1. Nancy E. Moran1, Teresa Mills1, Dimitria Mathys2, Dixie
Mollenkopf2, Thomas Wittum2, Jason Stull2
1College of Public Health 2College of Veterinary Medicine, Department
of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio

2. INTRODUCTION
Dogs are often on livestock farms, where they
serve important management and companion
roles. However, they may also be involved in
disease transmission between livestock and
people. The increase in canine raw animal product
diets, close dog-people interactions and an
increasing population of immune-compromised
people make this understudied disease pathway
particularly important. The objective of this study
was to quantify and qualify dog ownership among
livestock producers, their husbandry and
biosecurity practices, disease risks, and concern
for zoonotic disease potential.

4. MATERIAL AND METHODS - Survey
• A 10-minute self-administered written questionnaire was
developed with guidance from epidemiologists, veterinarians,
and zoonotic disease experts.
• Gathered household and individual-level data including human
and farm demographics, dog ownership and husbandry
practices, and attachment level to and preventive veterinary
care for the dogs.
• Questionnaires mailed to 2000 Ohio livestock owners randomly
selected from a farming magazine mailing list.
• The Tailored Design Method (reminder postcards, second
mailing of survey) was used to maximize response.

5. MATERIAL AND METHODS - Pathogen testing
• Survey respondents who owned both dogs and livestock were
mailed a dog fecal sampling kit to collect 3 fecal samples from
each dog, up to 2 dogs per farm.
• Returned feces were tested for Salmonella spp. and
AmpC/extended spectrum beta lactamase (ESBL) - producing
organisms using standard enrichment and selective media.
• PCR was used to confirm the expected AmpC/ESBL
phenotypes.

6. MATERIAL AND METHODS
• Data analyzed using JMP 11 and SAS 9.3.
• For the fecal pathogen analysis, a model adjusting for farm
level clustering was used to identify dog level risk factors for
pathogen colonization.
• Statistical significance was based on a p <0.05.
• Study approved by The Ohio State University’s Institutional
Review Board.

7. RESULTS - Surveys
• The survey response rate was 47%, of which 297 (67%) were livestock
dog-owners. Remaining results pertain to them.
• 52% of households included ≥ 1 individual at higher risk to infectious
disease (i.e.,<5 yrs, ≥ 65 yrs, diagnosed with an immunocompromising
condition).
• All types of livestock and farm sizes were represented.
• Most dogs were: primarily a pet (62%), medium sized (20-55lbs)
(48%), spayed/neutered (72%), living in a two-dog household (34%)
with a mean age of 6 years.
• Most respondents were: white (99%), college educated (66%), and
male (77%).

8. Biosecurity/Infection Control:
• 96% of households reported at least one higher-risk
management practice (Table 1).
• Over half (52%) of respondents allowed dogs belonging to
friends, family or visitors on their farm.
• In the previous 12 months, 48% reported the dog had known
contact with wildlife.
• Almost 30% took the dog to visit family/friends, other farms,
or out of state.

10. Husbandry:
• Direct dog-livestock contact was often reported (70%).
• Raw meat, eggs, milk or animal products were fed to dogs in
24% of the households.
• Frequently reported higher-risk husbandry practices: 49%
had outdoor-only dogs, 23% fed the dog in the kitchen and
53% never leashed or fenced their dogs
• About 25% of households allowed the dogs free access of
the house for sleeping at night and 13% reported dogs slept
on a family member’s bed.

11. • Defecation reported in the household yard (64%) and in the
fields (58%) with almost 3/4 of households rarely to never
picking up feces.
• Various levels of veterinary and preventive care of the dogs
were reported (Table 2).
• There was minimal to no concern for disease transmission
from livestock to dogs (90%), from dogs to livestock (87%)
and from dogs to people (94%).
• Households with higher-risk members reported similar
husbandry, biosecurity, and concern levels to those with
lower-risk (all p>0.05).

12. Table 2: Reported
preventative measures for
dogs on livestock farms

13. RESULTS – Pathogen Testing
• Dog fecal samples were provided from 67 dogs (48
respondents).
• Salmonella and ESBLs were identified in 6 to 27% of dogs
(Table 3).
• Feeding raw animal product treats, livestock exposure, and
recent receipt of probiotics were significant predictors of
fecal blaCMY-2 carriage in dogs (Table 4).

15. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS:
• With 70% of the dogs in this study having frequent close
livestock exposure while being considered family pets,
transmission of pathogens between livestock, dogs, and
owners is possible, resulting in disease among populations and
loss of productivity on the farm.
• High-risk dog husbandry practices were regularly reported and
level of zoonotic disease concern was low, indicating a need for
improved education and outreach for the livestock dog-owning
community, particularly for higher-risk households.

16. • The prevalence of pathogen colonization (Salmonella - 7.5%;
AmpC/ESBL producing E. coli - 31%) among healthy dogs in
this study was higher than often reported, suggesting the
livestock environment may contribute to this risk. Multiple fecal
samples from individual dogs may have also contributed to
these findings.
• Recent administration of probiotics and feeding raw animal
product treats were significant risk factors for dogs harboring E.
coli with blaCMY-2. These novel findings are not altogether
surprising as prior studies have identified these practices as
risk factors for other pathogens (e.g., Salmonella).

17. • Pathogen colonization results supported potential disease risks
associated with dog and livestock ownership since Salmonella
spp. and ESBLs were found in many of the dogs’ feces.
Additional research is needed to investigate other pathogens
and to determine if colonization in dogs on livestock farms
leads to human infections.

18. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the Ohio livestock farmers who
participated in this study. Funding was provided by the Animals for
Life Foundation and The Ohio State University College of
Veterinary Medicine.
Disclosure: There is no conflict of interest related to this research.
Presenter contact information: moran.297@osu.edu