Control of bovine fasciolosis in dairy cattle in Switzerland with emphasis on pasture management.
ABSTRACT Thirty-two dairy cattle farms with fasciolosis as an established herd problem were visited and divided into groups according to the location of the habitats of the intermediate host of Fasciola hepatica. The farms were revisited 4-5 years later and those that had followed the recommended measures were compared to those that had not. Egg shedding and seroprevalence was significantly reduced in cows on farms complying with the control recommendations but was not reduced on farms that had not complied.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In this study 595 lactating cows originating from 31 carinthian farms were investigated in accordance of liver fluke infection using individual and tank milk as well as individual blood and faecal samples. Two commercial ELISAs were used to test the milk and blood serum, and the results were compared with coproscopy and a commercial copro-antigen ELISA. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) and two-graph operating characteristics (TG ROC) of tank milk results were conducted based on the individual milk to determine the minimum reliable in-herd antibody prevalence for the predominant condition in the investigation area. In 17.8% of the examined individuals located in 64.5% of the farms eggs were detected by coproscopy. The copro-antigen ELISA delivered 13.4% positive individuals from 54.8% of the farms. The milk ELISAs showed 42.7% (Euroclone) and 44.2% (Pourquier) positive cows on 90.3% of the farms. The blood samples were positive in 43% (Euroclone) and 45.2% (Pourquier) of the individuals from 90.3% to 96.8% of the herds, respectively. Based on the milk and the blood an average in-herd prevalence of 30-45% can be assumed. The serum and milk samples delivered correlating results with kappa values between 0.94 and 0.97, whereas the coproscopy and copro-antigen ELISA did not correlate well with the ELISA results. The two different ELISA tests highly correlated on individual and on herd level. Both showed a reliable minimum in-herd prevalence of ∼20%, meaning that one fifth of the individuals in a herd have to be positive to obtain a positive bulk tank milk result. In the investigated area a higher in-herd prevalence is expected, therefore the tank milk is useful as a monitoring tool and can be used as a basis for intervention strategies.Veterinary Parasitology 01/2011; 178(3-4):273-8. · 2.38 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: SUMMARY A total of 20 749 bulk tank milk (BTM) samples was collected in November 2008 from all over Germany, corresponding to 20·9% of all German dairy herds. The BTM samples were analysed for antibodies against Fasciola hepatica using the excretory-secretory (ES) ELISA. A geospatial map was drawn to show herd prevalences per postal code area. Various spatial risk factors were tested for potential statistical associations with the ELISA results in logistic regression supported by a geographical information system (GIS). The mean seroprevalence was 23·6% and prevalences in different German federal states varied between 2·6% and 38·4%. GIS analysis revealed statistically significant positive associations between the proportion of grassed area and water bodies per postal code area and positive BTM ELISA results. This can be explained by the biology of the intermediate host, the amphibious snail Galba (Lymnea) truncatula and the pasture-borne nature of fasciolosis. The full logistic regression model had a Pseudo-R 2 of 22%, while the final model obtained by controlled stepwise model building revealed a Pseudo-R 2 of 14%, indicating that additional, unrecorded factors and random effects contributed substantially to the occurrence of positive ELISA results. Considering the high seroprevalences in some areas and the economic impact of fasciolosis, farmers and veterinarians should be strongly advised to implement effective liver fluke control programmes.Parasitology 07/2013; 140(8):1051-60. · 2.36 Impact Factor
- Gastroenterology 01/2011; 140(5). · 12.82 Impact Factor