CWD

Discussion in 'Whitetail Deer Disease' started by Scout 2, Nov 1, 2019.

  1. Scout 2

    Scout 2 Premium Member

    Messages:
    10,153
    Likes Received:
    10,260
    Location:
    Lake City
    Do they have a way to test for CWD in the soil?
     
  2. swampbuck

    swampbuck

    Messages:
    20,754
    Likes Received:
    10,768
    Location:
    Majinabeesh
    They know it can be taken up by roots, and transmitted through foliage. That's pretty close.

    Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app
     

  3. Scout 2

    Scout 2 Premium Member

    Messages:
    10,153
    Likes Received:
    10,260
    Location:
    Lake City
    If they know that why can't they test soil samples to see where it is at
     
  4. swampbuck

    swampbuck

    Messages:
    20,754
    Likes Received:
    10,768
    Location:
    Majinabeesh
    I think they probably could. The lab that determined that, would have needed that ability.

    Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app
     
  5. Newaygo1

    Newaygo1

    Messages:
    2,295
    Likes Received:
    903
    Location:
    Michigan
    I have yet to here anyone talk about Testing the Soil for the Prions. Maybe it is just a talking point. If they could test for it in the "Soil" why then is it they need a Specific Gland that is on the Skull of a Deer to Be Able to Test for It you would think if the Deer has it they could Test any Part of the animal and know the results whether Positive or Negative and Yet They Want the Head or this Gland and all I have heard is it is attached to the Deer's Head / Skull Area? And I do know that one Deer Processor could not provide me with This Gland for Testing? It is maybe that there is a higher concentration of the Disease in this Gland but with CWD being around for a long time Now you would think they could test any part of a Deer and find out it has CWD? Again just speculation by me but if it is Here there has to be more ways to Test for It and Yet Never Heard any Mention of anything but this Gland? And what is The Need to Check a Deer within the 24 Hours Time Limit? Would it still have this after 72 hours or 168 hours so what is the Need for the DNR's 24 Hour Check In? Just a Hoop some cannot Actually Meet? Again Lack of Information so Many Questions...
    Newaygo1
     
  6. Scout 2

    Scout 2 Premium Member

    Messages:
    10,153
    Likes Received:
    10,260
    Location:
    Lake City
    With all the soil tests done a year if they could test for this it would give a better idea of the areas where it is at in the state
     
  7. ridgewalker

    ridgewalker

    Messages:
    5,841
    Likes Received:
    2,669
    Location:
    NMI Woods
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4449294/ This article is a great source of information on this subject. Some of its conclusions might be surprising. Even human vCJD material was used in one part of the study. This was done under strict laboratory conditions in a laboratory but the findings could still have stunning implications. It is neither short nor real easy reading but it is well worth your time.
     
  8. rork

    rork

    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    426
    Location:
    Dexter
    In the old days you could test soil by exposing mice (engineered to have deer PRNP gene) to it.
    But as everyone knows, techniques tend to get better with time, often at tremendous speed.

    Now a days there are many new version of CWD tests, for example serial protein misfolding cyclic amplification (sPMCA) works pretty good. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6420460/ is a paper from this year doing that for soil testing 5 years after putting CWD-infected stuff in the ground. (Result: It didn't move around that much.) Randomly testing soil may not be cost effective - imagine how many samples we might be thinking about. "Well, a CWD deer may have died 20 yards over there instead of here."
    Another assay I see used allot is real-time (RT)-quaking-induced conversion (QuIC) assay. I have not deeply studied the difference or which is better. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4313144/ is a 2014 paper about how well that works.

    I think the DNR wants "fresh" material cause you can cut thin slices and look at them in a microscope allot better, and if that looks positive, your certainty that it is true positive is very high. Maybe I'm wrong about them still staining slides though. Not so long ago folks did use other methods with higher false-positive rates first, then confirmed on tissue, at least in deer. Perhaps that is getting a bit old-fashioned - I'm not sure.