NextLeap.net: Why we need to avoid tempering with cycles of nature
JoobaJooba
· 1 year ago
I share the opinion that changes to the ecology of the landscape can have serious consequences regarding the emergence of infectious diseases - there are numerous examples especially in the field of haemorrhagic fevers. However, with regards the suggested link between the slaughter of chickens and crimean-congo haemorrhagic fever, I feel that this is unlikely.
Crimean-congo fever was noted in Turkey several years before the presence of the H5 virus which led the mass cull of chickens. 19 cases were reported between 2002 and 2003 (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol10no8/03-0928.htm), whereas Turkeys first report of H5 was on 7th Oct 2005). Possibly, it is likely to have been present even before then but was not picked up on.
Furthermore, I am not aware of chickens being considered a major predator of ticks - certainly, I can imagine they can remove ticks from upon their own bodies during preening but I doubt that they actively hunt them down when there are plenty of other inveterbrates and plants to eat (not to mention feed that is already provided). Therefore, I suspect that the lack of chickens in the area is unlikely to have a major, if any, impact on the populations of ticks.
Be that as it may, the concern that the balance of nature may be out with regards the apparent rise in cases of crimean-congo haemorrhagic fever may be astute. The cull of chickens may have led more farmers to move towards rearing of cows and sheep, further exposing themselves to ticks (a risk factor is known to be the removal of ticks from livestock). Any increased use of pesticides may have led to the the reduction in the ticks true predators, namely the spiders, ants and beetles. Preadator habitat destruction is another possible factor in tick numbers, as is increased habitats for reservoir animals such as mice. The further encroachment of communities into the countryside and increased tourism are also factors. There may all be meer conjecture and not responsible in the case of Turkey, but are known to be factors in other vector-borne diseases.
Lastly, it is entirely possible that the supposed rise in numbers is simply down to a heightened awareness in the medical and media environment - "seek and ye shall find " is a well-known epidemiological aphorism. It will be interesting to see what the investigations uncover, and hopefully the public health repsonse is one which can limit and even stop altogether the deaths from this disease.
emrecan
· 1 year ago
Thanks for writing one of the most detailed comments I have ever seen! The content is quite mind-opening! I have to study more better comment on these fronts. Cheers
All Comments
Crimean-congo fever was noted in Turkey several years before the presence of the H5 virus which led the mass cull of chickens. 19 cases were reported between 2002 and 2003 (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol10no8/03-0928.htm), whereas Turkeys first report of H5 was on 7th Oct 2005). Possibly, it is likely to have been present even before then but was not picked up on.
Furthermore, I am not aware of chickens being considered a major predator of ticks - certainly, I can imagine they can remove ticks from upon their own bodies during preening but I doubt that they actively hunt them down when there are plenty of other inveterbrates and plants to eat (not to mention feed that is already provided). Therefore, I suspect that the lack of chickens in the area is unlikely to have a major, if any, impact on the populations of ticks.
Be that as it may, the concern that the balance of nature may be out with regards the apparent rise in cases of crimean-congo haemorrhagic fever may be astute. The cull of chickens may have led more farmers to move towards rearing of cows and sheep, further exposing themselves to ticks (a risk factor is known to be the removal of ticks from livestock). Any increased use of pesticides may have led to the the reduction in the ticks true predators, namely the spiders, ants and beetles. Preadator habitat destruction is another possible factor in tick numbers, as is increased habitats for reservoir animals such as mice. The further encroachment of communities into the countryside and increased tourism are also factors. There may all be meer conjecture and not responsible in the case of Turkey, but are known to be factors in other vector-borne diseases.
Lastly, it is entirely possible that the supposed rise in numbers is simply down to a heightened awareness in the medical and media environment - "seek and ye shall find " is a well-known epidemiological aphorism. It will be interesting to see what the investigations uncover, and hopefully the public health repsonse is one which can limit and even stop altogether the deaths from this disease.
Cheers