
• Strict import restrictions animals. Waste food (swill) fed to swine is a particular concern. Heat-
i – Prohibit infected animals or
d contaminated foodstuffs fed to animals treatment can kill FMDV in swill; some countries have completely
from FMD-affected countries
e • Heat-treatment of swill (garbage) banned swill feeding due to difficulty in ensuring adequate heat-treatment
3 • Travelers and belongings protocols are followed. Global FMD control programs have recently been
monitored at ports of entry
1 established to reduce virus circulation and the incidence of this disease.
Government officials at ports of entry continue to monitor travelers and
their belongings that have returned from an FMD area.
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

Center for Food Security and Public Health 2017 9

Foot and Mouth Disease

S The U.S. Department of Agriculture has upgraded the safeguarding

Prevention: U.S.
l measures in place to prevent introduction of FMDV into the United
• Federal response
i plans - FAD PReP States. APHIS has developed federal response plans and strategies should
– www.aphis.usda.gov/fadprep
d • State planning
FMD occur on U.S. soil. There are approximately 450 foreign animal
exercises disease diagnosticians (FADD) trained to investigate suspicious lesions
e • Suspicious lesions
3 investigated and other unusual symptoms that private veterinary practitioners alert
2 • Biosecurity protocols them to. Numerous states have also been involved in training exercises
for livestock facilities
regarding actions to take if FMD is introduced. Producers should
implement and follow strict, complete biosecurity protocols on U.S.
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

livestock production facilities as their best means of prevention.

[Photo: Cover of the USDA Foreign Animal Disease Preparedness and Response
Plan (FAD PReP) Foot-and-Mouth Disease Response Plan. Source: USDA]
S Measures taken to control an FMD outbreak include quarantines and
Control
l movement restrictions, euthanasia of affected and exposed animals, and
• Quarantines and
i movement restrictions cleaning and disinfection of affected premises, equipment and vehicles.
• Depopulation Additional actions may include euthanasia of animals at risk of being
d • Cleaning and
e disinfection infected and/or vaccination. Infected carcasses must be disposed of safety
• Vector control by incineration, rendering, burial, or other techniques. Proper disinfection
3 • Vaccination
3 • Combination of actions
of all contact premises and infected materials is also required. Various
disinfectants including sodium hydroxide, sodium carbonate, citric acid,
Virkon-S® are effective against FMDV. Iodophores, quaternary
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

ammonium compounds, hypochlorite and phenols are reported to be less

effective, especially in the presence of organic matter. Rodents and other
vectors may be killed to prevent them from mechanically disseminating
the virus. People who have been exposed to FMDV may be asked to
avoid contact with susceptible animals for a period of time, in addition to
decontaminating clothing and other fomites. Good biosecurity measures
should be practiced on uninfected farms to prevent entry of the virus. A
combination of response strategies may also be utilized.

[Photo: Top: The quarantine process is important to prevent the further spread of
the disease. Source: Don Rush/USDA; Bottom: A burning pyre of animal
carcasses. Source: www.bbc.co.uk]
S A quick response is vital for containing outbreaks in FMD-free regions.
Recommended Actions
l Veterinarians who encounter or suspect this disease should follow their
• IMMEDIATELY notify authorities national and/or local guidelines for disease reporting. In the U.S., state or
i • Federal
d – Assistant Director (AD) federal veterinary authorities should be informed immediately. Animals
www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/area_offices/
e • State
suspected with FMD should be isolated, and the farm quarantined until
3 – State veterinarian definitive diagnosis is determined.
www.usaha.org/menu_item/StateAnimalHealthOfficials.pdf

4
[Photo: Quarantined farm that was FMD positive in the UK in 2001. Source:
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

Katie Steneroden/CFSPH]
S Vaccination may be used during an outbreak to reduce the spread of
Vaccination
l FMDV or protect specific animals (e.g. those in zoological collections)
• Vaccine may be used in an outbreak
i • May be used in endemic regions
during some outbreaks. The decision to use vaccination is complex, and
d • Vaccination issues varies with the availability of vaccine, scientific, economic, political and
– serotype specific
e – Re-vaccination required
societal factors specific to the outbreak. Vaccines are also used in endemic
3
• Costly, time consuming regions to protect animals from illness. FMDV vaccines only protect
– Does not protect against infection,

5 but prevents or lessens clinical signs animals from the serotype(s) contained in the vaccine. Semi-annual or
• Spread infection to other animals
annual re-vaccination may be required to maintain immunity; this is very
costly and time consuming. The FMD vaccine does not protect against
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

infection, but it prevents or lessens the severity of clinical manifestations.

Center for Food Security and Public Health 2017 10

Foot and Mouth Disease

S In the U.S., a decision to vaccinate during an outbreak would be made by

Vaccination
l USDA officials in consultation with state, and local officials. Limited
• Killed vaccine, serotype specific quantities of FMD vaccines (killed, serotype specific preparations) are
i • North American Foot-and-Mouth
d Vaccine Bank available to members (U.S., Mexico, Canada) of the North American
• Monitor disease outbreaks worldwide Foot and Mouth Vaccine Bank (NAFMDVB). The NAFMDVB is housed
e • Stock active serotypes and strains
3 • Essential to isolate virus and identify
at the USDA Foreign Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory (FADDL).
6
the serotype to select correct vaccine The scientists at this biosafety-3 level lab monitor outbreaks worldwide to
stock the NAFMDVB with the FMD antigens from the most active
serotype or strains of the virus. Since FMD has 7 different serotypes and
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

more than 60 subtypes and there is no universal vaccine. It is essential to

isolate the virus and identify the serotype to select the correct vaccine.
S The OIE classifies countries and regions as FMD-free without
l vaccination, FMD-free with vaccination, suspended FMD-free status with
i or without vaccination, and unrecognized. This map shows OIE Member
d countries recognized as free from FMD. Those shaded in dark green are
e free from FMD without vaccination, those in lighter green are free from
3 FMD with vaccination. Countries in red had their FMD free status
7 suspended in October 2017 due to a recent outbreak.
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

[Photo: Map showing the FMD status of OIE Member countries worldwide-some
of which implement routine vaccination. Source: World Organization for Animal
Health. http://www.oie.int/en/animal-health-in-the-world/official-disease-
status/fmd/en-fmd-carte/ý. October 2017]
S Additional resources on FMD may be found at the following sites.
Additional Resources
l • World Organization for Animal Health (OIE)
– www.oie.int
i • USDA FAD PReP Materials and References
– www.aphis.usda.gov/fadprep
d • The USDA FMD Response Plan: the “Red Book”

e – www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/emergency_
management/downloads/fmd_responseplan.pdf
• Center for Food Security and Public Health
3 – www.cfsph.iastate.edu
• USAHA Foreign Animal Diseases
8 (“The Gray Book”)
– http://www.aphis.usda.gov/emergency_response/
downloads/nahems/fad.pdf
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

S USDA APHIS has developed the Foreign Animal Disease Preparedness

Additional Resources
l • Secure Beef Supply
and Response Plan (FAD PReP) materials to raise awareness, develop
i – www.securebeef.org
• Secure Milk Supply
capabilities, and enhance the coordinated response to an animal disease
– www.securemilksupply.org
d • Secure Pork Supply outbreak. The materials present a comprehensive U.S. preparedness and
– www.securepork.org

e • FMD Pocket Guide for

Domestic and Feral Swine
response strategy for FAD threats, both zoonotic and non-zoonotic. The
3
FMD Pocket Guide for Cattle
– http://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/
USDA also has a resource, termed the Red Book, which details
Products/

9 management of infected premises. Finally, a suite of materials, termed

Secure Beef Supply, Secure Pork Supply, and Secure Milk Supply, that
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

focus on maintaining a safe and wholesome supply of beef, pork, and

milk products to consumers should an FMD outbreak occur in the U.S.
[Photos: Covers of the FMD Pocket Guides. Source: Center for Food Security
and Public Health]
S Last reviewed: December 2017
Acknowledgments
l
Development of this presentation was made possible
i through grants provided to
the Center for Food Security and Public Health at Iowa
d State University, College of Veterinary Medicine from
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
e the Iowa Homeland Security and
Emergency Management Division, and the
4 Multi-State Partnership for Security in Agriculture.

0 Authors: Danelle Bickett-Weddle, DVM, MPH; Co-authors: Anna Rovid Spickler, DVM,
PhD; Kristina August, DVM
Reviewers: James A. Roth, DVM, PhD; Bindy Comito, BA; Heather Sanchez, BS; Glenda
Dvorak, DVM, MPH, DACVPM; Kerry Leedom Larson, DVM, MPH, PhD; Reneé Dewell,
DVM,MS
Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, 2017

Center for Food Security and Public Health 2017 11