Search

In the original article, there was an error. We used the phrase “non-regulated” for cattle diseases that are in fact listed in the New Animal Health Law that went into force in 2021. A correction has beenmade toAbstract. The corrected section is shown below. Copyright © 2022, Hodnik, Acinger-Rogić, Alishani, Autio, Balseiro, Berezowski, Carmo, Chaligiannis, Conrady, Costa, Cvetkovikj, Davidov, Dispas, Djadjovski, Duarte, Faverjon, Fourichon, Frössling, Gerilovych, Gethmann, Gomes, Graham, Guelbenzu, Gunn, Henry, Hopp, Houe, Irimia, Ježek, Juste, Kalaitzakis, Kaler, Kaplan, Kostoulas, Kovalenko, Kneževič, Knific, Koleci, Madouasse, Malakauskas, Mandelik, Meletis, Mincu, Mõtus, Muñoz-Gómez, Niculae, Nikitović, Ocepek, Tangen-Opsal, Ózsvári, Papadopoulos, Papadopoulos, Pelkonen, Polak, Pozzato, Rapaliuté, Ribbens, Niza-Ribeiro, Roch, Rosenbaum Nielsen, Saez, Nielsen, van Schaik, Schwan, Sekovska, Starič, Strain, Šatran, Šerić-Haračić, Tamminen, Thulke, Toplak, Tuunainen, Verner, Vilček, Yildiz and Santman-Berends

A Corrigendum on Overview of Cattle Diseases Listed Under Category C, D or E in the Animal Health Law for Which Control Programmes Are in Place Within Europe (Front. Vet. Sci., (2021), 8, (688078), 10.3389/fvets.2021.688078)

Additional file 3: Suppl. Table 1a. Comparison of demographic data between non-strangulating infarction cases (NSII) and idiopathic cases using, for quantitative measures, the Kruskal-Wallis Rank Sum Test (non-parametric method) and, for qualitative variables, the Fisher exact test (due to small number of observations).

Additional file 6: Suppl. table 1d. Laboratory data showing variables non-significant between non-strangulating intestinal infarction (NSII) cases and idiopathic cases, using, for quantitative measures, the Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test, and for qualitative measures, the Fisher exact test.

Additional file 2: Suppl. Figure 1. Cluster analysis. Suppl. Figure 2 a. Boxplot of total white blood cell count. Suppl. Figure 2 b. Boxplot of total neutrophil count.

Additional file 4: Suppl. Table 1b. Relevant medical information showing variables non-significant between non-strangulating intestinal infarction cases (NSII) and idiopathic cases, using the Fisher exact test.

Additional file 7: Suppl. Table 2. Presence of fever (if ≥ 38.5℃, indicated in red) and colic signs (if yes, indicated in red) in all individual non-strangulating infarction (NSII) cases before initiation of antimicrobial treatment, and 24 hours and 48 hours post-treatment.

Additional file 5: Suppl. Table 1c. Admission data showing variables non-significant between non-strangulating infarction cases (NSII) and idiopathic cases, using, for quantitative measures, the Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test, and for qualitative measures, the Fisher exact test.

This study aims to identify the effects of temperature on dairy production and the heat tolerance of different dairy breeds under heat stress. Using farm and animal-level data from 1435 dairy farms throughout Sweden for 4 years (from 2016 to 2019), we find that a 7-day average of daily maximum temperatures above similar to 20 degrees C is associated with sharp declines in milk production. We then estimate the farm-level loss in contribution margin for a typical Swedish dairy farm for the year 2018, which consisted of long-lasting heatwaves and extended summer temperatures. We also estimate that, on average, there are no differences in the impact of heatwaves on milk losses for different dairy breeds but that there exists a trade-off between genetic milk production potential and heat tolerance of a dairy cow. The magnitude of this productivity-tolerance trade-off may differ across breeds, suggesting that the high-production potential animals of certain breeds may be less sensitive to heat stress. These findings have important implications in terms of adapting to heat stress, investing in mitigation measures, and development of future breeds that can ameliorate the current trade-off between production capacity of a cow and its heat tolerance.

13 páginas, 5 figuras, 3 tablas., The COST action “Standardising output-based surveillance to control non-regulated diseases of cattle in the European Union (SOUND control),” aims to harmonise the results of surveillance and control programmes (CPs) for non-EU regulated cattle diseases to facilitate safe trade and improve overall control of cattle infectious diseases. In this paper we aimed to provide an overview on the diversity of control for these diseases in Europe. A non-EU regulated cattle disease was defined as an infectious disease of cattle with no or limited control at EU level, which is not included in the European Union Animal health law Categories A or B under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2002. A CP was defined as surveillance and/or intervention strategies designed to lower the incidence, prevalence, mortality or prove freedom from a specific disease in a region or country. Passive surveillance, and active surveillance of breeding bulls under Council Directive 88/407/EEC were not considered as CPs. A questionnaire was designed to obtain country-specific information about CPs for each disease. Animal health experts from 33 European countries completed the questionnaire. Overall, there are 23 diseases for which a CP exists in one or more of the countries studied. The diseases for which CPs exist in the highest number of countries are enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, bovine viral diarrhoea and anthrax (CPs reported by between 16 and 31 countries). Every participating country has on average, 6 CPs (min–max: 1–13) in place. Most programmes are implemented at a national level (86%) and are applied to both dairy and non-dairy cattle (75%). Approximately one-third of the CPs are voluntary, and the funding structure is divided between government and private resources. Countries that have eradicated diseases like enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis and bovine viral diarrhoea have implemented CPs for other diseases to further improve the health status of cattle in their country. The control of non-EU regulated cattle diseases is very heterogenous in Europe. Therefore, the standardising of the outputs of these programmes to enable comparison represents a challenge.

Some European countries have successfully implemented country-specific control programs (CPs) for infectious cattle diseases that are not regulated or are regulated only to a limited extent at the European Union (EU) level. Examples of such diseases include bovine viral diarrhea (BVD), infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR), and Johne's disease (JD). The CPs vary between countries in the design and quality of collected data as well as methods used to detect infection and estimate prevalence or probability of freedom from infection. Differences in disease status between countries and non-standardized approaches to assess freedom from infection pose a risk for countries with CPs for non-regulated diseases as infected animals may influence the progress of the disease control or eradication program. The implementation of output-based standards allows estimation and comparison of the probability of freedom for non-regulated cattle diseases in European countries. The aim of the current study was to assess the existence and quality of data that could be used for estimating freedom from infection in European countries. The online data collection tool was sent to 32 countries participating in the SOUND control COST Action and was completed by 24 countries. Data on cattle demographics and data from CPs of IBR and BVD exist in more than 50% of the response countries. However, data describing risk factors and CP of JD was reported as existing in

Verotoxin-producing Escherichia coli serotype O157:H7 (VTEC O157:H7), is a zoonotic pathogen often transmitted from cattle to humans. In Sweden, domestic transmission of a highly virulent subtype of VTEC O157:H7, originating in regional clusters of infected cattle farms, is increasing. To reduce the risk of transmission to humans a comprehensive picture of infection dynamics between and within farms are urgently needed. The aim of this thesis was to provide a holistic view of drivers of transmission and susceptibility from a regional, farm and animal perspective by combining epidemiology, microbiology, bioinformatics and animal welfare. The risk of introduction of VTEC O157:H7 on cattle farms was studied by collecting environmental samples in spring and fall from 80 farms. Information about farm characteristics, biosecurity and between farm contacts were collected by a questionnaire. On 4 farms, a more thorough environmental sampling with detailed analysis of strains was carried out during summer (between the spring and fall sampling). The results showed frequent transmission of VTEC O157:H7 between farms and that transmission occurs through human and animals contacts. To investigate drivers of colonisation and transmission on farm level, individual samples from calves on 12 dairy farms with VTEC O157:H7 (established through environmental sampling) were collected. In addition to collecting information about pen and calf environment, a novel approach, using indicators of animal welfare and behaviour to study individual differences, was used to explore differences between colonised and non-colonised calves. The results suggest that social and active individuals are more likely to be colonised by the pathogen while animals showing signs of poor health and welfare were less likely to be colonised. Colonised animals shedding high levels of the bacteria were important for transmission but environmental exposure also increased risk of transmission within pens.

This study reflects on the recognised need for more joined-up, high-quality research on phytotherapy that addresses the current societal challenges in finding alternatives to the use of antibiotics. The study applied a multidisciplinary participatory approach in an expert workshop exercise within the FP7 EU IMPRO project. Prior to this study, a literature review was elaborated on research in the field of phytotherapy as applied to farm animals, cooperation between research bodies and initiatives to reduce the use of antibiotics by using phytotherapeutic remedies. The review was delivered to the participants of the workshop so as to receive feedback on it and enrich the discussion. Different expertise, background in research or veterinary practice, and varying positions regarding phytotherapy were the criteria in targeting participants. A structured workshop was subsequently organised, with questions to experts addressing scientific validation of phytotherapy, effective treatment under farm conditions and necessary developments for the future. Challenges identified by the experts were as follows: poor study designs, lack of reproducibility of studies, poor standardisation of products, cost-benefit concerns, lack of veterinarian training and poor data availability. To overcome obstacles, the need for improved study designs for clinical trials was given priority in order to prove the efficacy of remedies and to implement a monitoring system which enables the assessment of the effectiveness of treatments in farm practice. Reflections in this report are intended to be a resource for scientists, policy makers and end users for an effective use of phytotherapy at farm level.