Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T22:20:04.069Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paratuberculosis: decrease in milk production of German Holstein dairy cows shedding Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis depends on within-herd prevalence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2014

K. Donat ,
A. Soschinka ,
G. Erhardt  and
H. R. Brandt
K. Donat*
Affiliation:
Animal Health Service, Thuringian Animal Diseases Fund, Victor-Goerttler-Str. 4, D-07745, Jena, Germany
A. Soschinka
Affiliation:
Animal Health Service, Thuringian Animal Diseases Fund, Victor-Goerttler-Str. 4, D-07745, Jena, Germany
G. Erhardt
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Justus-Liebig-University, Ludwigstraße 21b, D-35390, Gießen, Germany
H. R. Brandt
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Justus-Liebig-University, Ludwigstraße 21b, D-35390, Gießen, Germany
*
†E-mail: kdonat@thueringertierseuchenkasse.de
Get access

Abstract

Paratuberculosis impairs productivity of infected dairy cows because of reduced milk production and fertility and enhanced risk of culling. The magnitude of the milk yield depression in individual cows is influenced by factors such as parity, the stage of the disease and the choice of test used. The objectives of this case–control study were to substantiate the influence of the different levels of the within-herd prevalence (WHP) on individual milk yield of fecal culture (FC)-positive cows (FC+) compared with FC-negative herd-mates (FC−), and to estimate the magnitude of the deviation of the milk yield, milk components and somatic cell count (SCC) in an FC-based study. Of a total of 31 420 cows from 26 Thuringian dairy herds tested for paratuberculosis by FC, a subset of 1382 FC+ and 3245 FC− with milk recording data were selected as cases and controls, respectively. The FC− cows were matched for the same number and stage of lactation (±10 days in milk) as one FC+ from the same herd. Within a mixed model analysis using the fixed effects of Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis (MAP) status, lactation number, days in milk, prevalence class of farm and the random effect of farm on milk yield per day (kg), the amount of fat and protein (mg/dl) and lactose (mg/dl) as well as the SCC (1000/ml) were measured. On the basis of least square means, FC+ cows had a lower test-day milk yield (27.7±0.6 kg) compared with FC− (29.0±0.6 kg), as well as a lower milk protein content and a slightly diminished lactose concentration. FC status was not associated with milk fat percentage or milk SCC. In FC+ cows, reduction in milk yield increased with increasing WHP. An interaction of FC status and farm was found for the test-day milk yield, and milk protein percentage, respectively. We conclude that the reduction in milk yield of FC+ cows compared with FC− herd-mates is significantly influenced by farm effects and depends on WHP class. Owners of MAP-positive dairy herds may benefit from the reduction in WHP not only by reducing number of infected individuals but also by diminishing the individual losses in milk production per infected cow, and therefore should establish control measures.

Keywords

paratuberculosiswithin-herd prevalencedairy cowmilk yield
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 5 , May 2014 , pp. 852 - 858
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aly, SS, Anderson, RJ, Adaska, JM, Jiang, J and Gardner, IA 2010. Association between Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis infection and milk production in two California dairies. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 1030–1040.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baptista, FM, Nielsen, SS and Toft, N 2008. Association between the presence of antibodies to Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis and somatic cell count. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 109–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beaudeau, F, Belliard, M, Ljoly, A and Seegers, H 2007. Reduction in milk yield associated with Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis (MAP) infection in dairy cows. Veterinary Research 38, 625–634.Google Scholar
Chi, L, VanLeeuwen, JA, Weersink, A and Keefe, GP 2002. Direct production losses and treatment costs from Bovine Viral Diarrhoea Virus, Bovine Leukosis Virus, Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis, and Neospora caninum . Preventive Veterinary Medicine 55, 137–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, MT and Nordlund, K 1991. Milk production levels in cows ELISA positive for serum antibodies to M. paratuberculosis. Proceedings of the 3rd International Colloquium on Paratuberculosis, 28 September–2 October, Orlando, FL, USA, pp. 401–409.Google Scholar
Collins, MT, Eggleston, V and Manning, EJ 2010. Successful control of Johne’s disease in nine dairy herds: results of a six-year field trial. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 1638–1643.Google Scholar
Coussens, PM 2001. Mycobacterium paratuberculosis and the bovine immune system. Animal Health Research Reviews 2, 141–161.Google Scholar
Englund, S, Ballagi-Pordaný, A, Boelska, G and Johansson, KE 1999. Single PCR and nested PCR with a mimic molecule for detection of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis . Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease 33, 163–171.Google Scholar
Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut 2012. Amtliche Methodensammlung des Friedrich-Loeffler-Instituts. Retrieved November 21, 2012, from http://www.fli.bund.de/fileadmin/dam_uploads/Publikationen/Amtliche_Methodensammlung/Methodensammlung_201204.pdf Google Scholar
Gonda, MG, Kirkpatrick, BW, Shook, GE and Collins, MT 2007. Identification of a QTL on BTA20 affecting susceptibility to Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis infection in US Holsteins. Animal Genetics 38, 389–396.Google Scholar
Hendrick, SH, Kelton, DF, Leslie, KE, Lissemore, KD, Archambault, M and Duffield, TF 2005. Effect of paratubcerculosis on culling, milk production, and milk quality in dairy herds. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 227, 1302–1308.Google Scholar
Johnson, YT, Kaneene, JB, Gardiner, JC, Lloyd, JW, Sprecher, DJ and Coe, PH 2001. The effect of subclinical Mycobacterium paratuberculosis infection on milk production in Michigan dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 2188–2194.Google Scholar
Kudahl, A, Nielsen, SS and Sørensen, JT 2004. Relationship between antibodies against Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis in milk and shape of lactation curves. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 62, 119–134.Google Scholar
Lombard, JE, Garry, FB, McCluskey, BJ and Wagner, BA 2005. Risk of removal and effects on milk production associated with paratuberculosis status in dairy cows. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 227, 1975–1981.Google Scholar
Lombard, JE, Gardner, IA, Jafarzadeh, SR, Fossler, CP, Harris, B, Capsel, RT, Wagner, BA and Johnson, WO 2013. Herd-level prevalence of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis infection in United States dairy herds in 2007. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 108, 234–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKenna, SL, Keefe, GP, Tiwari, A, VanLeeuwen, J and Barkema, HW 2006. Johne’s disease in Canada part II: disease impact, risk factors, and control programs for dairy producers. Canadian Veterinary Journal 47, 1089–1099.Google Scholar
McNab, WB, Meek, AH, Martin, SW and Duncan, JR 1991. Associations between dairy production indices and lipoarabinomannan enzyme-immunoassay results for paratuberculosis. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research 55, 356–361.Google Scholar
Merkal, RS, Larsen, AB and Booth, GD 1975. Analysis of the effect of inapparent bovine paratuberculosis. American Journal of Veterinary Research 36, 837–838.Google Scholar
Mortier, RA, Barkema, HW, Bystrom, JM, Illanes, O, Orsel, K, Wolf, R, Atkins, G and De Buck, J 2013. Evaluation of age-dependent susceptibility in calves infected with two doses of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis using pathology and tissue culture. Veterinary Research 44, 94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, SS and Toft, N 2009. A review of prevalences of paratuberculosis in farmed animals in Europe. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 88, 1–14.Google Scholar
Nordlund, KV, Goodger, WJ, Petetier, J and Collins, MT 1996. Associations between subclinical paratuberculosis and milk production, milk components, and somatic cell counts in dairy herds. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 208, 1872–1876.Google Scholar
Ott, SL, Wells, SJ and Wagner, BA 1999. Herd-level economic losses associated with Johne’s disease on US dairy operations. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 40, 179–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pillars, RB, Bolton, MW and Grooms, DL 2011. Case-control study: productivity and longevity of dairy cows that tested positive for infection with Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis as heifers compared to age-matched controls. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 2825–2831.Google Scholar
Raizman, EA, Fetrow, JP and Wells, SJ 2009. Loss of income from cows shedding Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis prior to calving compared with cows not shedding the organism on two Minnesota dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 4929–4936.Google Scholar
Raizman, EA, Fetrow, JP, Wells, SJ, Godden, SM, Oakes, MJ and Vazquez, G 2007a. The association between Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis fecal shedding or clinical Johne’s disease and lactation performance on two Minnesota, USA dairy farms. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 78, 179–195.Google Scholar
Raizman, EA, Wells, SJ, Godden, SM, Fetrow, JP and Oakes, MJ 2007b. The association between culling due to clinical Johne’s disease or the detection of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis fecal shedding and the diagnosis of clinical or subclinical diseases in two dairy herds in Minnesota, USA. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 80, 166–178.Google Scholar
Smith, RL, Grohn, YT, Pradhan, AK, Whitlock, RH, Van Kessel, JS, Smith, JM, Wolfgang, DR and Schukken, YH 2009. A longitudinal study on the impact of Johne’s disease status on milk production in individual cows. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 2653–2661.Google Scholar
Sorge, US, Lissemore, K, Godkin, A, Hendrick, S, Wells, S and Kelton, D 2011. Associations between paratuberculosis milk ELISA result, milk production, and breed in Canadian dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 754–761.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sweeney, RW, Collins, MT, Koets, AP, McGuirk, SM and Roussel, AJ 2012. Paratuberculosis (Johne’s disease) in cattle and other susceptible species. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 26, 1239–1250.Google Scholar
Tiwari, A, Van Leeuwen, JA, McKenna, LB, Keefe, GP and Barkema, HW 2006. Johne’s disease in Canada part I: clinical symptoms, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and prevalence in dairy herds. Canadian Veterinary Journal 47, 874–882.Google Scholar
Villarino, MA, Scott, HM and Jordan, ER 2011. Influence of parity at time of detection of serologic antibodies to Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis on reduction in daily and lifetime milk production in Holstein cows. Journal of Animal Science 89, 267–276.Google Scholar
Whitlock, RH and Buergelt, C 1996. Preclinical and clinical manifestations of paratuberculosis (including pathology). Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice 12, 345–356.Google Scholar
Wilson, DJ, Rossiter, C, Han, HR and Sears, PM 1993. Association of Mycobacterium paratuberculosis infection with reduced mastitis, but with decreased milk production and increased cull rate in clinically normal dairy cows. American Journal of Veterinary Research 54, 1851–1857.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Donat supplementary material

Donat supplementary material

Download Donat supplementary material(File)
File 33 KB