Printer Friendly

Los parasitos en las granjas de ganado lechero en el sur de Brasil.

Parasites in dairy cattle farms in southern Brazil

INTRODUCCION

La industria de la leche es un componente importante de la agroindustria en el occidente de Santa Catarina, Brasil. A partir de esta actividad, el estado logro una importante contribucion al producto interno bruto (PIB) del estado de Santa Catarina, donde las agroindustriales de lacteos todavia desempenan un papel muy importante para el estado, y son responsables de la supervivencia de miles de familias en el campo y de la generacion de numerosos empleos directos e indirectos. Las manadas de control sanitario son por lo general ineficientes y pueden causar problemas en el sistema de produccion, ya que pueden ser causados por diversos agentes etiologicos, tales como virus, bacterias, hongos y parasitos (1,2). Los helmintos se encuentran entre algunas de las enfermedades que mas afectan la productividad ganadera en muchas regiones del mundo. En los anos 70, se estima que cada ano cerca de 10 millones de bovinos y bufalos murieron por consecuencias directa o indirectamente relacionadas con la presencia de helmintos (1). En la actualidad, se considera que se redujo el numero de animales con una afeccion fatal por parasitos, debido a programas estrategicos y nuevos medicamentos; aunque se aumento significativamente el diagnostico de helmintos resistentes al tratamiento (3). El dano causado por los endoparasitos puede producirse directa e indirectamente en el aumento de peso, la produccion de leche, los costos de antiparasitarios y la mortalidad (1-3).

Uno de los principales parasitos que afecta el rebano brasileno es la garrapata Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus, este es un ectoparasito que causa importantes perdidas economicas en el ganado domestico. Debido a su facilidad de reproduccion, causa molestias a los animales y puede tambien afectar el desarrollo del rebano y la produccion de carne y leche. Ademas, puede transmitir enfermedades como la babesiosis y la anaplasmosis, que pueden ocurrir simultaneamente y que por tanto es conocida como fiebre de garrapata en bovinos (3). Ademas del dano causado directamente al animal, la garrapata causa danos al productor debido al gasto indirecto de acaridae, la mano de obra y los equipos necesarios para la aplicacion de estos productos (4). Otro problema causado por las garrapatas se relaciona con el impacto ambiental generado por el uso indiscriminado de productos quimioterapicos. Con el tiempo, las dificultades en el control de los parasitos se incrementaron debido al aumento de la resistencia a la quimioterapia en su control y tratamiento, que a menudo resulta incontrolable. Asimismo, se han producido con el control de moscas, entre estos destaca la mosca domestica (a menudo relacionada con mastitis) y Haematobia irritans, un insecto hematofago que ha causado graves danos a la ganaderia (3,5).

En este estudio ofrecemos informacion acerca del Neospora caninum, el agente etiologico responsable de la neosporosis en el ganado bovino principalmente. Estudios recientes han demostrado que varias especies de animales domesticos pueden ser infectadas, como ovejas, caballos y cabras (3,6). La enfermedad en el ganado bovino se han asociado con signos clinicos como el aborto, absorcion, momificacion y nacimiento de terneros debiles (7), pero generalmente los becerros nacen sanos, pero infectados, porque el N. caninum puede ser transmitido congenitamente. La transmision horizontal, es decir, la ingestion de ooquistes en las heces de perro, ha sido mencionada como un factor de riesgo para la enfermedad (8).

Las garrapatas, helmintos y protozoos son responsables de enfermedades que causan problemas economicos a los productores de leche a nivel mundial debido a los costos de tratamiento y la reduccion en la produccion de leche (a menudo inadvertida). En Santa Catarina occidental, donde hay un gran numero de vacas lecheras, las investigaciones son limitadas. Por lo tanto, el objetivo de este estudio fue investigar la relacion entre el tipo y el tamano de las fincas con gestion de la produccion y especialmente la presencia de parasitos, mas alla de la identificacion de los factores de riesgo relacionados con la infeccion por N. caninum.

MATERIALES Y METODOS

Local: Predios investigados. En este estudio se analizaron 65 predios clasificados como especializada o semi-especializados (9), tomando muestras de 20 municipios en el oeste de Santa Catarina, Brasil (Figura 1). De estos, 56 pertenecian al sistema semi-extensivo (vacas en pastos), clasificados en este estudio como pequenos (Clase 1: n=15; hasta 15 vacas), medios (Clase 2: n=20; entre 16 y 30 vacas) y grandes (Clase 3: n=21; por encima de en 31 vacas). Como parte del estudio tambien se incluyeron nueve predios del sistema freestall (Clase 4: n=9; confinamiento, mas de 70 vacas). El estudio fue realizado entre noviembre de 2013 y febrero de 2014 utilizando un cuestionario para la recoleccion de datos con el fin de verificar las caracteristicas de los predios, asi como la gestion de la produccion y la salud (Tabla 1).

Recoleccion de muestras. La recoleccion de heces de 10 vacas asi como un tanque de leche a granel se realizo durante la visita a las fincas. Las heces fueron recogidas directamente del recto, asignadas a envases plasticos, identificadas y almacenadas en bolsas frias aisladas hasta su analisis en el laboratorio.

Analisis parasitologico de heces. En el laboratorio, las heces fueron procesadas mediante la tecnica de McMaster, usando una solucion sobresaturada de azucar para cuantificar el numero de huevos por gramo (HPG) de helmintos en las heces (3). Se realizo un grupo de heces de animales con EPG positiva de cada granja para llevar a cabo el cultivo de las larvas, el cual fue mantenido en una incubadora a temperatura y humedad constante para identificar los helmintos presentes en la granja.

Analisis serologico para Neospora caninum en tanque de leche a granel. La leche recogida del tanque de cada finca fue centrifugada a 7000 g por 10 minutos para obtener el suero de la leche. Asi, la presencia de anticuerpos contra N. caninum en la leche fue verificada mediante un ensayo de inmunofluorescencia indirecta (IFA) utilizando laminas hechas con el protozoario taquizoitos (10). Las muestras consideradas como positivas fueron aquellas en las que se observo fluorescencia completa de taquizoitos de N caninum, segun lo descrito por Camilo et al. (11). Para validar las pruebas, las muestras conocidas como positivas y negativas fueron utilizadas como control de reaccion.

Analisis de datos. La relacion entre el tamano de los predios para manejo reproductivo y la presencia de parasitos fue realizo unicamente de manera descriptiva, tratando de identificar las practicas de manejo y medidas de control sanitario de cada tipo de finca clasificada.

Anticuerpos contra Neospora caninum en la leche. Los datos generados por el cuestionario y por la prueba fueron registrados y analizados en el software estadistico R, version 3.1 (equipo R, 2012) y se elaboro un mapa usando Arc Map[R] version 3.2.1 (eSRI, Redlands, CA, EE.UU.). Se realizo estadistica descriptiva y tabulacion cruzada. En primer lugar las variables fueron analizadas con base en la variable de respuesta (positiva o negativa para Neosporosis), las variables con gran cantidad de datos faltantes (>10%) y variabilidad limitada (<20%) no fueron incluidas en el modelo multivariable. Las variables restantes fueron ingresadas individualmente en un modelo de regresion logistica univariable y fueron seleccionadas para su inclusion en el modelo multivariable si p<0.25. Posteriormente, todas las variables seleccionadas fueron sometidas a analisis de correlacion. La variable no colineal fue <0.7. Las interacciones entre todas las variables pares presentadas para el modelo final fueron examinadas y, en caso de ser significativas (p<0.05), fueron sometidas a mas analisis. Posteriormente, las variables seleccionadas (n=5), (Tabla 2) se incluyeron en el modelo multivariable. Los modelos multivariables fueron construidos mediante un metodo manual hacia adelante; cada variable restante fue agregada al mejor modelo anterior, seleccionado por el Criterio de Informacion de Akaike (AIC) y el Criterio de Informacion Bayesiano (BIC). Finalmente se utilizo un paso de eliminacion regresivo, dando por resultado un modelo final en donde solo se conservaron las variables con p<0.05. Los efectos confusos fueron investigados mediante la comprobacion de cambios en las estimaciones de las variables que se mantuvieron en el modelo. Los cambios en las estimaciones de parametros >25% fueron considerados como un factor de confusion, se encontro que la edad era un potencial factor de confusion y fue controlada durante la regresion. La bondad de ajuste del modelo final se evaluo mediante Hosmer-Lemeshow (12).

Heces parasitologicas. Para la obtencion de las variables EPG, estas fueron analizadas en primer lugar con base en el recuento de respuesta variable de Helmintos y Eimeria mediante estadistica descriptiva para la contingencia de la informacion y para supuestos adicionales y lo que se presenta como medida descriptiva corresponde a la media y desviacion estandar. La normalidad de la varianza de todas las variables fue analizada mediante la prueba de Shapiro-Wilk (13), la asimetria, curtosis y homogeneidad mediante la prueba de Levene (14) de manera previa al analisis de regresion lineal. El estadistico de Wald fue utilizado para evaluar la significancia de la asociacion (produccion por clase de finca; control de Gelmintos y conteo de EPG) y la variabilidad del modelo fue expresada mediante [R.sup.2].

RESULTADOS

Caracterizacion de la granja de gestion productiva. Los datos relativos a la gestion de la produccion de las cuatro clases divididas por tamano y sistema de gestion se presentaron en la tabla 1. Teniendo en cuenta el promedio entre los predios encuestados sin tener en cuenta el tamano y sistema de produccion, se encontro que el tiempo de trabajo en el negocio de lacteos era de 17.7 anos y la frecuencia del numero total de vacas y vacas lactantes fue de 53.3 y 38.2%, respectivamente. La produccion de leche promedio de los predios encuestados fue de 18.2 litros/dia. En los predios se encontro que la mano de obra utilizada en el ganado lechero era familiares (84.6%), tercerizada (6.15%) y mixta (9.23%--familia y tercerizada). En porcentajes, otros datos de interes relativos a las fincas estudiadas fueron los siguientes: cantidad por recibir (83.7%) y calidad de la leche (85.4%), inmersion previa (70.8%) e inmersion posterior (88.8%), prueba rapida de mastitis (66.3%), control de reproduccion (95%), uso de inseminacion artificial (86.2%), el uso de semen sexuado (18.4%), alimentacion comercial (86%) y ensilado (91.2%).

Relacion entre la finca y el control sanitario con enfasis en parasitos. Teniendo en cuenta que las clases 1, 2, 3 y 4 de las fincas (tamano y sistema) para manejo sanitario y parasitos fueron presentadas en la tabla 1. Si tenemos en cuenta las 65 granjas, sin evaluar la clase, se encontro que el 62.8% de las granjas habian presentado problemas reproductivos. En terminos porcentuales, tambien se identifico que las granjas investigadas contaban con un compostador para heces (58.8%), presencia de perros (86.7%), perros con acceso a comederos y alimento (60.5%), uso de acaridae para controlar garrapatas (73.2%), uso de antihelmintico (67%), rotacion de antiparasitarios en el control de los parasitos (57.4%), parasitologicos de heces con frecuencia (13.2%) y pruebas de resistencia (6.1%). Este estudio tambien identifico la ocurrencia de lesiones craneales a la ubre de la vaca, causada por el nematodo Stefenofilaria sp. (53.9%) y babesiosis y anaplasmosis bovina (55.1%). En la granja, en el dia de la visita, tambien se constato la presencia de moscas domesticas (Musca domestica) y moscas de los cuernos (Haematobia irritaos) en un 68.6% y 59.7%, respectivamente.

Parasitologico de heces. Los resultados de EPG y OOPG (ooquistes por gramo) segun la clasificacion de las granjas fueron presentados en la tabla 1. Entre las fincas investigadas, tan solo el 9.23% tuvieron un resultado negativo para parasitos en heces, es decir, ninguna de las vacas mostro huevos de helmintos y ooquistes de coccidios en las heces. Entre los animales que tuvieron unos resultados positivos para helmintos, se observo una variacion entre las vacas con 50-3650 EPG, pero en general y en un promedio de 25.6 EPG/animal. Sin embargo, el 80% de los animales tuvo un resultado positivo para EPG menor a 300. Entre los animales que resultaron positivos para coccidios, se detecto una variacion entre las vacas con 50-3050 OOPG, pero el promedio general fue de 16.7 OOPG/animal.

No se encontro ninguna asociacion significativa entre los conteos de EPG y (la produccion por clase de finca; control de Helmintos y conteo de OOPG). Tampoco se encontro ninguna asociacion significativa entre los conteos de OOPG y (la produccion por clase de finca; control de Helmintos y conteo de EPG). Los ooquistes en las heces fueron identificados como del genero Eimeria. Los huevos de helmintos identificados en las heces de los bovinos fueron de Trichostrongylus spp. (35.28%), Haemonchus spp (6.15%), Teladorsagia spp (1.53%), Oesophagostomun spp (1.53%). En el 33.84% de las fincas se encontraron infecciones mixtas por dos o tres helmintos.

Anticuerpos contra N. caninum en la leche. Los anticuerpos en las granjas lecheras fueron detectados en 36 fincas (55%; [CI.sub.95%] 42-67) (Figura 1). Si tenemos en cuenta la clasificacion de la granja, se encontro una mayor ocurrencia en las fincas de la clase 1 (Tabla 2). En este estudio, se observo una asociacion significativa entre los siguientes factores: clasificacion de las granjas (pequena, mediana, grande, freestall); concentrado para el ganado y acceso de perros al almacenaje local de los insumos suministrados a los animales con las granjas con resultados positivos para neosporosis. Las fincas medianas y grandes tenian un mayor riesgo de infeccion por N. caninum (PR=5.86-[IC.sub.95%]:1.33-25.72) y (PR=8.32-[IC.sub.95%]:1.95-35.40), respectivamente. Tambien se identifico que el riesgo de infeccion por N. caninum se encuentra relacionado con el suministro de concentrado y el acceso de perros a las existencias de alimento (PR=6.67-[IC.sub.95%]: 1.35-32.88) y (PR=4.51-[IC.sub.95%]: 1.56-13.00), respectivamente (Tabla 3).

DISCUSION

La clasificacion de la granja por el numero de vacas lecheras para verificar la diferencia numerica con respecto a la gestion, produccion y control sanitario, es algo esperado debido a los diferentes grados de mejora tecnologica. Por ejemplo, los niveles de proteina y grasa en la leche son mas pequenos en fincas que tienen un mayor nivel de tecnologia de produccion, pero a cambio estas granjas tienen un menor numero de recuento de celulas somaticas (SCC) y recuento bacteriano total (TBC) (9). La explicacion de este comportamiento puede deberse a la mejora en la nutricion de los animales y el uso de razas especializadas con el aumento correspondiente en los niveles de produccion. Otro punto relacionado con la produccion es practicas higienicas en la finca, observadas en este estudio en un porcentaje considerable (prueba de inmersion previa, inmersion posterior y mastitis); sin embargo, estas practicas fueron inferiores en granjas de pequeno y mediano tamano (clase 1 y 2) del sistema extensivo. Segun Simioni et al (9) y Martins et al (15), en granjas especializadas, el ganado lechero muestra una mayor importancia economica, alentando a los agricultores a adoptar practicas de higiene adecuadas durante el ordeno y la reproduccion de la manada; similar a lo observado en este estudio.

Los ectoparasitos son factores que tambien pueden causar perdidas en la produccion de leche, y en las granjas visitaron los principales ectoparasitos identificados fueron moscas (Musca domestica y Haematobia irritans) y garrapatas (Rhipicephalus microplus). Estas moscas pueden causar dermatitis cronica en los bovinos (mosca de los cuernos), asi como servir de vectores para bacterias causantes de mastitis (16) y nematodos que causan la stefanofilariosis, las cuales se caracterizan por lesiones cutaneas y craneales a la glandula mamaria de la vaca, producidas por el genero Stephanofilaria (17), observado en este estudio, en un alto porcentaje (56%) de fincas investigadas. Aproximadamente el 62% de las granjas se enfrentan a graves problemas de brotes de moscas durante el ano, independiente de la clase 1 a 4 en este estudio. La presencia de compostadores puede ayudar en el control de las moscas (3), pero son utilizados por tan solo el 60% de las granjas en el oeste del estado de Santa Catarina.

Segun la literatura, las garrapatas son los ectoparasitos mas importantes para la ganaderia lechera, y aproximadamente el 75% de la poblacion de ganado es afectada por este parasito. Las regiones tropicales y subtropicales resultan favorables para el desarrollo de las garrapatas (4), las cuales corresponden a la region objetivo de este estudio. Ademas del dano directo para el animal, las garrapatas transmiten Babesia spp y Anaplasma spp (3), los cuales son responsables de causar una de las enfermedades mas comunes (tristeza parasitaria bovina) en vacas lecheras en los estados brasilenos. En este estudio esto no fue diferente, se encontro que el 58% de las fincas tienen casos anuales de babesiosis y anaplasmosis, independientemente de la clasificacion dada en el presente estudio. La enfermedad es una de las mayores perdidas economicas debido a problemas sanitarios en el ganado debido a los costos del tratamiento, las altas tasas de mortalidad y morbilidad, asi como reduccion en la produccion de carne y/o leche (3,18). La mayoria de las granjas investigadas hacen uso de antiparasitarios para el control de las garrapatas, y tan solo el 16% de las granjas no tienen ningun control para las garrapatas, porque segun los productores, el grado de infestacion es bajo. Esto puede explicarse por que estas granjas tienen un sistema de pastoreo rotacional o por que los animales se encuentran en confinamiento (freestall), lo que reduce las posibilidades de desarrollo del parasito y el contacto con los animales.

La EPG es considerada como baja en general, segun lo observado por Pasetti et al (2), sin embargo, el numero de animales infectados fue superior en el estudio actual. Se identificaron Helmintos del orden Strongylida, siendo el Trichostrongylus spp. el mas frecuente (35.28%), de forma similar a lo observado en el estado de Minas Gerais por Araujo (19) en vacas lecheras. En este estudio, se encontro que aproximadamente el 72% de los agricultores realizan rutinariamente un tratamiento antihelmintico, generalmente en el periodo seco, ya que tiene un efecto preventivo. A pesar de la presencia de ooquistes de Eimeria spp. en heces del ganado, no se realiza ningun tratamiento para la coccidiosis, pero segun la literatura la infeccion provoca la destruccion de las celulas intestinales y por lo tanto interfiere con la absorcion de nutrientes (3).

Nuestro modelo fue capaz de identificar la presencia de perros como un factor de riesgo de N. caninum, este hallazgo ha sido ampliamente reportado en muchos estudios y es un factor epidemiologico muy importante puesto que los perros se convierten en anfitriones definitivos de N. caninum (20), pero lo que encontramos brinda mas detalles en esta cuestion. Se encontro la posibilidad de que un perro tenga contacto con el alimento para ganado, lo que significa que los alimentos almacenados representan un dificil factor de riesgo para N. caninum infeccioso. Nuestros hallazgos son consistentes con otros que han demostrado que los perros de granja pueden defecar en los corredores de alimentacion y en hierba almacenada o ensilado de maiz, lo que puede causar evidencia de infeccion puerperal bovina que los rebanos con ninguna evidencia de este tipo (21,22). Con base en estos resultados, puede estar justificado suponer que la contaminacion de la zona de alimentacion se encuentra mas estrechamente vinculada con la infeccion por N. caninum (23). De manera complementaria al factor anterior, se encontro tambien que las granjas que ofrecen concentrado a los ganados eran mas propensas a tener resultados positivos para N. caninum, este conocimiento es consistente con Topazio et al (6) donde se ha demostrado que las cabras de granja que con una rica dieta que incluye concentrado tienen mas posibilidades de sufrir infecciones, y una explicacion posible de esto puede deberse al almacenamiento inadecuado de alimentos que puede posibilitar un contacto directo entre perros alimentados e infectados. Por ultimo, en las granjas grandes que se identifican en el estudio como clases 2 y 3 se asociaron al riesgo de infeccion por N. caninum, en un estudio realizado en Italia, el riesgo de que e ganado individual sea seropositivos aumenta con el tamano de la manada. Cuando el analisis se restringio a los datos del norte de Italia, el numero de perros por finca interactua significativamente con el tamano del hato; es decir, el riesgo de ser seropositivos en manadas mas grandes aumenta con un mayor numero de perros por finca (24), ademas de un estudio realizado en Alemania, manadas mas grandes mostraban un riesgo mayor de resultar positivos a la leche a granel (25). Una explicacion para el tamano de la manada como un factor de riesgo podria ser que las medidas higienicas para evitar que los perros se alimentan de placentas u otros materiales infecciosos son mas dificiles de seguir con las manadas grandes que con rebanos pequenos (25).

En Resumen, podemos concluir que existen diferencias tecnicas entre las granjas, lo que se refleja en el manejo y produccion, es decir que las fincas mas grandes (Clase 3 y 4) pueden producir un mayor volumen de leche, ya que esta mejor compensado, lo que refleja una mayor inversion en la granja (tecnificacion). La contaminacion por parasitos gastrointestinales no muestra ninguna diferencia entre los sistemas de produccion. Tambien se llego a la conclusion que mas del 50% de las granjas en el oeste de Santa Catarina tienen vacas infectadas por N. caninum, lo que puede estar relacionado con los problemas reproductivos reportados por los productores. La deteccion de anticuerpos contra N. caninum en muestras colectivas de leche ha demostrado ser una gran herramienta de diagnostico para la manada, reduciendo los costos con pruebas individuales en una investigacion.

Comite de etica. El protocolo experimental fue aprobado por el Comite de Bienestar Animal de la Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC) bajo el numero 1.23.14.

INTRODUCTION

The milk industry is an important component of agribusiness in Western Santa Catarina, Brazil. From this activity, the state reached an important contribution to gross domestic product (GDP) of the state of Santa Catarina, where dairy agribusiness still plays an extremely important role for the state, responsible for the survival of thousands of families in the countryside and in the generation of numerous direct and indirect jobs. Sanitary control herds are generally inefficient and can cause problems in production system, since they may be caused by various etiological agents, such as viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasites (1,2). Helminths are among the diseases that most affect livestock productivity in many regions of the world. In the 70s, it was estimated that each year about 10 million cattle and buffaloes died from consequences direct or indirect in presence of helminths (1). At present, it is believed that the number of animals with a fatal affection by parasites was reduced, due to strategic programs and new drugs; although significantly increased the diagnosis of treatment-resistant helminth (3). The damage caused by endoparasites can occur directly and indirectly reflected in weight gain, milk production, costs with antiparasitic, and mortality (1-3).

One of the main parasite that affects the Brazilian herd is the cattle tick Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus, an ectoparasite that causes important economic losses in domestic cattle. Because of its ease way of reproduction, causes discomfort to the animals, as well as affect the development of the herd and the production of meat and milk. Furthermore, it can transmit diseases such as babesiosis and anaplasmosis, which can occur simultaneously and thus referred to as cattle tick fever (3). Besides the damage caused directly to the animal, the tick causes damage to the producer due to indirect spending with acaridae, labor and equipment necessities for application of such products (4). Another problem caused by tick relates to the environmental impact caused by the indiscriminate use of chemotherapeutic products. Over time, the difficulties in controlling the parasites increased significantly due to increasing resistance to chemotherapeutics in your control and treatment, often uncontrollable. Similarly, have occurred with flies control, among these stands out the Musca domestica (often related to mastitis) and Haematobia irritans, a hematophagous insect that has caused serious damage to livestock (3,5).

In this study we provide information about the Neospora caninum, the etiological agent responsible for neosporosis in cattle mainly. Recent studies have shown that several species of domestic animals can be infected, such as sheep, horses and goats (3,6). The disease in cattle have been associated with clinical signs such as abortion, absorption, mummification or birth of weak calves (7), but usually the calves are born healthy, but infected, because the N. caninum can be transmitted congenitally. Horizontal transmission, i.e. ingestion of oocysts shed in the feces of the dog has been mentioned as a risk factor for disease (8).

Ticks, helminths and protozoa are responsible for diseases that cause economic problems for producers of milk will globally due to treatment costs and reduction in milk production (often unnoticed). In Santa Catarina Western, where you have a large milk cows stock, researches are limited. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the relation between type and size of farms with production management and especially the presence of parasites, beyond the identification of risk factors related to infection by N. caninum.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Local: Investigated properties. In this study 65 properties classified as specialized or semi specialized were surveyed (9) sampled from 20 municipalities in the western of Santa Catarina, Brazil (Figure 1). Of these, 56 semi-extensive system (cows in pastures), classified in this study as small (Class 1: n=15; up to 15 cows), medium (Class 2: n=20; between 16 and 30 cows) and large (Class 3: n=21; over 31 cows). Also as part of the study nine properties freestall system (Class 4: n=9; confinement, over 70 cows). The survey was conducted between November of 2013 and February of 2014, being applied a questionnaire for data collection, in order to verify the characteristics of the properties, as well as production and health management (Table 1).

Sample collection. During the visit at the farm was performed of collection of feces of 10 lactating cows, as well as a bulk milk tank. Feces were collected directly from the rectum, allocated into plastic containers, identified and stored in insulated cooler bags until analysis in the laboratory.

Parasitological analysis of feces. In the laboratory, the feces were processed by the McMaster technique, using supersaturated sugar solution to quantify the number of eggs per gram (EPG) of feces helminth (3). Of each farm was performed a pool of feces of the animals with positive EPG to carry out the culture of larval, kept in an incubator with constant temperature and humidity to identify helminths present on the farm.

Serologic assay for Neospora caninum in bulk milk tank. Milk collected from the tank of each farm was centrifuged at 7000 g for 10 minutes to obtain milk serum. So, the presence of antibodies to N. caninum in milk was verified by indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) using blades made with the protozoan tachyzoites (10). The samples considered positive were those in which full fluorescence from tachyzoites of N caninum was observed, as described by Camillo et al. (11).To validate the tests, samples known as positive and negative were used as reaction control.

Data analysis. The relationship between the size of the properties for reproductive management and presence of parasites was performed only in a descriptive manner, seeking to identify management practices and sanitary control measurements of every classified type of farm.

Antibodies to Neospora caninum in milk. The data generated by the questioner applied records and by the test were recorded and analyzed in statistical software R, version 3.1 (R core team, 2012) and map was produced using Arc Map[R] version 3.2.1 (ESRI, Redlands, CA, USA). Cross tabulation and descriptive statistics were performed. Variables were first screened based on the response variable (positive or negative for Neosporosis), variables with large amounts of missing data (>10%) and limited variability (<20%) were not included in the multivariable model. The remaining variables were entered individually into a univariable logistic regression model and selected for inclusion in the multivariable model if p<0.25. Subsequently, all the screened variables were submitted to correlation analysis. The non-collinear variable was <0.7. Interactions between all pairwise variables suitable for the final model were examined and, if significant (p<0.05), were submitted to further analysis. Subsequently, the selected variables (n = 5), (Table 2) were included in the multivariable model. Multivariable models were built in a manual forward method; each remaining variable was added to the best previous model, selected by the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). A backward elimination step was finally used, resulting in a final model in which only variables with p<0.05 were retained. Confounding effects were investigated by checking changes in the point estimates of the variables that were kept in the model. Changes in parameter estimates >25% were considered as a confounding factor, age was found to be a potential confounding factor and it was controlled during the regression. The goodness-of-fit of the final model was tested using Hosmer-Lemeshow (12).

Parasitological feces. For the output of EPG variables were first screened based on the response variable count of Helminthes and Eimeria by descriptive statistics for contingency of the information and for further assumptions and what is presented as descriptive measurement is the mean and standard deviation. All variables were tested for normality of variance by Shapiro-Wilk test (13), skewness, kurtosis and homogeneity by Levene's test (14) previously to analysis by linear regression. Wald statistics was used to assess the significance of association (farm class production; Helminthes control and EPG count) and variability of the model was expressed by [R.sup.2].

RESULTS

Characterization of the farm as productive management. The data relating to production management of the four classes divided by size and management system were presented in table 1. Considering the average among the surveyed properties without considering size and production system, it was found that the time working in the dairy business was 17.7 years, as well as the frequency of the total number of cows and lactating cows were 53.3 and 38.2%, respectively. The average milk production of the surveyed properties was 18.2 liters/day. From the properties it was found that the labor used in dairy cattle as familiar was 84.6%, outsourced (6.15%) and mixed (9.23%--family and outsourced). In percentages, other important data relating to the farms studied were: receivable amount (83.7%) and milk quality (85.4%), performing pre-dipping (70.8%), and post-dipping (88.8%), rapid test for mastitis (66.3%), reproductive control (95%), use of artificial insemination (86.2%), use of sexed semen (18.4%), providing commercial feed (86%) and silage (91.2%).

Relationship between farm and sanitary control with emphasis on parasites. Considering the class 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the farms (size and system) for the sanitary handling and parasites were presented in table 1. If we consider the 65 farms, without evaluating class, we found that 62.8% of the farms have shown reproductive problems. In percentages, was also identified farms investigated had composter for feces (58.8%), presence of dogs (86.7%), dogs with access to feeders and food (60.5%), use of acaridae to control ticks (73.2%), use of anthelmintic (67%), rotation of anti-parasitic in the control of parasites (57.4%), parasitological of feces with frequency (13.2%), and resistance testing (6.1%). This study also identified the occurrence of cranial injury to the udder of the cow, caused by the nematode Stefenofilaria sp. (53.9%), and bovine babesiosis and anaplasmosis (55.1%). On the farm, on the day of the visit, it was also found the presence of domestic fly (Musca domestica) and horn fly (Haematobia irritaos) in 68.6 and 59.7%, respectively.

Parasitological of faces. The results of EPG and OOPG (oocyst per gram) according to classification of the farms were presented in table 1. Between farms investigated, only 9.23% were negative for parasites in feces, i.e., none of the cows showed helminthes eggs and coccidia oocysts in the feces. Among animals positive for helminths, was observed variation between cows 50-3650 EPG, but in general, and average of 25.6 EPG/animal. However, 80% of animals had positive EPG less than 300. Among the animals positive for coccidia, was detected variation between cows 50-3050 OOPG, but the overall average was 16.7 OOPG/animal.

No significant association was found between EPG counts and (farm class production; Helminthes control and OOPG count), as well as no significant association was found between OOPG counts and (farm class production; Helminthes control and EPG count).The oocysts in the faeces were identified as the genus Eimeria. The helminth eggs identified in the feces of cattle were of Trichostrongylus spp. (35.28%), Haemonchus spp. (6.15%), Teladorsagia spp. (1.53%), Oesophagostomun spp. (1.53%). In 33.84% of the farms was found mixed infection by two or three helminths.

Antibodies for N. caninum in milk. The antibodies in milk farms were detected in 36 farms (55%; [CI.sub.95%] 42-67) (Figure 1).When we consider the classification of the farm, was found higher occurrence in farms from class 1 (Table 2). In this study, a significant association was observed between following factors: classification of the farms (small, medium, large; freestall); providing concentrated to the cattle and access of dogs to the local storage of inputs supplied to animals with positive farms for neosporosis. Medium and large farms had higher risks of infection by N. caninum (PR=5.86-[IC.sub.95%]:1.33-25.72) and (PR=8.32-[IC.sub.95%]:1.95-35.40), respectively. It was also identified that the risk of infection by N. caninum is related to the supply of concentrate and access to the dogs feed stocks (PR=6.67-[IC.sub.95%]:1.35-32.88) and (PR=4.51-[IC.sub.95%] : 1.56-13.00), respectively (Table 3). 95%

DISCUSSION

The classification of the farm by number of dairy cows provided to verify numerical difference regarding managements, production and sanitary control, something expected due to the different degrees of technological improvement. For example, levels of protein and fat in milk are smaller farms that have a higher level of production technology, but in return these farms have lower number of somatic cell count (SCC) and total bacterial count (TBC)(9). The explanation for this behavior may be due to improved nutrition of animals and use of specialized breeds with the increase in production levels. Another point related to the production this hygiene practices at farm, observed in this study in a good sizeable percentage (pre-dipping, post-dipping and mastitis test); however, these practices were lower on farms of small and medium size (class 1 and 2) the extensive system. According of Simioni et al (9) and Martins et al (15), in specialized farms, the dairy cattle shows greater economic importance, encouraging the farmers to adopt appropriate hygiene practices during milking, and reproduction of the herd; similar to that observed in this study.

Ectoparasites are also factors that can cause loss in milk production, and the farms visited the main ectoparasites were identified to flies (Musca domestica and Haematobia irritans) and ticks (Rhipicephalus microplus). These flies can cause chronic dermatitis in cattle (horn fly), as well as being vectors of mastitiscausing bacteria (16), and nematode that causes stefanofilariosis, characterized by skin lesions, cranial to the mammary gland of the cow, caused by the genus Stephanofilaria (17), observed in this study, in a high percentage (56%) farms investigated. Approximately 62% of farms are facing serious problems with outbreaks of flies during the year, independent of the class 1 to 4 in this study. The presence of composters can help control flies (3), but only 60% used on farms in the west of Santa Catarina State.

According to the literature, ticks are the most important ectoparasites for dairy farming, and approximately 75% of the cattle population is affected by this parasite. Tropical and subtropical regions are favorable for the development of ticks (4), target region this study. In addition to direct damage to the animal, the tick transmits Babesia spp. and Anaplasma spp. (3), responsible for causing one of the most common diseases (bovine parasitic sadness) in dairy cows in the Brazilian states. This study was no different, as the interview was found that 58% of farms have annual cases of babesiosis and anaplasmosis, regardless the classification given in this study. The disease is a sanitary problems greatest economic loss in cattle due to treatment costs, high rates of mortality and morbidity, as well as reduction in the production of meat and/or milk (3,18). Most farms investigated make use of antiparasitic to control ticks, and only 16% of farms do not tick control, because according to the producers the degree of infestation is low. This can be explained because these farms are rotational grazing system or animals are in confinement (freestall), which reduces the chance of development of the parasite, and contact with animals.

The EPG generally considered low, as observed by Pasetti et al (2), however, the number of infected animals was superior in study current. Helminthes were identified Strongylida order, being the Trichostrongylus spp the most frequent (35.28%), similar of observed in Minas Gerais state by Araujo (19) in dairy cows. In this study, it was found that about 72% of farmers perform routinely the anthelmintic treatment, usually in the dry cow period, having a preventive effect. Despite the presence of Eimeria spp. oocysts in the feces of cattle, no treatment for coccidiosis is done, but according to the literature infection cause destruction of intestinal cells, and consequently interferes with the absorption of nutrients (3)

Our model was able to identify the presence of dogs as a risk factor for N. caninum, this finding is well reported on many studies and it's a very important epidemiological factor since dogs become N. caninum definitive hosts (20), but what we found provide more detail to this issue. It was found that the possibility of a dog having contact with cattle fed, what includes stocked food represent a challenging risk factor for N. caninum infectious. Our finds are in accordance with others that have shown that farm dogs may defect on feeding alleys and on stored grass or corn silage what may cause evidence of postnatal bovine infection than by those of herds with no such evidence (21,22). Based on these results, it may be justified to assume that contaminations of the feeding area are more closely related to N. caninum infection (23). Complementary to the factor above it was also find that farms how provide concentrate to the cattle were more likely to be positive for N. caninum, this knowledge is in accordance to Topazio et al (6) that have shown that goats farms that provide rich diet what included concentrate have more chances of the infections, and a possible explanation for these may due to inadequate food storage what may make possible a direct contact between fed and infected dogs. Finally, larger farms were identify on the study as class 2 and 3 were associated to risk of N. caninum infection, in a study from Italy, the risk of individual cattle becoming seropositive increased with the size of the herd. When the analysis was restricted to data from northern Italy, the number of dogs per farm interacted significantly with herd size; i.e., the risk of being seropositive increased in larger herds with an increasing number of dogs per farm (24) in addition a study conducted in Germany, larger herds had an increased risk of being bulk milk positive (25). An explanation for herd size as a risk factor could be that hygienic measures to prevent dogs from feeding on placentas or other infectious material are more difficult to follow with large herds than with small herds (25).

In summary, we can conclude that there are technical differences between the farms, which is reflected in handling and production, i.e. the largest farms (Class 3 and 4) can produce a greater volume of milk, as is best compensated, reflecting to increased investment in the farm (technification). The contamination by gastrointestinal parasites had no difference between production systems. Also concluded that over 50% of farms in western Santa Catarina has infected cows by N. caninum, which may be related to reproductive problems reported by producers. The detection of antibodies to N. caninum in collective samples of milk proved to be a great diagnostic tool to herd, reducing costs with individual tests in a research first.

Ethics committee. Experimental protocol was approved by the Animal Welfare Committee of Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC) under number 1.23.14.

REFERENCES

(1.) Herlich H. The importance of helminth infections in ruminants. World Anim Rev 1978; 26(1):22-26.

(2.) Pasetti M, Da Silva AS, Simioni F, Lima HL, Battiston J, Stefani LM. Parasitological study on cows during lactation in western Santa Catarina, Brazil. Acta Scie Vet 2012; 40:1058.

(3.) Monteiro SG. Parasitologia Veterinaria. Sao Paulo, Roca; 2010.

(4.) Pazinato R, Klauck V, Grosskopf RK, Dalla Rosa L, Volpato A, Baretta D, Stefani LM, Da Silva AS. Antiparasitic Resistance of Different Populations of ticks (Rhipicephalus microplus) in the Western of Santa Catarina State, Brazil. Acta Scie Vet 2014; 42:1206.

(5.) Klauck V, Pazinato R, Stefani LM, Santos RC, Vaucher RAM, Baldissera D, et al. Insecticidal and repellent effects of tea tree andiroba oils on flies associated with livestock. Med Vet Entomol 2014; 28(1):33-39.

(6.) Topazio J, Da Silva AS, Lopes LS, Ribeiro A, Weber A, Noll JCG, et al. Seroprevalence and risk factors for Neospora caninum in goats in Santa Catarina state, Brazil. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet 2014; 23(1):1-7.

(7.) Parra BC, Parra BS, Neves FN. Neosporose uma doenca que acomete abortos em bovinos. Rev Cient El Med Vet 2008; 6(1):1-5.

(8.) Santos RRD, Rocha CMBM, Guimaraes AM Quantification of vertical transmission of Neospora caninum in dairy cows in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet 2012; 21(3):294-297.

(9.) Simioni FS, Baretta CRDM, Stefani LM, Lopes LS, Tizziani T. Qualidade do leite proveniente de propriedades com diferentes niveis de especializacao. Semina: Cienc Agr 2013; 34(4):1901-1912.

(10.) Pare J, Hietala SK, Thurmond MC. Interpretation of an indirect fluorescent antibody test for diagnosis of Neospora sp. infection in cattle. J Vet Diag Invest 1995; 7(3):273-275.

(11.) Camillo G, Cezar AS, Antonello AM, Sangioni LA, Flores EF, Pereira GR, Goncalves PBD Vogel FSF. Deteccao de anticorpos anti-Neospora caninum em amostras individuais e coletivas de leite de bovinos pela reacao de imunofluorescencia indireta. Pesq Vet Bras 2011; 31(3): 482-486.

(12.) Dohoo I, Martin W, Stryhn H. Veterinary Epidemiologic Research. Inc; Charlottetown: 2009.

(13.) Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. An analysis of variance test for normality: complete samples. Biometrika 1965; 52(4):591-611.

(14.) Box GEP. Non-normality and tests on variances. Biometrika 1953; 40(2):318-335.

(15.) Martins PR, Fischer V, Ribeiro MER, Gomes JF, Stumpf Junior W, Zenala MB. Producao e qualidade do leite em sistemas de producao da regiao leiteira de Pelotas, RS, Brasil. Cienc Rural 2007; 37(2):212-217.

(16.) Nickerson SC, Owens W, Boddie RL. Mastitis in dairy heifers: initial studies on prevalence and control. J Dairy Sci 1995; 78(6):1607-1618.

(17.) Miyakawav I, Dos Reis ACF, Lisboa JAN Estefanofilariose em bovinos. Semina: Cienc Agr 2010; 31(3):479-486.

(18.) Doyle RL, Da Silva AS, Oliveira CB, Franca RT, Martins JR, Lopes STA, Melazzo C. Lipid peroxidation and decrease on the activities of antioxidant enzymes in experimental infection by Babesia bovis in cattle. Comp Clin Pathol 2015; doi: 10.1007/s00580-015-2077-0.

(19.) Araujor N, Limaw S. Infeccoes helminticas em um rebanho leiteiro na regiao Campo das Vertentes de Minas Gerais. Arq Bras Med Vet Zoot 2005; 57:186-193.

(20.) Almeria S. Neospora caninum and Wildlife. ISRN Parasitol 2013; 2013: 947347.

(21.) Martinez A, Alvarez-Garcia I, Arnaiz-Seco E, Ortega-Mora LM. Use of avidity enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and avidity Western blot to discriminate between acute and chronic Neospora caninum infection in cattle. J Vet Diag Invest 2005; 17:442-450.

(22.) Aguiar DM, Lacerda DP, Orlandelli RC, Medina AO, Azevedo SS Prevalence of anti-Neospora caninum antibodies in cattle and dogs from Western Amazon, Brazil, in association with some possible risk factors. Vet Parasitol 2006; 142(1):71-77.

(23.) Dubey JP, Schares G, Ortegamora LM. Epidemiology and control of Neosporosis and Neospora caninum. Clin Microbiol Rev 2007; 20(2):323-369.

(24.) Otranto DA, Lazari A, Testini G, Traversa D, Di Regalbono AF, Badan M, Capelli G. Seroprevalence and associated risk factors of neosporosis in beef and dairy cattle in Italy. Vet Parasitol 2013; 118(1):7-18.

(25.) Schares G, Barwald A, Staubach C, Ziller M, Kloss D, Schroder R, Labohm R, Drager K, Fasen W, Hess RG, Conraths FJ. Potential risk factors for bovine Neospora caninum infection in Germany are not under the control of the farmers. Parasitol 2005; 129(2):301-309.

Roger Pascoeti, [1] M.Sc, Natan Marcos Solda, [1] M.Sc, Tais Regina Sczesny, [1] M.Sc, Gustavo Machado, [2] Ph.D, Caroline Zamperete Reginato, [3] M.Sc, Giovana Camillo, [3] Ph.D, Fernanda Flores Vogel, [3] Ph.D, Flavio Jose Simioni, [1] Ph.D, Leandro Samia Lopes, [1] Ph.D, Juscivete Fatima Favero, [1] M.Sc, Aleksandro Schafer Da Silva, [1] * Ph.D.

[1] Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Departamento de Zootecnia, Chapeco, SC, Brazil. [2] Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Laboratorio de Epidemiologia Veterinaria (EPILAB), Faculdade de Veterinaria (FAVET), Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil. [3] Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM), Departamento de Medicina Veterinaria Preventiva, Santa Maria, RS, Brazil. Correspondence: aleksandro ss@yahoo.com.br

Received: April 2015; Accepted: September 2015.

Caption: Figure 1. Map of epidemiological distribution of positive samples derived from milk from the farm tank, i.e. collective samples (n=36) in a total of 65samples in Santa Catarina state, Brazil.
Table 1. Information on management practices and
occurrence of some parasitic diseases in dairy cattle
farm in western Santa Catarina State, Brazil.

Variable by farm                             Class 1 (n = 15)

Time dairy farming (years) *                14.3 [+ or -] 6.4
Number of total cow *                       13.4 [+ or -] 2.7
Number of lactating cows *                  10.7 [+ or -] 2.0
Milk production (liters/cow) *              12.2 [+ or -] 3.1
Compensation for milk quantity (%)                 60.0
Compensation for milk quality (%)                  46.6
Performs pre-dipping (%)                           53.3
Performs pos-dipping (%)                           80.0
Performs rapid test for mastitis (#) (%)           60.0
Hand labor family (%)                              100
Hand labor outsourced (%)                          0.0
Hand labor family and outsourced (%)               0.0
Performs reproductive control (%)                  80.0
Uses artificial insemination (%)                   60.0
Using sexed semen (%)                              6.6
Ration supply in the diet (%)                      73.3
Supplying the silage in diet (%)                   80.0
Existence of composter (%)                         46.6
Presence of dogs (%)                               100
Dogs have food access of cows: feeder              73.3
  and inputs (%)
Registration reproductive problems (%)             53.3
Tick control: acaricide (%)                        66.6
Control of helminths: anthelmintics (%)            53.3
Performs rotation of antiparasitic (%)             40.0
Performs routine stool examinations (%)            0.0
Performs parasitic resistance tests (%)            0.0
Skin lesion in the mammary gland (%) (&)           33.3
Presence of houseflies (%) (+)                     33.3
Presence of the fly-horn (%) (+)                   46.6
Babesiosis and anaplasmosis (%)                    53.3
Number of cows with positive test feces     3.13 [+ or -] 1.2
  for parasites per farm (n = 10)*
Mean EPG/farm                               42.3 [+ or -] 91.0
Mean OOPG/farm                              11.3 [+ or -] 15.3
Milk samples from seropositive for                 80.0
  Neospora caninum per farm (%)

Variable by farm                             Class 2 (n = 20)

Time dairy farming (years) *                 19.9 [+ or -] 8.6
Number of total cow *                        22.1 [+ or -] 6.2
Number of lactating cows *                  17.7 [+ or -] 5.82
Milk production (liters/cow) *               17.4 [+ or -] 4.8
Compensation for milk quantity (%)                 75.0
Compensation for milk quality (%)                  95.0
Performs pre-dipping (%)                           65.0
Performs pos-dipping (%)                           85.0
Performs rapid test for mastitis (#) (%)           80.0
Hand labor family (%)                              95.0
Hand labor outsourced (%)                           5.0
Hand labor family and outsourced (%)                0.0
Performs reproductive control (%)                   100
Uses artificial insemination (%)                   85.0
Using sexed semen (%)                              15.0
Ration supply in the diet (%)                      85.0
Supplying the silage in diet (%)                   85.0
Existence of composter (%)                         65.0
Presence of dogs (%)                               90.0
Dogs have food access of cows: feeder              45.0
  and inputs (%)
Registration reproductive problems (%)             60.0
Tick control: acaricide (%)                        90.0
Control of helminths: anthelmintics (%)            80.0
Performs rotation of antiparasitic (%)             90.0
Performs routine stool examinations (%)            10.0
Performs parasitic resistance tests (%)            15.0
Skin lesion in the mammary gland (%) (&)           65.0
Presence of houseflies (%) (+)                     70.0
Presence of the fly-horn (%) (+)                   75.0
Babesiosis and anaplasmosis (%)                    50.0
Number of cows with positive test feces      3.1 [+ or -] 1.7
  for parasites per farm (n = 10)*
Mean EPG/farm                               12.43 [+ or -] 12.8
Mean OOPG/farm                              16.8 [+ or -] 20.9
Milk samples from seropositive for                 55.0
  Neospora caninum per farm (%)

Variable by farm                             Class 3 (n = 21)

Time dairy farming (years) *                22.1 [+ or -] 11.5
Number of total cow *                       49.7 [+ or -] 22.5
Number of lactating cows *                  41.23 [+ or -] 19.2
Milk production (liters/cow) *              19.1 [+ or -] 4.39
Compensation for milk quantity (%)                  100
Compensation for milk quality (%)                   100
Performs pre-dipping (%)                           76.1
Performs pos-dipping (%)                           90.4
Performs rapid test for mastitis (#) (%)           47.6
Hand labor family (%)                              76.1
Hand labor outsourced (%)                           0.0
Hand labor family and outsourced (%)               23.9
Performs reproductive control (%)                   100
Uses artificial insemination (%)                    100
Using sexed semen (%)                              19.0
Ration supply in the diet (%)                      85.7
Supplying the silage in diet (%)                    100
Existence of composter (%)                         57.1
Presence of dogs (%)                               90.4
Dogs have food access of cows: feeder              57.1
  and inputs (%)
Registration reproductive problems (%)             38.1
Tick control: acaricide (%)                        80.9
Control of helminths: anthelmintics (%)            90.4
Performs rotation of antiparasitic (%)             66.6
Performs routine stool examinations (%)             9.5
Performs parasitic resistance tests (%)             9.5
Skin lesion in the mammary gland (%) (&)           61.9
Presence of houseflies (%) (+)                     71.4
Presence of the fly-horn (%) (+)                   61.9
Babesiosis and anaplasmosis (%)                    61.9
Number of cows with positive test feces      3.19 [+ or -] 2.3
  for parasites per farm (n = 10)*
Mean EPG/farm                               31.2 [+ or -] 46.3
Mean OOPG/farm                              25.4 [+ or -] 69.2
Milk samples from seropositive for                 42.8
  Neospora caninum per farm (%)

Variable by farm                               Class 4 (n=9)

Time dairy farming (years) *                  6.1 [+ or -] 5.4
Number of total cow *                       197.2 [+ or -] 218.3
Number of lactating cows *                  123.8 [+ or -] 78.0
Milk production (liters/cow) *               27.2 [+ or -] 3.4
Compensation for milk quantity (%)                  100
Compensation for milk quality (%)                   100
Performs pre-dipping (%)                            88.8
Performs pos-dipping (%)                            100
Performs rapid test for mastitis (#) (%)            77.7
Hand labor family (%)                               44.4
Hand labor outsourced (%)                           44.4
Hand labor family and outsourced (%)                11.1
Performs reproductive control (%)                   100
Uses artificial insemination (%)                    100
Using sexed semen (%)                               33.3
Ration supply in the diet (%)                       100
Supplying the silage in diet (%)                    100
Existence of composter (%)                          88.8
Presence of dogs (%)                                66.6
Dogs have food access of cows: feeder               66.6
  and inputs (%)
Registration reproductive problems (%)              100
Tick control: acaricide (%)                         55.5
Control of helminths: anthelmintics (%)             44.4
Performs rotation of antiparasitic (%)              33.3
Performs routine stool examinations (%)             33.3
Performs parasitic resistance tests (%)             0.0
Skin lesion in the mammary gland (%) (&)            55.5
Presence of houseflies (%) (+)                      100
Presence of the fly-horn (%) (+)                    55.5
Babesiosis and anaplasmosis (%)                     55.5
Number of cows with positive test feces       1.6 [+ or -] 1.5
  for parasites per farm (n = 10)*
Mean EPG/farm                                13.8 [+ or -] 20.8
Mean OOPG/farm                                5.0 [+ or -] 8.6
Milk samples from seropositive for                  44.4
  Neospora caninum per farm (%)

* Mean [+ or -] standard deviation; (#) Testing black
mug. (&) Stephanofilariasis. (+) Observation made on
the day of collection, the researchers.

Table 2. Univariate analysis of risk factors for
Neospora caninum infection in bulk milk tank
from 65 farms, in the state of Santa Catarina,
Brazil.

Variables               FD    P-value       PR (IC 95%)

Farm classification     23      --              --
    Class 1             31     0.13      0.30 (0.08-1.11)
    Class 2             32     0.03      0.18 (0.05-0.67)
    Class 3             13     0.08      0.20 (0.04-0.92)
    Class 4
Provides the silage
  diet
    Yes                 90     0.18      4.51 (0.71-28.62)
    No                  10      --              --
Provides ration in
  the diet
    Yes                 84     0.11      3.83 (0.98-15.17)
    No                  16      --              --
Presence of dogs
    Yes                 58     0.04      9.13 (1.47-56.65)
    No                  7       --              --
Dogs have contact
  inputs supplied
  cows
    Yes                 58     0.12      2.22 (0.94-5.22)
    No                  41      --              --
Reproductive problems
    Yes                 57     0.80      1.13 (0.49-2.59)
    No                  43      --              --

FD=Frequency (%) or median (S.D.)

Table 3. Multivariate analysis of risk factors for
Neospora caninum infection in bulk milk tank
from 65 farms, in the state of Santa Catarina,
Brazil.

Variables             Estimate   P-value     PR (CI: 95%)
                        (P)

Intercept               0.14     <0.001           --
Farm classification
    Class 1              --        --             --
    Class 2             1.70      0.04     5.86 (1.23-25.72)
    Class 3             2.11      0.01     8.32(1.94-35.40)
    Class 4             1.50      0.10     4.90 (0.95-25.09)
Provides ration in
  the diet
    Yes                 1.89      0.05     6.47(1.35-32.88)
    No                   --        --             --
Dogs have contact
  inputs supplied
  cows
    Yes                 1.50      0.01     4.51 (1.56-13.00)
    No                   --        --             --

Hosmer test= p=0.87
COPYRIGHT 2016 Universidad de Cordoba
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2016 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 
Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:ORIGINAL
Author:Pascoeti, Roger; Marcos Solda, Natan; Regina Sczesny, Tais; Machado, Gustavo; Zamperete Reginato, Ca
Publication:Revista MVZ (Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia)
Date:May 1, 2016
Words:9258
Previous Article:Juegos Olimpicos de Rio 2016 y los virus no invitados: posibles consecuencias para Europa y America del Norte.
Next Article:La eficacia del tratamiento de cloroquina contra la infeccion natural por Giardia duodenalis en corderos.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters