12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Seroprevalence of Major Pasture-Borne Parasitoses (Gastrointestinal Nematodes, Liver Flukes and Lungworms) in German Dairy Cattle Herds, Association with Management Factors and Impact on Production Parameters

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Simple Summary

          Pasture-borne worm infections impact cattle health and productivity worldwide. The present study assessed exposure of dairy cattle herds to the three most important pastural parasites, i.e., gastrointestinal worms, liver flukes and lungworms, in three parts of Germany by measuring antibodies in bulk tank milk samples. The results show a high level of exposure to gastrointestinal worms, while antibodies against liver flukes were less frequently detected and lungworm-positive herds were rare. Regional and breed differences regarding parasite exposure were detected. In addition, the presence of antibodies was associated with access to fresh grass, access to hay, silage quality and deworming frequency. Furthermore, parasite exposure was significantly associated with a poor body condition across all regions. Parasite-exposed cows of high-performance breeds also produced on average less milk per year than dual-purpose breeds.

          Abstract

          Pasture-borne parasites adversely affect bovine health and productivity worldwide. In Europe, gastrointestinal nematodes, especially Ostertagia ostertagi, the liver fluke Fasciola hepatica and the lungworm Dictyocaulus viviparus represent the most important parasites of dairy cattle. The present study assessed exposure towards these parasites among 646 cattle herds in three parts of Germany during 2017–2019 via antibody detection in bulk tank milk (BTM). Overall, O. ostertagi levels indicative of production losses were detected in 41.2% (266/646; 95% confidence interval (CI): 37.4–45.1%) of BTM samples, while F. hepatica seroprevalence amounted to 14.9% (96/646; 95% CI: 12.2–17.9%). Only 2.3% (15/646; 95% CI: 1.4–3.9%) of samples were D. viviparus antibody-positive. Significantly lower O. ostertagi as well as F. hepatica seroprevalence was detected in dual-purpose breeds compared to high-performance breeds from the same region. Management factors related to parasite exposure included access to fresh grass and hay, silage quality and anthelmintic treatment. Furthermore, F. hepatica and O. ostertagi seropositivity was significantly associated with suboptimal herd-level body condition. Interestingly, the relationship between seropositivity and productivity differed between breed types. Negative impacts on milk yield were detected only in high-performance breeds, while O. ostertagi seropositivity was associated with a lower milk fat content in dual-purpose herds.

          Related collections

          Most cited references59

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          A Body Condition Scoring Chart for Holstein Dairy Cows

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance.

            Lameness has contributed to reproductive inefficiency and increased the risk of culling in dairy cows. We developed a 5-point lameness scoring system that assessed gait and placed a novel emphasis on back posture. Our objective was to determine if this system predicted future reproductive performance and the risk of culling. The study was conducted at a commercial dairy farm with a history of declining reproductive efficiency and an increasing prevalence of lameness. A total of 66 primipara and pluripara calved, received an initial lameness score, and completed their 60-d voluntary waiting period. The overall prevalence of lameness (mean lameness score >2) was 65.2%. Scoring continued at 4-wk intervals and ceased with conception or culling. The percentage of cows confirmed pregnant and culled was 77.3 and 22.7, respectively. For each reproductive endpoint, a 2 x 2 table was constructed with lameness score >2 as the positive risk factor and either performance greater than the endpoint mean or being culled as the positive disease or condition. Positive and negative predictive values, relative risk, Chisquare statistic and regression analysis were used to evaluate the data. The positive predictive values for days to first service, days open, breeding herd days, services per pregnancy and being culled were 58, 68, 65, 39 and 35%, respectively. Similarly, the negative predictive values were 79, 96, 100, 96 and 100%, respectively. Except for one reproductive endpoint, the total number of services, all linear regressions were significant at P 2 predicted that a cow would have extended intervals from calving to first service and to conception, spend or be assigned to (explained herein) more total days in the breeding herd, require more services per pregnancy and be 8.4 times more likely to be culled. We believe that this lameness scoring system effectively identifies lame cows. Observation of the arched-back posture in a standing cow (> or =LS 3) should trigger corrective interventions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Research Commentary—Too Big to Fail: Large Samples and thep-Value Problem

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Role: Academic Editor
                Role: Academic Editor
                Role: Academic Editor
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Animals (Basel)
                Animals (Basel)
                animals
                Animals : an Open Access Journal from MDPI
                MDPI
                2076-2615
                12 July 2021
                July 2021
                : 11
                : 7
                : 2078
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Infection Medicine, Institute for Parasitology, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, 30559 Hanover, Germany; andrea.springer@ 123456tiho-hannover.de (A.S.); daniela.jordan@ 123456tiho-hannover.de (D.J.)
                [2 ]Department of Biometry, Epidemiology and Information Processing (IBEI), WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training for Health at the Human-Animal-Environment Interface, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, 30559 Hanover, Germany; alina.kirse@ 123456tiho-hannover.de (A.K.); bettina.schneider@ 123456tiho-hannover.de (B.S.); amely.campe@ 123456tiho-hannover.de (A.C.)
                [3 ]Clinic for Ruminants with Ambulatory and Herd Health Services, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich, 85764 Oberschleißheim, Germany; gknubben@ 123456med.vetmed.uni-muenchen.de
                [4 ]Clinic for Ruminants and Swine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Free University of Berlin, 14163 Berlin, Germany; Kerstin-Elisabeth.Mueller@ 123456fu-berlin.de
                [5 ]Clinic for Cattle, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, 30173 Hanover, Germany; martina.hoedemaker@ 123456tiho-hannover.de
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: christina.strube@ 123456tiho-hannover.de ; Tel.: +49-511-9538711
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0051-9086
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0907-6023
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8154-2642
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9093-1006
                Article
                animals-11-02078
                10.3390/ani11072078
                8300236
                34359205
                a3fb6490-ee9f-4cc0-a661-a5aed07c4d00
                © 2021 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 28 June 2021
                : 09 July 2021
                Categories
                Article

                ostertagia ostertagi,trichostrongyles,fasciola hepatica,dictyocaulus viviparus,bovine lungworm,bulk tank milk,elisa,prevalence,milk production,germany

                Comments

                Comment on this article