| Literature DB >> 23874552 |
Pengbo Ning1, Mancai Guo, Kangkang Guo, Lei Xu, Min Ren, Yuanyuan Cheng, Yanming Zhang.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lack of clear risk factor identification is the main reason for the persistence of brucellosis infection in the Chinese population, and there has been little assessment of the factors contributing to Brucella contamination of raw whole milk. The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors affecting Brucella contamination of raw milk, and to evaluate effective measures for disease reduction in order to determine preventive strategies. METHODS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23874552 PMCID: PMC3707899 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068230
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Comparison of our results with those from other studies.
| Location | Positive rate | Number ofpositive samples | Total numberof samples | Detection method | Reference |
| China | 1.07% | 56 | 5211 | Polymerase chain reaction | This work |
| Kenya | 0% | 0 | 130 | Milk ring test | Namanda AT |
| Egypt | 8.2% | 14 | 170 | Milk ring test | El-Kholy AM |
| Iraq | 10.0% | 12 | 120 |
| Abbas BA |
| Nigeria | 13.5% | 27 | 200 | Milk ring test | Bertu WJ |
| Iran | 25.2% | 1632 | 6472 | Milk ring test | Zowghi E |
| Tanzania | 55.9% | 33 | 59 | Milk ring test | Swai ES |
Different levels and definitions of risk factors for Brucella contamination of raw milk.
| Factors | Levels | Definitions |
| Feed pattern (A) | A1 | Intensive culture, feeding cows and milking by a unified management |
| A2 | Intensive culture, feeding cows and milking managed separately | |
| A3 | Scatter breeding, retailing management for milking | |
| Herd size (I) | I1 | Small farm (20–140) |
| I2 | Medium-sized farm (140–240) | |
| I3 | Large farm (>240) | |
| I4 | Farming spot (<20) | |
| Abortion rate (J) | J1 | <2.5% |
| J2 | 2.5%–5% | |
| J3 | >5% | |
| Animal polyculture (K) | K1 | No polyculture |
| K2 | Polyculture with small ruminant (goats and sheep) | |
| Introduction of new animals (L) | L1 | Mating within population, no Introduction |
| L2 | Introduction from abroad | |
| L3 | Introduction from domestic | |
| Hygiene | F1 | 3–4 indexes meet the requirements |
| F2 | 2 indexes meet the requirements | |
| F3 | 0–1 indexes meet the requirements | |
| Disease prevention and control measures (G) | G1 | Implementing standard vaccine immune by the monitoring policy |
| G2 | Culling after quarantine, no immunization | |
| G3 | Nonstandard immunization or culling implementation due to limited conditions | |
| G4 | Little immunization and quarantine | |
| Infection history (H) | H1 | There used to be infected cows in the past |
| H2 | There were not infected cows in the past |
Hygienic indexes by Sanitary Specification for Dairy Farm (Chinese GB16568-2006): 1.environment and facilities; 2.forage; 3.milking; 4.feeding.
PCR positive rates of Brucella among interclass levels of risk factors for Brucella contamination of raw milk.
| A | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | |
| 1 | 0.12% | 0.04% | 0.15% | 1.02% | 0.10% | 0.08% | 0.27% | 0.23% |
| 2 | 0.10% | 0.17% | 0.10% | 0.06% | 0.02% | 0.15% | 0.81% | 0% |
| 3 | 0.86% | 0.86% | 0.83% | – | 0.12% | 0.84% | – | 0.84% |
| 4 | – | – | – | – | 0.84% | – | – | – |
Quantization for each level of risk factor.
| Factors | Levels | Quantization |
| Feed pattern (A) | A1 | A1 = 1, A2 = 0 |
| A2 | A1 = 0, A2 = 1 | |
| A3 | A1 = 0, A2 = 0 | |
| Herd size (I) | I1 | I1 = 1,I2 = 0,I3 = 0 |
| I2 | I1 = 0,I2 = 1,I3 = 0 | |
| I3 | I1 = 0,I2 = 0,I3 = 1 | |
| I4 | I1 = 0,I2 = 0,I3 = 0 | |
| Abortion rate (J) | J1 | J1 = 1,J2 = 0 |
| J2 | J1 = 0,J2 = 1 | |
| J3 | J1 = 0,J2 = 0 | |
| Animal polyculture (K) | K1 | K1 = 1 |
| K2 | K2 = 0 | |
| Introduction of new animals (L) | L1 | L1 = 1,L2 = 0 |
| L2 | L1 = 0,L2 = 1 | |
| L3 | L1 = 0,L2 = 0 | |
| Hygiene (F) | F1 | F1 = 1,F2 = 0 |
| F2 | F1 = 0,F2 = 1 | |
| F3 | F1 = 0,F2 = 0 | |
| Disease prevention and control measures (G) | G1 | G1 = 1,G2 = 0,G3 = 0 |
| G2 | G1 = 0,G2 = 1,G3 = 0 | |
| G3 | G1 = 0,G2 = 0,G3 = 1 | |
| G4 | G1 = 0,G2 = 0,G3 = 0 | |
| Infection history (H) | H1 | H1 = 1 |
| H2 | H1 = 0 |
Results of logistic regression analyses of risk factors associated with Brucella contamination of raw milk.
| Factors | Estimate value | Standard error | Wald value | Freedom degree | Significant level |
| J1 | −2.602 | 0.614 | 17.939 | 1 | 0.000 |
| K1 | −4.309 | 0.459 | 88.091 | 1 | 0.000 |
| G1 | 1.248 | 0.562 | 4.933 | 1 | 0.026 |
| Constant | −0.795 | 0.186 | 18.283 | 1 | 0.000 |
Effect decomposition of risk factors to reducing Brucella contamination for raw milk.
| Factors | Levels | Definitions | Relative effect value |
| Abortion rate (J) | J1 | <2.5% | 2.91933 |
| J2 | 2.5%–5% | −0.929667 | |
| J3 | >5% | −1.989667 | |
| Animal polyculture (K) | K1 | No polyculture | 2.1545 |
| K2 | Polyculture with small ruminants (goats and sheep) | −2.1545 | |
| Disease prevention and control measures (G) | G1 | Implementing standard vaccine immune by the monitoring policy | 2.2165 |
| G2 | Culling after quarantine, no immunization | 2.9085 | |
| G3 | Nonstandard immunization or culling implementation due to limited conditions | −1.8856 | |
| G4 | Little immunization and quarantine | −3.2394 |