NAME County WHAT’S IN YOUR BREAKFAST? Table Top Exercise Date

NAME CountyWHAT’S IN YOUR BREAKFAST? Table Top ExerciseDate

Welcome! NAME COUNTY WHAT’S IN YOUR BREAKFAST? Table Top Exercise Date

Purpose Statement The purpose of today’s exercise is to demonstrate the roles of each local, state, and federal agency, as well clarify and enhance the systems of communication which exist between and among farmers, industry, and government. This exercise will be based on a contamination to the livestock feed industry. The exercise will focus on evaluation of Communications and Food and Agricultural Safety and Defense, with particular regard to response and recovery phases.

Exercise Ground Rules • Turn off all cell phones and pagers • Only one person speaking at a time • Be respectful of other opinions • Be respectful as you express your thoughts • Limit side-bar conversations • Contribute to the discussion • Create a mindset that allows for learning • Enjoy the exercise

Observers • Information generated is not confidential • Should not distract players by speaking or other activity • Questions may be addressed through the facilitator • Tape recorders are prohibited • Do not participate in the Hot Wash

Controller/Facilitator • Moderates the discussion • Focuses players on issues relating to objectives • Clarifies issues relating to the scenario • Injects events, messages, and other information to stimulate discussion • Moderates Hot Wash

Players • Follow Facilitator/Controller Directions • Use Policy & Procedure, Administrative Rules, or any other documents that prescribe and aid in making decisions • Keep track of any issues

Evaluator’s Role • Discretely observe players • Impartially judge whether objectives are discussed and to what degree the objectives have been met • Make recommendations based upon the improvement plan • Participate in evaluator debriefing

Background In the late winter of 1996, a number of dairy herds in Wisconsin and neighboring states were poisoned due to the contamination of a popular commercial feed with a lethal additive. While this incident was not the result of a terrorist intent, it was nonetheless, highly costly to the state and to individual industry. Tainted feed was identified as having been distributed to over 4,000 farms, principally dairies, and led to recalls in four Midwestern states of products including cheese, butter, and ice cream that were suspected of contamination. The cost to the feed producer alone was estimated at over $250 million.

Background – Continued Throughout the last decade we have witnessed a number of instances in which animal feed was contaminated (accidentally and intentionally) and resulted in tremendous economic losses and political ramifications. While an international-terrorist threat against Wisconsin agriculture is highly unlikely to occur, it is a possibility. The intentional introduction of a poisonous additive to the food supply of livestock animals is a potential means for executing a terrorist act aimed at any state’s agriculture. Animal agriculture may be one of the easiest targets of terrorism because large feed mills can be sabotaged as a point source with an extremely wide distribution of a poisonous chemical agent in a very short period of time and with extremely severe losses in an extremely short period of time.

Background – Continued While adulteration of feed supplies with a toxic industrial chemical or other poisonous additive is much less sensationalistic than use of exotic bacterial pathogens, it is a legitimate threat and should not be ignored. Failing to control and collect poisoned feed would result in diffusion to other animals and potentially to humans. Mass killing of large numbers of animals at a feedlot or large farm is arguably simpler, cheaper, and more reliable than using a pathogen. Furthermore, the storage, transportation, and time between contamination and release to an animal population are much less complicated than with most infectious biological agents. Additionally, contaminating feed does not pose any of the technical limitations associated with pathogens.

Phase 1 Thursday, April 2, 2009, 5:00 am, Clark County, Dairy Farm A, 50 milking cows Farmer Bob is out with his cows, providing them fresh feed and water. While doing this he notices that one of his cows, Elsie, appears to be less interested in her feed than normal. Friday, April 3, 2009, 5:00 am, Clark County, Dairy Farm A, 50 milking cows Farmer Bob is doing his morning rounds of the farm, feeding and watering the animals, and notices that Elise, continues to exhibit a decreased interest in her feed. Her milk production has not yet decreased and she shows no other signs of illness. Farmer Bob realizes that the cows are eating a new batch of feed and attributes Elise’s symptoms to her change in diet. The local veterinarian is scheduled to visit the farm next week Friday. If Elise’s condition is sustained until next week, Farmer Bob will ask the vet to pay special attention to Elsie. Monday, April 6, 2009, 5:00 am, Clark County, Dairy Farm A, 50 milking cows Over the course of the weekend a few more cows have also begun exhibiting a decreased interest in food. Milk production has not yet been affected.

Phase 1 – Continued Wednesday, April 7, 2009, 5:00 am, Clark County, Dairy Farm A, 50 milking cows 35 out of 50 milking cows are now exhibiting a decreased interest in food. Milk production has decreased slightly, with Elise’s milk production showing the greatest level of decline. Given that most of the milking cows are showing the same symptoms, Farmer Bob feels even stronger that his initial diagnosis of the situation, change in eating habits due to change in diet, was correct. However, he’ll still be sure to mention the situation to the veterinary practitioner when she arrives Friday morning. Friday, April 10, 2009, 9:00 am, Clark County, Dairy Farm A, 50 milking cows Dr. Gina, the local veterinary practitioner, is visiting Farmer Bob’s farm in Clark County. She is informed by Farmer Bob that the majority of the milking cows are exhibiting a decline in appetite and milk production. Dr. Gina agrees with Farmer Bob’s diagnosis of the situation, but takes a few vials of blood for some routine testing, just in case. She will run the blood samples and revisit the farm on Monday, at which time the results from the blood test will be available

Phase 1 – Continued Monday, April 13, 2009, 11:30 am, Clark County, Dairy Farm B, 63 milking cows Dr. Gina is visiting Diary Farm B, owned and operated by Farmer Sally. Dr. Gina learns upon arriving at the farm that many of Farmer Sally’s milking cows are not feeling well. Over the course of the past two weeks the cows have expressed a decreased interest in food, many seem intermittently lethargic, and most of them are also producing slightly decreased amounts of milk. The cows are also on a new diet. Dr. Gina believes their symptoms are related to the changes in their diet and expects the cows to begin to feel better once their systems adjust to the new diet. However, Dr. Gina extracts a few vials of blood for testing, just to be safe.

Phase 1 – Continued Monday, April 13, 2009, 2:00 pm, Wisconsin Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory (WVDL) in Barron, WI Dr. Gina is delivering the blood samples from Clark County Dairy Farm B to the WVDL for testing. Shirley, the receptionist, comments that this is the third sample she has received from Clark County today. Gina asks to speak with Thad, the laboratory technician – she is hoping that the test results from Clark County Dairy Farm A might be available. Thad gives Gina the test results and notes that they are inconclusive, just like most of the other tests he has run within the past week.

Phase 1 – Continued Monday, April 13, 2009, 3:30 pm, Clark County, Dairy Farm A, 50 milking cows Dr. Gina arrives back at Farmer Bob’s dairy farm. The blood tests were inconclusive, showing only elevated levels of white blood cells. However, Elsie’s condition has continued to worsen over the weekend – her appetite and milk production continue to decrease and she now has a fever. Dr. Gina believes that Elise may be fighting an infection. She prescribes a regime of tetracycline for Elise and asks Farmer Bob to keep her updated on the situation.

Phase 1 – Continued Monday, April 13, 2009, 4:30 pm Dr. Gina, a member of the Wisconsin Animal Response Corps (WARC), contacts Dr. Fred, the local District Veterinarian. She tells him that although she has not noticed anything unusual at the farms she has visited, her conversations at the WVDL in Barron earlier in the day cause her to wonder if there may be a connection between these Clark County dairy farms which has not yet been identified.

Phase 1 - Questions • What does the district vet do in response to the phone call from the local veterinary practitioner? • Is DATCP contacted? Who contacts DATCP? Who within DATCP is contacted? • What actions does DATCP take once notified? • Is County Emergency Management contacted? If not, at what point would they be contacted? • What does County Emergency Management do once they are notified of the situation? • Is UW Extension contacted? Who notifies them? What actions does UW Extension take once notified? • Who else is notified and by whom? What roles are they expected to assume?

Phase 2 Monday, April 13, 2009, 8:00 pm, Clark County Dairy Farm A, 50 Milking Cows A member of the DATCP Toxic Response Team arrives at Clark County Dairy Farm A. Dr. Gina and Dr. Fred are also at the farm. Dr. Gina and Dr. Fred give the sick milking cows a more detailed checkup and take additional vials of blood which they will deliver to the Wisconsin Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory (WVDL) for a more intensive screening process. Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 11:00 am, Clark County Dairy Farm B, 63 Milking Cows Dr. Gina receives a phone call from the WVDL with the test results from the blood samples taken at the Clark County Dairy Farm B yesterday afternoon. All test results are inconclusive.

Phase 2 - Questions • What does the local vet do while awaiting test results from the WVDL? • What does the district vet do while awaiting test results from the WVDL? • What does the toxicology team representative do while awaiting test results from the WVDL? • What does the farmer do while awaiting test results? • Who does the WVDL contact once the test results are available?

Phase 3 Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 1:30 pm, Clark County Dairy Farm A, 50 Milking Cows The WVDL contacts Dr. Gina with the test results – all of them are once again inconclusive. The health of the sick cows at the Clark County Dairy Farm A continues to deteriorate. Elsie’s condition has also continued to deteriorate, even with the regimen of tetracycline which she has now received for nearly 24-hours. Based on the results of the test results and Elsie’s continued decline in health, toxicology tests have now been ordered. A member of the toxic response team will deliver feed, blood, and rumen samples to WVDL in Barron later in the day.

Phase 3 - Questions • What actions does DATCP take once notified? • Who else is notified and by whom? What roles are they expected to assume? • What does the farmer do while awaiting test results? • Is the farm quarantined? Who issues this order? Who facilitates this process? • What happens to the milk from the affected cows? • What happens to milk that had previously been shipped to milk plants? • What happens with the first cow carcass if the cow dies while awaiting test results? • What happens with additional cow carcasses if more cows die while awaiting test results? • Who does the Vet Diagnostic Lab contact once the test results are available?

Phase 4 Monday, April 20, 2009 The Toxic Response Team determines that multiple farms within Clark County have sick cows with similar symptoms. Rumors are beginning to spread within Clark County. The UW Extension office has received numerous phone calls by worried farmers.

Phase 4 - Questions • How does the DATCP response change as additional farms within the County report similar situations? • Is an EOC activated? Is it a County-level EOC or a State-level EOC? Who activates the EOC? Who is part of the EOC? • Are additional quarantines issued? • Who enforces these quarantines? • What happens to the milk on the affected farms? • What happens to milk from the affected farms that had previously been shipped to milk plants? • How are the rumors to be dealt with? Who will address the rumors – the PIO or the Extension Office or both? What is the message?

Phase 5 Thursday, April 24, 2009 The Toxic Response Team has determined that all of the affected farms purchased feed from three specific feed mills. The feed mills are located in: Clark County Marathon County Wood County Trace-backing by the Toxic Response Team has determined that farms have been affected in the following counties: Grant County Dodge County Dane County Iowa County Wood County Elsie’s condition has continued to deteriorate. The District Veterinarian, in collaboration with the WVDL and Farmer Brown has decided to euthanize Elsie and use her remains for more comprehensive toxicology testing.

Phase 5 - Questions • How does the DATCP response change as farms within other counties are linked into the situation? • Are County Emergency Management offices in the newly identified counties contacted? What does County Emergency Management do once they are notified of the situation? • How does the structure of the EOC change as the situation progresses? Are multiple EOCs established? Who activates them? Who participates in the EOC? • How does the role of the PIO(s) change? Who will the PIO(s) coordinate with? What is the new message? How will the message be delivered? • Is UW Extension in the newly identified counties contacted? What actions does UW Extension take once notified?

Phase 5 – Questions - Continued • What happens to the milk from the affected cows? • If the original farm in Clark County was quarantined, is the quarantine now lifted? • Is the WARC activated? Who activates them? What role(s) do they play?

Phase 6 Sunday, April 27, 2009 The Toxic Response Team believes they have identified the source of the contamination. A large multi-state distributor delivered a batch of distiller’s grains to the three originally identified feed mills on March 23, 2009. The distributor is unable to identify the source of the grains, as they receive shipments of distiller’s grains from multiple sources and mix the shipments together before distribution to feed mills or direct sale to individual farmers. Two weeks have passed since the Toxic Response Team was called in to investigate. More than 1,000 cows have become sick and the cause of the contamination has not yet been identified. The story has made national news and Wisconsin milk and cheese sales have declined.

Phase 6 - Questions • Describe the role of the PIO(s) in the constantly evolving situation? How does the role change as the press coverage grows from a local level to a national level? What is the new message? How will the message be delivered? • At what point does the Toxic Response Team decide to end the investigation? How is this decision made? What does the Toxic Response Team policy state about ending investigations? • At what point would a federal investigation into the situation begin? How is the change determined? Are there policies regarding the transfer of information and authority? • At what point is/are the EOC(s) deactivated? How is this decision made? What are the policies regarding establishment and deactivation of EOC(s)?

End of Exercise

Hot Wash • What worked well? • In what way did you find this exercise valuable? • What needs improvement? • Suggestions on how to make these improvements, specifically?

NAME County WHAT’S IN YOUR BREAKFAST? Table Top Exercise Date