Prevalence of and risk factors for paratuberculosis in purebred beef cattle.

Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA.
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (Impact Factor: 1.67). 04/2005; 226(5):773-8. DOI: 10.2460/javma.2005.226.773
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To estimate the prevalence of paratuberculosis in purebred beef cattle in Texas and identify risk factors for seropositivity.
Epidemiologic survey.
4,579 purebred cattle from 115 beef ranches in Texas.
Blood was collected, and serum was analyzed for antibodies with a commercial ELISA. Fecal samples were collected and frozen at -80 degrees C until results of the ELISA were obtained, and feces from seropositive cattle were submitted for mycobacterial culture. Herd owners completed a survey form on management factors.
Results of the ELISA were positive for 137 of the 4,579 (3.0%) cattle, and 50 of the 115 (43.8%) herds had at least 1 seropositive animal. Results of mycobacterial culture were positive for 10 of the 137 (7.3%) seropositive cattle, and 9 of the 50 (18%) seropositive herds had at least 1 animal for which results of mycobacterial culture were positive. Risk factors for seropositivity included water source, use of dairy-type nurse cows, previous clinical signs of paratuberculosis, species of cattle (Bos taurus vs Bos indicus), and location.
Results suggested that seroprevalence of paratuberculosis among purebred beef cattle in Texas may be greater than seroprevalence among beef cattle in the United States as a whole; however, this difference could be attributable to breed or regional differences in infection rates or interference by cross-reacting organisms. Veterinarians should be aware of risk factors for paratuberculosis as well as the possibility that unexpected serologic results may be found in some herds.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Paratuberculosis (Johne's disease), a chronic wasting disease caused by Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis (MAP), is a major cause of economic loss in the cattle industry. In Korea, national monitoring of breeding stock for MAP has been implemented. In this study, we report the results of serological testing to determine the prevalence of MAP in breeding stock of Korean native and dairy cattle during 2008 and 2009. A total of 3,927 serum samples were submitted (3,692 Korean native cattle and 235 dairy cattle) to Animal Disease Diagnostic Division, Animal, Plant and Fisheries Quarantine and Inspection Agency. The samples were classified into four different age groups for MAP; group 1 ( year, n = 1,509), group 2 (>2 years to years, n = 486), group 3 (>3 years to years, n = 441), and group 4 (>4 years, n = 1,491). Overall seroprevalence of MAP in this study was 0.5% (21/3,927), which was much lower than that of conventional cattle (1.2-16.4%) in Korea. Also, the seroprevalence was determined by age groups: three of group 1 (0.2%), two of group 2 (0.4%), three of group 3 (0.7%), and 13 of group 4 (0.9%) were seropositive for MAP, respectively. Although seropositive samples were found in all age groups, the seroprevalence tended to increase with age. Our study showed that the seroprevalence of MAP in pure-bred breeding dairy cattle (0%) was lower than that in pure-bred breeding Korean native cattle (0.6%).
    06/2012; 22(6). DOI:10.5352/JLS.2012.22.6.794
  • Decision and Control, 1985 24th IEEE Conference on; 01/1985
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Efforts to educate producers and veterinarians in the United States regarding the management, prevention and control of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis (MAP) infection have increased over recent years. While nationwide awareness about MAP infection is improving, current level of awareness among beef producers and veterinarians is largely unknown. This study compares the perceptions of beef producers and veterinarians on the burden of MAP infection in cow-calf herds and on measures to control new infections. Questionnaires were mailed to 989 US beef producers through state Designated Johne's Coordinators and to 1080 bovine veterinarians belonging to a US nationwide professional association. Twenty-two percent (34/155) of producers reported having infected animals in their herds. The mean (minimum, median, maximum) prevalence reported by producers was 0.8% (0, 0, 10). Twenty-seven percent (27/100) of producers had at least one clinical animal during the previous year. Compared to the small herds (<50 head), the mean test-positive percentages and estimated prevalences were higher in medium (50-149) and highest in large (>=150) herds. Seedstock herds had a lower prevalence and these producers were more likely to enroll in Johne's disease (JD) control programs and test their herds. Veterinarians reported a mean overall animal level prevalence in their client herds of 5% (0, 2, 60). Similarly, 26% (0, 10, 100) of client herds had at least one infected animal. Mean percentage of infected cows within infected herds was 9% (0.01, 5, 80). Producers generally performed activities to control MAP transmission more frequently than perceived by veterinarians. Compared to veterinarians' opinions, producers were less likely to cull cows with signs consistent with JD (P < 0.01), but more likely to test purchased additions (P < 0.01). Testing recommendations by veterinarians (n = 277) for beef cow-calf herds were bacterial culture of feces (3%), PCR (14%), ELISA (35%) and a combination of these tests (47%). Seventy-nine percent of veterinarians recommended a 12-month interval between testing. Seedstock producers who had had JD risk assessments performed on their farms were more supportive of JD control programs and had a correspondingly lower prevalence. It is important to increase educational activities to provide relevant information to veterinarians and producers for better management and control of JD. Educational programs should target larger herds to maximize the impact.
    BMC Veterinary Research 01/2014; 10(1):27. DOI:10.1186/1746-6148-10-27 · 1.74 Impact Factor