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.

<strong>listeriosis</strong>. Maize silage feed<strong>in</strong>g also <strong>in</strong>creased the risk <strong>of</strong> disease <strong>in</strong> <strong>dairy</strong> <strong>cattle</strong> <strong>an</strong>d the<br />

Odds Ratio for this variable was 2.4 (95% CL 1.50-3.85). There was also a statistically<br />

signific<strong>an</strong>t association between feed<strong>in</strong>g straw when <strong>an</strong>imals were housed <strong>an</strong>d a<br />

decreased risk <strong>of</strong> report<strong>in</strong>g disease <strong>in</strong> <strong>dairy</strong> <strong>cattle</strong> (OR 0.38, 95% CL 0.18-0.78). (Table<br />

3. 3).<br />

When the <strong>in</strong>dividual types <strong>of</strong> straw (barley, wheat, wheat <strong>an</strong>d barley <strong>an</strong>d the<br />

comb<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>of</strong> wheat, barley, oat <strong>an</strong>d pea) or root crops (beet type, potatoes, brassica<br />

type, kale <strong>an</strong>d others) were taken <strong>in</strong>to consideration there was no association between<br />

these <strong>an</strong>d the occurrence <strong>of</strong> <strong>listeriosis</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>dairy</strong> <strong>cattle</strong>.<br />

b) Sources <strong>of</strong> forage: Farmers were given three alternative sources <strong>of</strong> forage; purchased,<br />

home made <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>y other sources. There was a statistically signific<strong>an</strong>t association<br />

between purchased grass silage (OR 2.91, CL 1.22-6.8) <strong>an</strong>d <strong>in</strong>creased risk <strong>of</strong> report<strong>in</strong>g<br />

Listeriosis (Table 3. 3).<br />

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

1) outdoor feed<strong>in</strong>g: Feed<strong>in</strong>g maize silage (OR 1.35, CL 1.59-13.04), hay (OR 2.98, CL<br />

1.12-8.23) <strong>an</strong>d straw (OR 3.72, CL 1.25-11.88) <strong>in</strong> r<strong>in</strong>g feeders when <strong>an</strong>imals were out<br />

were associated with <strong>an</strong> <strong>in</strong>creased risk <strong>of</strong> disease (Table 3. 3).<br />

2) <strong>in</strong>door feed<strong>in</strong>g: Two methods (feed<strong>in</strong>g forages <strong>in</strong> r<strong>in</strong>g feeders <strong>an</strong>d on the floor) were<br />

associated with disease. Feed<strong>in</strong>g grass silage (OR 1.93, CL 1.21-3.07), maize silage<br />

(OR 4.96, CL 2.17-11.46) <strong>an</strong>d hay (OR 4.17, CL 1.83-9.61) <strong>in</strong> r<strong>in</strong>g feeders was<br />

positively associated with disease whereas feed<strong>in</strong>g grass silage (OR 0.23, CL 0.04-0.97)<br />

<strong>an</strong>d hay (OR 0.0, CL 0.0-0.85) on the floor was negatively associated with disease<br />

(Table 3. 3).<br />

75

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!