From: Molecular detection of Mycobacterium bovis in cattle herds of the state of Pernambuco, Brazil
Risk factors | n | Positive | Negative | OR (95 % CI) | p value | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AF | RF% | AF | RF% | ||||
Herd sizea | |||||||
< 50 animals | 9 | 2 | 22.2 | 7 | 77.8 | - | 0.467 |
51–100 animals | 6 | 3 | 50.0 | 3 | 50.0 | 3.50 (0.37–32.97) | |
101–200 animals | 2 | 1 | 50.0 | 1 | 50.0 | 1.00 (0.04–24.55) | |
> 200 animals | 2 | - | - | 2 | 100 | - | |
Rearing system | |||||||
Intensive | 3 | 1 | 33.3 | 2 | 66.7 | - | 0.788 |
Extensive | 2 | 1 | 50.0 | 1 | 50.0 | 2.00 (0.05–78.25) | |
Semi-Intensive | 15 | 4 | 26.7 | 11 | 73.3 | 0.36 (0.02–7.30) | |
Origin of replacement animals | |||||||
Farm’s own herd | 12 | 4 | 33.3 | 8 | 66.7 | 0.67 (0.09–4.92) | 0.544 |
Other farms | 8 | 2 | 25.0 | 6 | 75.0 | ||
Quarantine | |||||||
Yes | 4 | 1 | 25.0 | 3 | 75.0 | 1.36 (0.11–16.57) | 0.657 |
No | 16 | 5 | 31.3 | 11 | 68.8 | ||
BTB diagnostic tests upon animals’ acquisitiona | |||||||
Yes | 10 | 3 | 30.0 | 7 | 70.0 | 1.16 (0.16–8.0) | 0.630 |
No | 9 | 3 | 33.3 | 6 | 66.7 | ||
Water sourcea | |||||||
Stagnant | 14 | 4 | 28.6 | 10 | 71.4 | 1.66 (0.19–14.0) | 0.520 |
Running | 5 | 2 | 40.0 | 3 | 60.0 | ||
Milking procedure | |||||||
Manual | 12 | 4 | 33.3 | 8 | 66.7 | 0.66 (0.09–4.92) | 0.544 |
Mechanic | 8 | 2 | 25.0 | 6 | 75.0 | ||
Frequency of cleaning the farm facilitiesa | |||||||
Daily | 12 | 3 | 25.0 | 9 | 75.0 | - | 0.360 |
Weekly | 3 | 2 | 66.7 | 1 | 33.3 | 6.00 (0.39–92.28) | |
Monthly | 2 | 1 | 50.0 | 1 | 50.0 | 0.50 (0.01–19.56) | |
Udder disinfection | |||||||
Yes | 7 | 1 | 14.3 | 6 | 85.7 | 3.75 (0.34–41.0 | 0.276 |
No | 13 | 5 | 38.5 | 8 | 61.5 | ||
Feeding colostrum to calves | |||||||
Yes | 17 | 5 | 29.4 | 12 | 70.6 | 1.20 (0.08–16.44) | 0.370 |
No | 3 | 1 | 33.3 | 2 | 66.7 | ||
History of bovine tuberculosis in the herda | |||||||
Yes | 2 | - | - | 2 | 100.0 | - | 0.456 |
No | 17 | 6 | 35.3 | 11 | 64.6 |