Gussmann Maya, Steeneveld Wilma, Kirkeby Carsten, Hogeveen Henk, Farre Michael, Halasa Tariq
Epidemiology Group, National Veterinary Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Department of Farm Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Prev Vet Med. 2019 May 1;166:78-85. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.03.001. Epub 2019 Mar 6.
The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare different combinations of intervention strategies for contagious or opportunistic subclinical and clinical intramammary infections (IMI). We simulated two different Danish dairy cattle herds with ten different intervention strategies focusing on cow-specific treatment or culling, including three baseline strategies without subclinical interventions. In one herd, the main causative pathogen of IMI was Staphylococcus (S.) aureus. In the other herd, Streptococcus (St.) agalactiae was the main causative agent. For both herds, we investigated costs and effectiveness of all ten intervention strategies. Intervention strategies consisted of measures against clinical and subclinical IMI, with baselines given by purely clinical intervention strategies. Our results showed that strategies including subclinical interventions were more cost-effective than the respective baseline strategies. Increase in income and reduction of IMI cases came at the cost of increased antibiotic usage and an increased culling rate in relation to IMI. However, there were differences between the herds. In the St. agalactiae herd, the clinical intervention strategy did not seem to have a big impact on income and number of cases. However, intervention strategies which included cow-specific clinical interventions led to a higher income and lower number of cases in the S. aureus herd. The results show that intervention strategies including interventions against contagious or opportunistic clinical and subclinical IMI can be highly cost-effective, but should be herd-specific.
本研究的目的是评估和比较针对传染性或机会性亚临床和临床乳房内感染（IMI）的不同干预策略组合。我们模拟了两个不同的丹麦奶牛群，采用了十种不同的干预策略，重点是针对奶牛个体的治疗或淘汰，包括三种无亚临床干预的基线策略。在一个牛群中，IMI的主要致病病原体是金黄色葡萄球菌（S. aureus）。在另一个牛群中，无乳链球菌（St. agalactiae）是主要病原体。对于这两个牛群，我们研究了所有十种干预策略的成本和效果。干预策略包括针对临床和亚临床IMI的措施，基线由纯临床干预策略给出。我们的结果表明，包括亚临床干预的策略比各自的基线策略更具成本效益。收入增加和IMI病例减少是以抗生素使用增加和与IMI相关的淘汰率上升为代价的。然而，两个牛群之间存在差异。在无乳链球菌牛群中，临床干预策略似乎对收入和病例数没有太大影响。然而，包括针对奶牛个体临床干预的策略在金黄色葡萄球菌牛群中带来了更高的收入和更低的病例数。结果表明，包括针对传染性或机会性临床和亚临床IMI的干预策略可能具有很高的成本效益，但应因牛群而异。
