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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

monocytogenes was also isolated from these samples with the exception <strong>of</strong> soil on<br />

farms A <strong>an</strong>d D <strong>an</strong>d water on farm D.<br />

Listeria spp. were isolated from bulk milk t<strong>an</strong>k on 4 <strong>of</strong> the 5 farms <strong>an</strong>d L.<br />

monocytogenes was isolated from 3 farms (Farm A, B <strong>an</strong>d D). L. monocytogenes was<br />

persistently isolated from the bulk milk t<strong>an</strong>k between October <strong>an</strong>d March on farm D.<br />

6. 3. 2. Serology<br />

The results <strong>of</strong> ELISA assays for each farm are presented <strong>in</strong> the appendix 6.<br />

There were only few <strong>an</strong>imals that were seronegative at the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the <strong>study</strong>. 0.9%<br />

(1/109), 1% (1/96) <strong>an</strong>d 1.6% (2/122) <strong>of</strong> <strong>an</strong>imals were seronegative on farms A, B <strong>an</strong>d D<br />

respectively. There were no seronegative <strong>an</strong>imals on farms C <strong>an</strong>d E. The number <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>an</strong>imals that had <strong>in</strong>creased or decreased level <strong>of</strong> <strong>an</strong>tibodies to L. monocytogenes is<br />

presented <strong>in</strong> the table 6. 17. A signific<strong>an</strong>t number <strong>of</strong> <strong>an</strong>imals had <strong>in</strong>creased <strong>an</strong>tibodies<br />

on the farm A after the first <strong>an</strong>d second sampl<strong>in</strong>g <strong>an</strong>d only few <strong>an</strong>imals were found to<br />

have <strong>in</strong>creased or decreased <strong>an</strong>tibodies on the other farms (Table 6.17).<br />

Table 6. 17. Antibody ch<strong>an</strong>ges dur<strong>in</strong>g the period <strong>of</strong> the <strong>study</strong><br />

difference between<br />

collections<br />

first <strong>an</strong>d second 32.9%<br />

(27/82) i<br />

second <strong>an</strong>d third 30.8%<br />

(24/78)i<br />

first <strong>an</strong>d third 42.8%<br />

(33/77)i<br />

Farm A Farm B Farm C Farm D Farm E<br />

1.4%<br />

(1/71)d<br />

1.4%<br />

(1/72)i<br />

1.5%<br />

(1/67)i<br />

3.8%<br />

(2/53)d<br />

15.4%<br />

(8/52)d<br />

9.4%<br />

(5/53)d<br />

9.1%<br />

(7/77)d<br />

5.2%<br />

(5/97)i<br />

1.6<br />

(1/64)d<br />

1.1%<br />

(1/87)i<br />

1.5%<br />

(1/65)d<br />

2.2%<br />

(2/93)d<br />

i number <strong>of</strong> <strong>an</strong>imals that had <strong>in</strong>creased <strong>an</strong>tibodies, d number <strong>of</strong> <strong>an</strong>imals that had decreased <strong>an</strong>tibodies<br />

6. 3. 3. RAPD:<br />

193

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!