2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.08.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bovine viral diarrhoea virus control in Finland 1998–2004

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
25
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
1
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…38,44 In herds with . 50% antibody-positive animals, the seronegative animals were tested for virus.…”
Section: Herd Reinfection If a Pi Animal Or A Dam Carrying A Pimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…38,44 In herds with . 50% antibody-positive animals, the seronegative animals were tested for virus.…”
Section: Herd Reinfection If a Pi Animal Or A Dam Carrying A Pimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regardless of the prerequisites like legal support and varying initial prevalences of herds with PI animals, it has taken the Scandinavian countries approximately ten years to reach their final phases (Hult and Lindberg, 2005;Nyberg et al, 2004;Rikula et al, 2005;Voss, 2004). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This situation could be erroneously interpreted as a recently acquired infection. Such discrepancies could be explained by varying contributions of individual cows to the BTM, different milk yields of antibody negative and positive cows or could even reflect the incorporation of new seropositive animals (Rikula et al 2005) in farms that were less committed to the control program. These factors should therefore be considered when interpreting BTM Ab-ELISA results, especially if the farm in question is small.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%