• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of cjvetresCVMACanadian Journal of Veterinary ResearchSee also Canadian Journal of Comparative MedicineJournal Web siteHow to Submit
Can J Vet Res. Jan 1990; 54(1): 184–189.
PMCID: PMC1255626

Effect of brucellosis vaccination and dehorning on transmission of bovine leukemia virus in heifers on a California dairy.

Abstract

Brucellosis vaccination and dehorning were examined for an association with bovine leukemia virus (BLV) infection in heifers on a California dairy between April 1984 and June 1987. Between December 1985 and June 1986, weaned heifers were dehorned using the gouge method at the time of brucellosis vaccination. Using logistic regression, the estimated probability for a nondehorned heifer to seroconvert within three months after brucellosis vaccination (0.08) was significantly less than that for heifers dehorned after a noninfected heifer (0.46) or than that for heifers dehorned after an infected heifer (0.85) (p = 0.039 and p less than 0.001, respectively). To evaluate risk of transmission by brucellosis vaccination, which was usually done within one month postweaning, cumulative proportions of heifers remaining uninfected were computed among heifers that did not seroconvert three months after dehorning. Because results of a Cox model analysis indicated that groups of heifers were 6.6 times more at risk of becoming infected if placed in pens holding gouge-dehorned heifers (where prevalence varied between 50 and 70%) (p less than 0.001) than other groups placed in pens without gouge-dehorned heifers (where prevalence varied between 10 and 30%), cumulative proportions of heifers remaining uninfected were computed for each type of group. The cumulative proportion of heifers remaining uninfected from weaning to first calving was 0.60 for the high prevalence group and 0.96 for the low prevalence group. No change in slope of cumulative proportions was observed before and after one month postweaning, suggesting that brucellosis vaccination was not an effective means of transmission.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Full text

Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (1.0M), or click on a page image below to browse page by page. Links to PubMed are also available for Selected References.

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Lucas MH, Roberts DH, Wibberley G. Ear tattooing as a method of spread of bovine leukosis virus infection. Br Vet J. 1985 Nov-Dec;141(6):647–649. [PubMed]
  • Thurmond MC, Portier KM, Puhr DM, Burridge MJ. A prospective investigation of bovine leukemia virus infection in young dairy cattle, using survival methods. Am J Epidemiol. 1983 May;117(5):621–631. [PubMed]
  • Weber AF, Meiske JC, Haggard DL, Sorensen DK, Domagala AM, Flaum AM. Failure to demonstrate transmission of enzootic bovine leukemia virus infection from cows to sheep by use of common injection needles. Am J Vet Res. 1988 Nov;49(11):1814–1816. [PubMed]
  • Lassauzet ML, Johnson WO, Thurmond MC. Regression models for time to seroconversion following experimental bovine leukaemia virus infection. Stat Med. 1989 Jun;8(6):725–741. [PubMed]
  • DiGiacomo RF, Hopkins SG, Darlington RL, Evermann JF. Control of bovine leukosis virus in a dairy herd by a change in dehorning. Can J Vet Res. 1987 Oct;51(4):542–544. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Articles from Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research are provided here courtesy of Canadian Veterinary Medical Association

Formats:

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...

Links

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...