 |
|
|
|
Year 2012 - Volume 32, Number 11
|
|
Seroprevalence and risk factors associated with Chlamydophila abortus infection in dairy goats in the Northeast of Brazil, 32(11):1082-1086
|
ABSTRACT.- Santos C.S.A.B., Piatti R.M., Azevedo S.S., Alves C.J., Higino S.S.S., Silva M.L.C.R., Brasil A.W.L. & Gennari S.M. 2012. Seroprevalence and risk factors associated with Chlamydophila abortus infection in dairy goats in the Northeast of Brazil. Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira 32(11):1082-1086. Unidade Acadêmica de Medicina Veterinária, Centro de Saúde e Tecnologia Rural, Universidade Federal de Campina Grande, Av. Universitária s/n, Bairro Santa Cecília, Patos, PB 58700-970, Brazil. E-mail: sergio.azevedo@pq.cnpq.br
Few data are available on the prevalence and risk factors of Chlamydophila abortus infection in goats in Brazil. A cross-sectional study was carried out to determine the flock-level prevalence of C. abortus infection in goats from the semiarid region of the Paraíba State, Northeast region of Brazil, as well as to identify risk factors associated with the infection. Flocks were randomly selected and a pre-established number of female goats ≥ 12 mo old were sampled in each of these flocks. A total of 975 serum samples from 110 flocks were collected, and structured questionnaire focusing on risk factors for C. abortus infection was given to each farmer at the time of blood collection. For the serological diagnosis the complement fixation test (CFT) using C. abortus S26/3 strain as antigen was performed. The flock-level factors for C. abortus prevalence were tested using multivariate logistic regression model. Fifty-five flocks out of 110 presented at least one seropositive animal with an overall prevalence of 50.0% (95%; CI: 40.3%, 59.7%). Ninety-one out of 975 dairy goats examined were seropositive with titers ≥32, resulting in a frequency of 9.3%. Lend buck for breeding (odds ratio = 2.35; 95% CI: 1.04-5.33) and history of abortions (odds ratio = 3.06; 95% CI: 1.37-6.80) were associated with increased flock prevalence. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
