13.07.2013 Views

an epidemiological study of listeriosis in dairy cattle

an epidemiological study of listeriosis in dairy cattle

an epidemiological study of listeriosis in dairy cattle

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

a) Type <strong>of</strong> forages: Feed<strong>in</strong>g maize silage (OR 1.97, CL 1.17-3.32) <strong>an</strong>d grass silage (OR<br />

not calculated) was associated with <strong>an</strong> <strong>in</strong>creased risk <strong>of</strong> report<strong>in</strong>g disease (Table 3. 14).<br />

b) Source <strong>of</strong> forages: Purchased grass silage was associated with <strong>an</strong> <strong>in</strong>creased risk <strong>of</strong><br />

disease (OR 2.62, CL 1.00-6.61) (Table 3. 14).<br />

c) Methods <strong>of</strong> feed<strong>in</strong>g forages;<br />

1) <strong>in</strong>door feed<strong>in</strong>g: Feed<strong>in</strong>g grass silage (OR 2.55, CL 1.51-4.32), maize silage (OR<br />

6.37, CL 2.42-17.19) <strong>an</strong>d hay (OR 4.86, CL 2.02-11.97) <strong>in</strong> r<strong>in</strong>g feeders was positively<br />

associated with disease. Feed<strong>in</strong>g maize silage ad libitum was also found to <strong>in</strong>crease the<br />

risk <strong>of</strong> report<strong>in</strong>g disease (OR 3.57, CL 0.96-12.74). Feed<strong>in</strong>g hay on the floor was<br />

negatively associated with disease (OR 0.0, CL 0.0-0.95) (Table 3. 14).<br />

(iii) Mak<strong>in</strong>g forage crops:<br />

a) Type <strong>of</strong> harvesters: Us<strong>in</strong>g a mower conditioner for mak<strong>in</strong>g grass silage was<br />

associated with <strong>an</strong> <strong>in</strong>creased risk <strong>of</strong> disease (OR 1.91, CL 1.10-3.35) (Table 3. 14).<br />

b) Storage: Preserv<strong>in</strong>g grass silage as big bales (OR 2.00, CL 1.13-3.57) <strong>an</strong>d stor<strong>in</strong>g<br />

hay outside covered (OR 6.86, CL 1.22-35.41) were found to <strong>in</strong>crease the risk <strong>of</strong><br />

report<strong>in</strong>g disease (Table 3. 14).<br />

c) Analysis <strong>of</strong> forages: There was <strong>an</strong> association between <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g pH <strong>an</strong>d <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g<br />

risk <strong>of</strong> disease reported <strong>in</strong> w<strong>in</strong>ter months, as the pH value <strong>in</strong>creased the risk <strong>of</strong> report<strong>in</strong>g<br />

disease also <strong>in</strong>creased (Table 3. 13).<br />

85

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!