4.7 Article

Cow-level association between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration and Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis antibody seropositivity: A pilot study

期刊

JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE
卷 96, 期 2, 页码 1030-1037

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.3168/jds.2012-5929

关键词

Johne's disease; vitamin D; paratuberculosis; cow

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vitamin D deficiency has been associated with various human diseases. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the cow-level association between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [ 25(OH)D] concentration and Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis (MAP) seropositivity of dairy cows, adjusting for diet, breed, hair coat color, stage of lactation, reproductive status, and cow age. The sera of 80 MAP antibody ELISA-positive and 80 test-negative herd mates from 5 Minnesota dairy herds were analyzed for 25(OH)D and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D [1,25(OH)(2)D]. The cows' age, production records, and hair coat color were recorded. Additionally, feed samples were obtained and analyzed for vitamin D-2 and vitamin D-3 content. A linear mixed model was used to identify potential predictors for serum 25(OH)D concentration, accounting for herd of origin. The majority of rations analyzed had over 22,000 IU of vitamin D/day (maximum: 52,000 IU/d) and the study cows' average serum 25(OH)D concentration was 62.5 +/- 13.8 ng/mL. Serum ELISA-positive cows had, on average, 5.3 ng/mL lower 25(OH)D serum levels than test-negative herd mates. The reproductive status of cows was also associated with the 25(OH)D levels, with fresh cows having the lowest serum concentration. In this cross-sectional study, a temporal or causal association between MAP antibody ELISA status and serum 25(OH)D concentration could not be evaluated. In addition, the high levels of vitamin D in the rations of participating farms and the average 25(OH)D serum concentration suggest that additional supplementation with vitamin D in the ration is likely to be ineffective.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据