2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2017.05.022
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact of FMD outbreak on milk production and heifers’ growth on a dairy herd in southern Iran

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

2
4
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
2
4
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, in our study, when average milk yields were compared before (-6 to 0 dpc) and after (1–6 dpc) infection, no significant decrease was observed, even in cow 108 with secondary mastitis, although the maximum decrease observed on any one day was 50.47% for animal 867. This is comparable to previous experimental studies that demonstrated a maximum reduction of 62.1% on 10 dpc ( Reid et al, 2006 ), and during an outbreak of FMDV in Iran, a total reduction of 8.0% and 4.7% in mean milk production for first and second lactation cows, respectively ( Ansari-Lari et al, 2017 ). These published studies and our study support data reported by Lyons et al ( Lyons et al, 2015a ) who observed that although there was a decrease in milk production at the herd level, clinical FMD was shown to be a poor predictor of milk yield, and that no statistical evidence was found to indicate a significant decrease in milk yield between FMD clinical animals and non-clinical cases when lactation curves were modelled.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…However, in our study, when average milk yields were compared before (-6 to 0 dpc) and after (1–6 dpc) infection, no significant decrease was observed, even in cow 108 with secondary mastitis, although the maximum decrease observed on any one day was 50.47% for animal 867. This is comparable to previous experimental studies that demonstrated a maximum reduction of 62.1% on 10 dpc ( Reid et al, 2006 ), and during an outbreak of FMDV in Iran, a total reduction of 8.0% and 4.7% in mean milk production for first and second lactation cows, respectively ( Ansari-Lari et al, 2017 ). These published studies and our study support data reported by Lyons et al ( Lyons et al, 2015a ) who observed that although there was a decrease in milk production at the herd level, clinical FMD was shown to be a poor predictor of milk yield, and that no statistical evidence was found to indicate a significant decrease in milk yield between FMD clinical animals and non-clinical cases when lactation curves were modelled.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…6,7 Those findings were corroborated via scanning electron microscopy in a later similarly designed study by the same group. 8 There also seems to be a difference in the amount of virus in the milk, dependent on virulence, infection dose, or virus strain, as was shown in other studies, 3,11,22 2 in which there was an unusually low impact on milk production.…”
mentioning
confidence: 60%
“… 10 , 26 Although outbreaks of FMD usually cause relatively low mortality, morbidity, in contrast, is quite high because of the ease of direct or indirect transmission. 2 , 17 , 18 Large amounts of virus are produced in the typical vesicular lesions of non-haired skin (e.g., interdigital clefts, coronary bands) and mucous membranes of the oral cavity. 26 The interaction of FMDV capsid proteins with at least 4 epithelial integrins (αvβ1, αvβ3, αvβ6, αvβ8) plays an important role in cellular invasion of the virus, explaining its epithelial tropism.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Previous studies from Kenya have demonstrated that FMD was associated with an increase in the age of first calving, reduced conception rates (19), and increased culling several months after an outbreak occurs (29). Another study from Iran demonstrated reduced growth rates in dairy heifers (30) that can be associated with reduced lifetime productivity (31). Longerterm economic impacts of FMD at the farm level have received relatively little attention compared to short-term losses.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%