"......the toxin has to be ingested....." To me that says something about the 350,000 Britons who are reported to contract toxoplasmosis every year. They need to change their hygeine habits or their diet.
That made me smile Night parrot ... but also sent me googling again. It appears it can be found in unprocessed meats and raw hams etc and of course raw salad stuff can be contaminated with it. There appears to be contradictions in some of the articles I came across too. But I think it really does have to come down to hygiene yes. Lots of people can have it and not even know it or have immunity to it. the time it is really dangerous is if a pregnant woman contracts it for the first time during pregnancy. As it can cross the placenta it can cause serious damage to the unborn child.
I know it is very dangerous for pregnant women, and I've read that it can be dangerous to people with badly supressed immune systems too. But apart from that, I can't find much out about it on the internet. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places? I'd never heard about it before dwatson mentioned it on a previous related topic. I also couldn't find much about its effects on wildlife?
I am pleased that this thread has turned up all this discussion and information. AnnieJ I liked your input, but in regard to the advice that "you can only catch toxo by ingesting cat faeces" , isn't that playing it down a bit? It may well be true, but what about sandpits that both children and cats are drawn to? I don't know whether they still have them in pre-schools and kindergartens, but they are certainly in many suburban backyards.
It wasn't intended to come across as advice as such Night Parrot, just obtained fact , but I do see your point in question
I can't speak for all parents, but I know that our home sandpit always had a cover over it, as did my friends'; the reasons being to keep it dry, save toys from quickly becoming degraded by the sun (as todays plastics quickly do), and to keep animal droppings out of them - birds & other animals, as well as roaming cats.
As to schools, I have worked in education for years, relieved in many different schools both private and public, and have seen a steady decline in uncovered sandpits. Indeed, only one school I work in at present, has an outdoor sandpit that is to be covered. Similarly, there has been an increase in indoor sandpits and portable outdoor ones as an alternative.
The reasons for this change are the same to that of covering a sandpit at home. Unfortunately though in a school environment, there are other risks as well, such as stray dogs peeing in there, some random bogan taking a pee on the way home from the pub (or worse), and intravenous drug users thinking it's a great idea to leave their used needles in a school sandpit. Lawsuits aside, any of these things are a health risk to children and are not taken lightly.
Outdoor sandpits, whether covered or not, are thoroughly raked and checked for foreign bodies of any type, before children are allowed to use them. Children are supervised to wash hands after play, even if food is not going to be consumed.
So no, I still believe the information given to me, and from a first hand point of view, indicates the risk of exposure is minimal given the measures in place.
Lachlan, yes you're right. I think there is a Risk section in the first link I posted above, which briefly covers Immunosuppression, which you are asking about. A quick google of Toxoplasmosis Immunosuppression comes up with a whole heap of info as well.
Oh so sorry Lachlan, now I've re-read your post, I think I may have misunderstood what you were saying . Did you mean you can't find much on toxo? After four hours trying to get our internet connection fixed, my brains a bit drained.
Hi Lachlan, it appears that it was me who first brought Toxoplasmosis (Toxoplasma goondii) to your attention
There are many different criteria for searches, and as with much on the net, there is conflicting information. If you search google for "Toxoplasmosis in wildlife" it will give you a heap of information.
Toxo is found worldwide, wherever cats are found.
A basic search of Wikipedia is a good place. Wikipedia indicates that
"Up to a third of the world's human population is estimated to carry a Toxoplasma infection.[3][4] "
Most agree that "Toxo" has affected our wildlife, and all I have read indicate that it (Toxo) was not here prior to the introduction of cats. Until recently, I was led to believe there is no effective treatment for toxo in animals, but of course there is, however by the time we come across affected animals (I do wildlife rescue) it is usually too late. Of course, as with most treatments, it is impossible for wildlife, on any sort of scale, unless they are already in captivity. Unfortunately with our tight economic times, pretty much all government sponsored research as been cut.
No one doubts there are other sources where Toxo can be acquired, but everything I have read, links back to cats. Although I think it is the high proportion of feral which are of main concern. Importantly, you can not acquire Toxo from contact with faeces other than cats. You can of course get it through raw or undercooked meat from an infected species. All agree that good hygiene is the secret of control.
Possible the best description and details on Toxo found in the link below. This document has some scary information about how long the "disease" can remain viable in the environment.
"Prevention and control Control of the disease focuses on preventing access to cat faeces. Oocysts are very resistant and can survive up to 18 months in the environment. Meat should be cooked to at least 66oC or frozen for at least two weeks prior to feeding. Equipment can be sterilised by autoclaving or heating to 70oC for at least ten minutes. T. gondii is killed by soap and water."
Sorry Lachlan, should have pointed out that this site has the best short version of symptoms for Toxo, I have cut and paste the signs and symptoms section.
Lethargy, a loss of balance, anorexia, stiffening of limbs, weight loss, diarrhoea, retinitis, rapid blinking of the eyes, stark coat, a panicking look in the eyes, inability to feed or drink, runny nose, some salivating and convulsions – often severe. I have not personally noted diarrhoea as a symptom but it occurred in Case No 2, a case which was confirmed by blood tests. Although the disease can affect the animal‟s heart, lungs, liver, kidneys and other muscles, as well as the brain, it is the neurological signs which usually give the first warning. Because the disease is already well advanced when neurological signs appear it is imperative to commence medication immediately these are noted.
Thanks for all the links dwatson; they're much better than what I managed to find. Any idea why it has so much more impact on marsupials than other mammals? Or have I missed something in the links?
I am not sure why marsupials are more affected than other species, other than most Australian mammals fall into the marsupial family. Higher levels of Toxo in Tasmania can possibly be attributed to our colder climate, which allows the organism to remain viable for longer periods.
Interestingly one research link shows that road kill has higher rates of Toxo, than those culled. Possible reasons - animals move toward roads for an easy feed (fresh growth promoted by roadside slashing and water run off from the road). Assumably affected animals senses are affected by the disease, and therefore reduces their ability to avoid vehicles. Unaffected animals perhaps find food away from the road, having a better ability to browse.
Toxoplasmosis has been listed as a contributing cause to the extinction of many species on mainland Australia, along with predation by higher level species, such as foxes. This is not applicable to Tasmania, as we have no higher order predators (unless you count feral cats), as their is still no confirmed recent fox sightings (refer to link from The Mercury below). No one doubts there have been foxes in Tasmania, as hunting clubs have been documented as releasing limited numbers for "sporting purposes". It is believed that these hunts were successful, and no remaining animals were left in the wild. It has been many years since this has occurred.
As with any research, there are often more questions than answers, and I feel this debate will continue for years to come, possibly with little or nothing achieved by anyone. We can all do our bit, whether that involve desexing, curfews or other control methods. Whatever happens, it needs to be applied to all non domestic feral species, and those domestic pets need to have adequate control by their owners, enforced by legislation.
Edit Edit: Right thread after all; I just can't read!
Hmmmm, I thought I'd read that there was definite proof of recent fox introductions to Tasmania, as well as possible viable colonies with the reduction in Devil numbers?
Either way, I think that the fox eradication programme in Tasmania is a good thing. If they've failed to catch any foxes it just proves that it is doing its job. 50 million is a small amount for a government to pay to keep foxes out of Tasmainia.
What we need to do is expand the Fox Task Force to include other feral species, in particular cats. There has been some talk of this, but as yet no action. It appears the Fox Task Force days are numbered, as our new government has plans to disband it.
Again as with all research, there are opposing points of view, and interpretation of results. I believe all of us need to do our research and to some extent make our own decisions about where we stand, on any given topic. Importantly we need to accept that others are entitled to their own opinions, and particate in healthy discussion, sometimes "agreeing to disagree"
Sorry if it sounded like I was having a go at you dwatson, I don't know that much about the operations of the Taskforce. The thing I read was a couple of years ago, so probably the realities have changed by now.
Silver Magpie click in the top right corner on 'My Account' and go down until you find the email notifications and then change the setting. And in future maybe you should ask this in the Announcements/Help section.
Silver Magpie click in the top right corner on 'My Account' and go down until you find the email notifications and then change the setting. And in future maybe you should ask this in the Announcements/Help section.
Lachlan, I did not take it that way (being offended) and was just continuing discussion to the bestow my knowledge. As always happy to review information and stand corrected on anything I have wrong.
Apparently the last concrete evidence of foxes was found in 2011, so would have been contemporary to the article I read. I still think it's a shame they're winding up the programme- apparently foxes are usually found at a 1 per 25km2, and are virtually undetectable at 1 per 40km2, and could easily be present at a lower rate in Tasmanina undetected. Particularly with the advent of Devil Facial Tumor Disease, all efforts should be made to keep Tasmania fox free, as one of their major competitors is gradually disappearing.
Back to cats, and their control, the more I look the more I find. Apparently we do have (in Tasmania), or in the processes of introducing strict guidelines for cats, including compulsory de sexing (unless you are a registered breeder) and micro-chipping. Although this work is in progress, there is little enforcement at this time. We can only hope that changes.
While I am big advocate for keeping cats indoors or in a cat run for outside (no free roaming), I do see one flaw with that type of containment. With all of the domestic cats inside, you are going to see a huge increase in numbers of the stray/feral population in urban areas. Domestic cats that roam outdoors have territories, and with such high densities of domestics in some areas there's no room for strays. However if all the pet cats come inside, you're just opening up those environments for strays, although likely at a lower density than the domestic population.
So on that, I feel that any mandatory program for keeping cats indoors, also needs to co-incide with some sort of catch and release spay/neuter program of strays/ferals in urban areas. The only problem with that is that is a very expensive program, but I don't feel that keeping pet cats indoors alone is the complete answer to the issue. It's certainly a good first step, but it needs follow-up.
Also in regards to the comment about myxomatosis, it has a mortality rate of about 40% these days, so large numbers of rabbits which suffer from the disease, go through it, but then go through the recovery process too. Domestic rabbits still have a 95-100% mortality rate.
Also in controlling feral cats, one has to consider the implications it holds for the increase in rabbit populations after the fact. Yes most cats take much smaller prey, but cats can be very successful rabbit hunters, and a decrease in cat numbers will likely see a rise in rabbit numbers (unless fox numbers pick up as a result). It's a complicated network really.
In most of the countryside there isn't any funding for enforcement or eradication programs. The hard fact is that conservation is the first thing to feel the cuts when governments are looking to save money. People like to propose regulations governing behaviour, and these can have some effect in cities and towns where most people live, but in the wider environment where most of the wildlife lives, things are left to the good intentions of whoever owns the land. Very few environmental rules ever get enforced at all, unless someone is stealing water from the big licence holders.
There certainly are complex relationships at play, Rebecca, but they shouldn't stop us from getting rid of exotic animals. If we can afford to get rid of our natives we can surely afford to get rid of the ferals. In fact, I'd go so far as to say we can't afford not to get rid of the ferals.
With each cat having 9 lives & each unemployed person required to apply for 40 jobs per month that would make 360 cat lives per month for each cat exterminator employed. Or something like that. (I was never good at sums). So there's no reason why we can't eliminate Australia's cats if we put our minds to it.
"......the toxin has to be ingested....." To me that says something about the 350,000 Britons who are reported to contract toxoplasmosis every year. They need to change their hygeine habits or their diet.
That made me smile Night parrot ... but also sent me googling again. It appears it can be found in unprocessed meats and raw hams etc and of course raw salad stuff can be contaminated with it. There appears to be contradictions in some of the articles I came across too. But I think it really does have to come down to hygiene yes. Lots of people can have it and not even know it or have immunity to it. the time it is really dangerous is if a pregnant woman contracts it for the first time during pregnancy. As it can cross the placenta it can cause serious damage to the unborn child.
Sunshine Coast Queensland
Just a question about toxoplasmosis.
I know it is very dangerous for pregnant women, and I've read that it can be dangerous to people with badly supressed immune systems too. But apart from that, I can't find much out about it on the internet. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places? I'd never heard about it before dwatson mentioned it on a previous related topic. I also couldn't find much about its effects on wildlife?
It wasn't intended to come across as advice as such Night Parrot, just obtained fact
, but I do see your point in question
I can't speak for all parents, but I know that our home sandpit always had a cover over it, as did my friends'; the reasons being to keep it dry, save toys from quickly becoming degraded by the sun (as todays plastics quickly do), and to keep animal droppings out of them - birds & other animals, as well as roaming cats.
As to schools, I have worked in education for years, relieved in many different schools both private and public, and have seen a steady decline in uncovered sandpits. Indeed, only one school I work in at present, has an outdoor sandpit that is to be covered. Similarly, there has been an increase in indoor sandpits and portable outdoor ones as an alternative.
The reasons for this change are the same to that of covering a sandpit at home. Unfortunately though in a school environment, there are other risks as well, such as stray dogs peeing in there, some random bogan taking a pee on the way home from the pub (or worse), and intravenous drug users thinking it's a great idea to leave their used needles in a school sandpit. Lawsuits aside, any of these things are a health risk to children and are not taken lightly.
Outdoor sandpits, whether covered or not, are thoroughly raked and checked for foreign bodies of any type, before children are allowed to use them. Children are supervised to wash hands after play, even if food is not going to be consumed.
So no, I still believe the information given to me, and from a first hand point of view, indicates the risk of exposure is minimal given the measures in place.
West Coast Tasmania
Lol Night Parrot.
Lachlan, yes you're right. I think there is a Risk section in the first link I posted above, which briefly covers Immunosuppression, which you are asking about. A quick google of Toxoplasmosis Immunosuppression comes up with a whole heap of info as well.
West Coast Tasmania
Oh so sorry Lachlan, now I've re-read your post, I think I may have misunderstood what you were saying
. Did you mean you can't find much on toxo? After four hours trying to get our internet connection fixed, my brains a bit drained.
West Coast Tasmania
Hi Lachlan, it appears that it was me who first brought Toxoplasmosis (Toxoplasma goondii) to your attention
There are many different criteria for searches, and as with much on the net, there is conflicting information. If you search google for "Toxoplasmosis in wildlife" it will give you a heap of information.
Toxo is found worldwide, wherever cats are found.
A basic search of Wikipedia is a good place. Wikipedia indicates that
"Up to a third of the world's human population is estimated to carry a Toxoplasma infection.[3][4] "
Most agree that "Toxo" has affected our wildlife, and all I have read indicate that it (Toxo) was not here prior to the introduction of cats. Until recently, I was led to believe there is no effective treatment for toxo in animals, but of course there is, however by the time we come across affected animals (I do wildlife rescue) it is usually too late. Of course, as with most treatments, it is impossible for wildlife, on any sort of scale, unless they are already in captivity. Unfortunately with our tight economic times, pretty much all government sponsored research as been cut.
No one doubts there are other sources where Toxo can be acquired, but everything I have read, links back to cats. Although I think it is the high proportion of feral which are of main concern. Importantly, you can not acquire Toxo from contact with faeces other than cats. You can of course get it through raw or undercooked meat from an infected species. All agree that good hygiene is the secret of control.
Possible the best description and details on Toxo found in the link below. This document has some scary information about how long the "disease" can remain viable in the environment.
"Prevention and control
Control of the disease focuses on preventing access to cat faeces. Oocysts are very resistant and can survive up to 18 months in the environment. Meat should be cooked to at least 66oC or frozen for at least two weeks prior to feeding. Equipment can be sterilised by autoclaving or heating to 70oC for at least ten minutes. T. gondii is killed by soap and water."
http://www.wildlifehealthaustralia.com.au/Portals/0/Documents/FactSheets/Toxoplasmosis%2023%20Mar%202009%20(1.0).pdf
Here is a link to the "State of the Encironment 2009" which gives some details of diseases affecting wildlife in Tasmania.
http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2009/copy/41/
And another detailing treatment for Toxo.
http://www.awrc.org.au/uploads/5/8/6/6/5866843/nwcc-neihoff-040727.pdf
Lastly here is some research from Tasmania, which indicates distribution and other data.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213224413000035
Dale Huonville, Tasmania
Sorry Lachlan, should have pointed out that this site has the best short version of symptoms for Toxo, I have cut and paste the signs and symptoms section.
http://www.awrc.org.au/uploads/5/8/6/6/5866843/nwcc-neihoff-040727.pdf
Signs and symptoms as per this paper;
Lethargy, a loss of balance, anorexia, stiffening of limbs, weight loss, diarrhoea, retinitis, rapid blinking of the eyes, stark coat, a panicking look in the eyes, inability to feed or drink, runny nose, some salivating and convulsions – often severe. I have not personally noted diarrhoea as a symptom but it occurred in Case No 2, a case which was confirmed by blood tests. Although the disease can affect the animal‟s heart, lungs, liver, kidneys and other muscles, as well as the brain, it is the neurological signs which usually give the first warning. Because the disease is already well advanced when neurological signs appear it is imperative to commence medication immediately these are noted.
Dale Huonville, Tasmania
If all this makes cats culturally unacceptable then I'm all for it.
Thanks for all the links dwatson; they're much better than what I managed to find. Any idea why it has so much more impact on marsupials than other mammals? Or have I missed something in the links?
I am not sure why marsupials are more affected than other species, other than most Australian mammals fall into the marsupial family. Higher levels of Toxo in Tasmania can possibly be attributed to our colder climate, which allows the organism to remain viable for longer periods.
Interestingly one research link shows that road kill has higher rates of Toxo, than those culled. Possible reasons - animals move toward roads for an easy feed (fresh growth promoted by roadside slashing and water run off from the road). Assumably affected animals senses are affected by the disease, and therefore reduces their ability to avoid vehicles. Unaffected animals perhaps find food away from the road, having a better ability to browse.
Toxoplasmosis has been listed as a contributing cause to the extinction of many species on mainland Australia, along with predation by higher level species, such as foxes. This is not applicable to Tasmania, as we have no higher order predators (unless you count feral cats), as their is still no confirmed recent fox sightings (refer to link from The Mercury below). No one doubts there have been foxes in Tasmania, as hunting clubs have been documented as releasing limited numbers for "sporting purposes". It is believed that these hunts were successful, and no remaining animals were left in the wild. It has been many years since this has occurred.
http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/tasmanias-50m-fox-hunt-was-science-scandal-expert-team-says/story-fnj4f7k1-1226902620005
As with any research, there are often more questions than answers, and I feel this debate will continue for years to come, possibly with little or nothing achieved by anyone. We can all do our bit, whether that involve desexing, curfews or other control methods. Whatever happens, it needs to be applied to all non domestic feral species, and those domestic pets need to have adequate control by their owners, enforced by legislation.
Dale Huonville, Tasmania
Edit: Wrong thread
Edit Edit: Right thread after all; I just can't read!
Hmmmm, I thought I'd read that there was definite proof of recent fox introductions to Tasmania, as well as possible viable colonies with the reduction in Devil numbers?
Either way, I think that the fox eradication programme in Tasmania is a good thing. If they've failed to catch any foxes it just proves that it is doing its job. 50 million is a small amount for a government to pay to keep foxes out of Tasmainia.
What we need to do is expand the Fox Task Force to include other feral species, in particular cats. There has been some talk of this, but as yet no action. It appears the Fox Task Force days are numbered, as our new government has plans to disband it.
Again as with all research, there are opposing points of view, and interpretation of results. I believe all of us need to do our research and to some extent make our own decisions about where we stand, on any given topic. Importantly we need to accept that others are entitled to their own opinions, and particate in healthy discussion, sometimes "agreeing to disagree"
Dale Huonville, Tasmania
Sorry if it sounded like I was having a go at you dwatson, I don't know that much about the operations of the Taskforce. The thing I read was a couple of years ago, so probably the realities have changed by now.
How do I stop this from sending me emails every time somebody makes a new post? Sorry I'm no good with this forum stuff...
Silver Magpie click in the top right corner on 'My Account' and go down until you find the email notifications and then change the setting. And in future maybe you should ask this in the Announcements/Help section.
thanks mate
Lachlan, I did not take it that way (being offended) and was just continuing discussion to the bestow my knowledge. As always happy to review information and stand corrected on anything I have wrong.
Dale Huonville, Tasmania
Ok, that's good.
Apparently the last concrete evidence of foxes was found in 2011, so would have been contemporary to the article I read. I still think it's a shame they're winding up the programme- apparently foxes are usually found at a 1 per 25km2, and are virtually undetectable at 1 per 40km2, and could easily be present at a lower rate in Tasmanina undetected. Particularly with the advent of Devil Facial Tumor Disease, all efforts should be made to keep Tasmania fox free, as one of their major competitors is gradually disappearing.
Back to cats, and their control, the more I look the more I find. Apparently we do have (in Tasmania), or in the processes of introducing strict guidelines for cats, including compulsory de sexing (unless you are a registered breeder) and micro-chipping. Although this work is in progress, there is little enforcement at this time. We can only hope that changes.
http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/invasive-species/cat-management-in-tasmania
Dale Huonville, Tasmania
While I am big advocate for keeping cats indoors or in a cat run for outside (no free roaming), I do see one flaw with that type of containment. With all of the domestic cats inside, you are going to see a huge increase in numbers of the stray/feral population in urban areas. Domestic cats that roam outdoors have territories, and with such high densities of domestics in some areas there's no room for strays. However if all the pet cats come inside, you're just opening up those environments for strays, although likely at a lower density than the domestic population.
So on that, I feel that any mandatory program for keeping cats indoors, also needs to co-incide with some sort of catch and release spay/neuter program of strays/ferals in urban areas. The only problem with that is that is a very expensive program, but I don't feel that keeping pet cats indoors alone is the complete answer to the issue. It's certainly a good first step, but it needs follow-up.
Also in regards to the comment about myxomatosis, it has a mortality rate of about 40% these days, so large numbers of rabbits which suffer from the disease, go through it, but then go through the recovery process too. Domestic rabbits still have a 95-100% mortality rate.
Also in controlling feral cats, one has to consider the implications it holds for the increase in rabbit populations after the fact. Yes most cats take much smaller prey, but cats can be very successful rabbit hunters, and a decrease in cat numbers will likely see a rise in rabbit numbers (unless fox numbers pick up as a result). It's a complicated network really.
Birding Blog: Close Encounters of the Bird Kind
In most of the countryside there isn't any funding for enforcement or eradication programs. The hard fact is that conservation is the first thing to feel the cuts when governments are looking to save money. People like to propose regulations governing behaviour, and these can have some effect in cities and towns where most people live, but in the wider environment where most of the wildlife lives, things are left to the good intentions of whoever owns the land. Very few environmental rules ever get enforced at all, unless someone is stealing water from the big licence holders.
Perhaps the aphorism "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" is relevant here?
There certainly are complex relationships at play, Rebecca, but they shouldn't stop us from getting rid of exotic animals. If we can afford to get rid of our natives we can surely afford to get rid of the ferals. In fact, I'd go so far as to say we can't afford not to get rid of the ferals.
This may be of interest to some BIBY forum members..........
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/christmas-island-wages-war-on-feral-cats-threatening-native-wildlife/story-e6frg8y6-1227021006599
Today Christmas Island, tomorrow the mainland.
With each cat having 9 lives & each unemployed person required to apply for 40 jobs per month that would make 360 cat lives per month for each cat exterminator employed. Or something like that. (I was never good at sums). So there's no reason why we can't eliminate Australia's cats if we put our minds to it.
A recent article:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/gone-feral-the-cats-devouring-our-wildlife-20140911-10fbs1.html
The terrorist alert on cats needs to be raised to well above HIGH.
Pages