| Literature DB >> 20055982 |
Sota Kobayashi1, Toshiyuki Tsutsui, Takehisa Yamamoto, Yoko Hayama, Ken-ichiro Kameyama, Misako Konishi, Kenji Murakami.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although several attempts have been made to control enzootic bovine leukosis (EBL) at the local level, a nationwide control program has not been implemented in Japan, except for passive surveillance. Effective control of EBL requires that the transmission routes of bovine leukemia virus (BLV) infection should be identified and intercepted based on scientific evidence. In this cross-sectional study, we examined the risk factors associated with within-herd transmission of BLV on infected dairy farms in Japan. Blood samples taken from 30 randomly selected adult cows at each of 139 dairy farms were tested by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Information on herd management was collected using a structured questionnaire.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20055982 PMCID: PMC2835688 DOI: 10.1186/1746-6148-6-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Figure 1Distribution of BLV-infected farms classified by seroprevalence (n = 90). Seroprevalence on infected farms at the 25th, 50th (median), and 75th percentiles was 17.1%, 48.1%, and 68.5%, respectively. Visual inspection of this histogram and the Shapiro--Wilk test confirmed that seroprevalence was not normally distributed (p < 0.002).
Crude univariate analyses between seroprevalence of BVL and farm factors in seven prefectures in Japan
| Variable and level | Number of herds | Median (IQR1) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Herd size | |||
| < 30 head | 35 | 43.3 (13.3, 60.0) | 0.514 |
| 30--49 head | 25 | 53.33 (16.7, 63.3) | |
| ≥ 50 head | 30 | 50.00 (26.7, 73.3) | |
| Cattle introduced into the herd within one year | |||
| No | 11 | 46.7 (27.3, 60.0) | 0.286 |
| Yes, self-bred cows only | 33 | 52.2 (25.0, 78.0) | |
| Yes, including purchased cows | 46 | 45.0 (13.3, 65.0) | |
| Housing conditions | |||
| Tie housing | 68 | 41.9 (13.3, 62.5) | 0.001* |
| Loose housing | 22 | 65.0 (52.2, 78.3) | |
| Availability of own grazing area | |||
| Yes | 65 | 43.3 (13.8, 63.3) | 0.048* |
| No | 25 | 52.2 (33.6, 78.0) | |
| Presence of horseflies in summer | |||
| Never to seldom | 28 | 26.7 (13.3, 51.8) | 0.002* |
| Sometimes to often | 29 | 47.6 (15.8, 65.0) | |
| Very high | 33 | 63.3 (44.4, 83.0) | |
| Animal dehorning | |||
| Yes | 58 | 60.0 (39.2, 73.3) | < 0.001* |
| No | 32 | 20.0 (8.8, 43.0) | |
| Plastic sleeve used for rectal palpation | |||
| One sleeve per cow | 73 | 43.3 (14.5, 68.3) | 0.012* |
| One sleeve for more than one cow | 17 | 60.0 (47.8, 75.0) | |
| Needle used for vaccination | |||
| One needle per cow | 86 | 46.7 (16.7, 65.5) | 0.100* |
| One needle for more than one cow | 4 | 64.4 (50.5, 91.7) | |
| Colostrum feeding | |||
| No | 7 | 76.7 (60.0, 95.7) | 0.003* |
| From dam to calves | 63 | 42.1 (13.3, 60.0) | |
| Pooled | 20 | 50.0 (36.7, 75.8) | |
| Overall | 90 | 48.1 (17.1, 68.5) | |
1Interquartile range
2Mann--Whitney U-test for two-level variables or Kruskal--Wallis test for all others
*Incorporated into multivariate model
Results of the Mann--Whitney U-test or the Kruskal--Wallis test showed that cattle housing conditions, availability of own grazing area, presence of horseflies in summer, dehorning, use of a plastic sleeve for rectal palpation, not changing needles between animals during herd vaccination, and colostrum feeding were possibly associated with seroprevalence (p < 0.15). These seven variables were incorporated in the multivariate model.
Final logistic regression model with random herd effect for logit-transformed seroprevalence of BLV in Japan
| Variable | z-value | P of z-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | -0.36 | 0.59 | -0.62 | 0.54 |
| Housing conditions | ||||
| Tied system | Ref.3 | |||
| Loose system | 0.71 | 0.316 | 2.23 | 0.03 |
| Animal dehorning | ||||
| No | Ref. | |||
| Yes | 1.11 | 0.302 | 3.66 | 0.0002 |
| Presence of horseflies in summer | ||||
| Never or seldom | Ref. | |||
| Sometimes or often | -0.24 | 0.341 | -0.70 | 0.49 |
| Very high | 0.82 | 0.321 | 2.56 | 0.01 |
| Colostrum feeding | ||||
| No | Ref. | |||
| From dam to calves | -1.11 | 0.52 | -2.13 | 0.03 |
| Pooled | -0.90 | 0.55 | -1.65 | 0.10 |
1estimated coefficients, 2standard error for the coefficient, 3reference category
Standard deviation in mixing distribution = 1.054, Standard error = 0.099
Starting from the full model with seven variables selected by univariate analyses, the best model was constructed on the basis of AIC. The best model with the smallest AIC included housing system, dehorning, observable presence of horseflies, and direct colostrum feeding. The coefficients (β values) indicate that loose housing, dehorning, and observation of a large number of horseflies in summer were positively associated with seroprevalence on infected farms (β values > 0, p values < 0.05). In contrast, feeding of colostrum was negatively associated with seroprevalence in the infected farms (β = -1.11, p = 0.03)