OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of Mycobacterium avium subsp paratuberculosis infection among cows on beef operations in the United States. DESIGN: Cross-sectional seroprevalence study. Sample Population-A convenience sample of 380 herds in 21 states. PROCEDURES: Serum samples were obtained from 10,371 cows and tested for antibodies to M avium subsp paratuberculosis with a commercial ELISA. Producers were interviewed to collect data on herd management practices. RESULTS: 30 (7.9%) herds had 1 or more animals for which results of the ELISA were positive; 40 (0.4%) of the individual cow samples yielded positive results. None of the herd management practices studied were found to be associated with whether any animals in the herd would be positive for antibodies to M avium subsp paratuberculosis. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggest that the prevalence of antibodies to M avium subsp paratuberculosis among beef cows in the United States is low. Herds with seropositive animals were widely distributed geographically.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of Mycobacterium avium subsp paratuberculosis infection among cows on beef operations in the United States. DESIGN: Cross-sectional seroprevalence study. Sample Population-A convenience sample of 380 herds in 21 states. PROCEDURES: Serum samples were obtained from 10,371 cows and tested for antibodies to M avium subsp paratuberculosis with a commercial ELISA. Producers were interviewed to collect data on herd management practices. RESULTS: 30 (7.9%) herds had 1 or more animals for which results of the ELISA were positive; 40 (0.4%) of the individual cow samples yielded positive results. None of the herd management practices studied were found to be associated with whether any animals in the herd would be positive for antibodies to M avium subsp paratuberculosis. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggest that the prevalence of antibodies to M avium subsp paratuberculosis among beef cows in the United States is low. Herds with seropositive animals were widely distributed geographically.
Authors: Adrienne L McNees; Diane Markesich; Najah R Zayyani; David Y Graham Journal: Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2015-10-16 Impact factor: 3.869
Authors: H Morgan Scott; Ole Sorensen; John T Y Wu; Eva Y W Chow; Ken Manninen; John A VanLeeuwen Journal: Can Vet J Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 1.008
Authors: Kun Taek Park; Jongsam Ahn; William C Davis; Hye Cheong Koo; Nam Hoon Kwon; Woo Kyung Jung; Jun Man Kim; Soon Keun Hong; Yong Ho Park Journal: J Vet Sci Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 1.672
Authors: Bikash Bhattarai; Geoffrey T Fosgate; Jason B Osterstock; Seong C Park; Allen J Roussel Journal: BMC Vet Res Date: 2014-01-23 Impact factor: 2.741
Authors: Fazli Alpay; Yalda Zare; Mamat H Kamalludin; Xixia Huang; Xianwei Shi; George E Shook; Michael T Collins; Brian W Kirkpatrick Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-12-04 Impact factor: 3.240