Dairy Cattle Abortion in California: Evaluation of Diagnostic Laboratory Data

Abstract

Abstract.A descriptive study was undertaken on 595 dairy cattle abortion submissions to the California Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory System from July 1, 1987, to December 31, 1989, to determine the etiologic nature and distribution (seasonal and geographical) of dairy cattle abortion in California as reflected by laboratory submissions. Univariate analysis was performed to characterize abortion-related submissions by farm and laboratory variables, and logistic regression analysis was performed to determine factors that may influence success of abortion diagnosis in the laboratory. The proportions of dairies that submitted abortion-related specimens from northern, central, and southern milksheds during the 2.5-year period were 20.3%, 15.7%, and 13.1%, respectively, and 60% of submissions were from medium-sized (200-999 cows) dairies. Submissions consisted of fetus (58%), placenta (2%), fetus and placenta (12%), and fetus, placenta, and maternal blood (0.84%); fetal tissues and uterine fluid constituted the rest. An apparent pattern in abortion submissions was indicated by a peak in submissions during the winter and summer of 1988 and 1989. Infectious agents were associated with 37.1% of submissions; noninfectious causes, 5.5%, and undetermined etiology, 57.3%. Bacterial abortion accounted for 18% of etiologic diagnoses; protozoal, 14.6%; viral, 3.2%; and fungal, 1.3%. Submissions comprising fetus, placenta, maternal blood, or their combinations were associated with a higher likelihood of definitive diagnosis for abortion than tissues, as were fresher specimens and submissions associated with the second trimester of fetal gestation.Abortion in dairy cattle is a serious problem that results in considerable economic losses to the dairy industry from reduced production efficiency. 5,11,22,24 Effective control measures require not only prompt and accurate diagnosis of abortion but also understanding of the multicausal factors involved in this disease. Prospective field studies of abortion have involved onfarm surveillance programs for detection and prediction of changes in abortion risk. 12,24,25 Unfortunately, this approach is very expensive and not routinely applicable in the field. Retrospective use of laboratorybased abortion data has not been vigorously attempted because of several major shortcomings inherent in such data. Retrospective surveys using diagnostic data usually describe abortion by category of etiologic diagnosis, with few farm and laboratory variables taken into account. 1,12,14 Traditionally collected veterinary laboratory data can provide useful information for unFrom the Department of Veterinary Sevices, Ministry of Agriculture,

Factors associated with frequency of abortions recorded through Dairy Herd Improvement test plans

“…Herd size differences in herd-year abortion means were nonsignificant (P > 0.05) and, therefore, are not shown. Because infectious agents are the most common cause of abortion for cows with a causative diagnosis (Jamaluddin et al, 1996; Khodakaram-Tafti and Ikede, All parities were significantly different (P < 0.05) except parities 2 and 6, 3 and 4, 3 and 5, 3 and 6, 4 and 5, 4 and 6, 5 and 6, and 7 and 8. Table 6.…”

Histopathological, Immunohistochemical, Lectinhistochemical and Molecular Findings in Spontaneous Bovine Abortions by Campylobacter fetus

“…A standard diagnostic protocol was used as previously described (Anderson et al. 1990; Jamaluddin et al. 1996; Campero et al.…”

Causas de aborto bovino diagnosticadas no Setor de Patologia Veterinária da UFRGS de 2003 a 2011

“…No Rio Grande do Sul, relatos de abortos em bovinos são frequentes e contribuem para os baixos índices de prenhez e nascimentos verificados na região (Fernandes 1998). A determinação das causas do aborto é fundamental no controle sanitário dos rebanhos; entretanto, a tarefa é difícil e somente em 30 % dos fetos bovinos abortados analisados, obtém-se diagnóstico etiológico definitivo, em virtude das múltiplas causas envolvidas, já que muitos agentes, infecciosos ou não, podem estar envolvidos (Miller 1987, Kirkbride 1990, Kirkbride 1991, Jamaluddin et al 1996.…”