teljes anyag - Nyugat-Magyarországi Egyetem Mezőgazdaság

More documents

Recommendations

Info

54N. Varga – E. Bertalanné Várallyay – L. Salamon:is suitable for Hungarian circumstances to trace economic losses caused by the diseaseincluding production and price data. The yearly average loss caused by BVD is around630 million HUF, but if the volume of infection is higher its impact is higher too, so it mayexceed 1 billion HUF. Regarding the stock we should calculate with 1600 HUF highercosts per cow per year. Costs mainly derive from calve and young stock mortality. Acuteinfections indicate a loss of about 1 billion HUF in a herd of 1000 cows. A summary ofcosts generated by the virus show the rate of income that could be achieved if the stockwere virus free (Ózsvári et al. 2001b).Bovine Infectious Rhinotracheitis (IBR)IBR is a respiratory disease of young cattle and is spread world wide and causes considerablelosses mainly in large scale keeping. According to the publications 80% of the stockof large scale farms are infected, however the stock of small dairy farms is less infected,only 15%. According to the data of HCOS (Hungarian Central Office of Statistics) therewere 490,000 infected animals and 438 out of them were calves and young stock in 1989.Losses caused by the disease exceeded 3 billion HUF per year in the country, which wasmore than 14,000 HUF calculated on one infected cow in 1999. It is a result of prematureculling of calves and young stock. Yearly loss of a dairy farm with 1000 cows comesaround 14 million of HUF owing to sub-clinical IBR and 34 million of HUF owing toclinical IBR (Ózsvári and Bíró 2001).MATERIAL AND METHODIn our investigations we aimed to answer the questions: ”What are the most frequent diseasesin dairy herds in the West-Transdanubian Region” and ”How high was the rate ofculling in the same region in 2002”. Data were collected after handing out questionnairesto 30 dairy farms. The questions were about the health situation of the stock. In 5 out of theinvestigated farms cows were kept in boxes and in 25 they were kept unbound in barns andoutdoor with floor management. Each farm had a fodder mix plant and most of the themused herringbone milking systems, but there were parallel, standing or pipe-lined types,too. 21 farms used Alfa-Laval systems. Farms were leucosis free and IBR-immunisationwas going on at the time of the investigation.RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONTable 1. show the health situation of the dairy herds.Outraging is dairy farm No. 24, because the calving interval period was 90–100 dayslonger than the farms average. Dairy farmers explained it with fat-mobilisation problemsand high rate of infertility.
Most frequent bovine diseases in cattle herds in the West-Transdanubian Region55Table 1. Stock health indices of dairy farmsFarm number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30Cow stock 580 550 220 98 300 1200 220 427 730 580 380 950 260 485 120 530 330 790 760 250 780 130 349 650 399 455 430 600 340 80Number of inmilkcows420 420 198 70 240 1100 220 341 550 440 240 800 210 290 80 375 263 680 640 210 523 75 275 530 320 350 359 480 270 68Service index (A.I.) 2,3 2,3 2,8 2,8 2,8 2,8 2 3 2,5 2,3 2,2 2,8 2,2 2,7 3,5 2,3 2,1 2,3 2,6 1,7 3,5 2,2 1,9 2,5 1,8 1,9 2,2 2,2 2,8 1,8Calving intervalperiod (days)410 410 410 410 398 405 365 430 450 412 400 400 400 420 420 410 405 400 440 340 431 390 400 510 400 400 400 400 414 400Most frequent diseasesFoot diseases (%) 3 5 2 4 1 6 3 3 2 1 3 2 5 2 4 6 4 2 5 1 4 2 1 5 4 5 3 2 1 2Placenta retention(%)10 10 10 8 8 30 5 10 10 2 1 2 20 10 1 60 10 3 10 1 16 3 1 60 10 15 9 30 6 3Metritis (%) 1 10 2 8 8 40 1 0,5 5 15 5 15 50 5 1 20 – 7 2 3 2 3 2 20 7 5 6 10 15 20Clinical mastitis (%) 2 3 3 5 5 5 1 10 5 2 2 5 5 20 10 10 10 3 1 5 60 10 15 5 10 20 8 5 40 1Sub-clinical mastitis(%)5 - 10 20 20 2 2 10 20 2 4 30 25 30 30 15 15 8 20 5 30 20 10 5 0 20 2 20 10 4Number of culledcows because of disease (%)30 20 25 30 33 25 10 15 20 30 10 10 15 10 15 20 25 20 18 8 30 7 25 30 10 30 22 20 30 10
Page 1 and 2:
ACTA AGRONOMICAÓVÁRIENSISVOLUME 5
Page 3: 3Szerkesztõi levélAktuális lapsz
Page 6 and 7: 6MegemlékezésAkkor ez különböz
Page 9 and 10: 9ACTA AGRONOMICA ÓVÁRIENSIS VOL.
Page 11 and 12: In vitro vegetative micropropagatio
Page 17: In vitro vegetative micropropagatio
Page 20 and 21: 20Cs. Gombkötô - J. Iváncsics:Ta
Page 22 and 23: 22Cs. Gombkötô - J. Iváncsics:th
Page 24 and 25: 24Cs. Gombkötô - J. Iváncsics:Th
Page 26 and 27: 26Cs. Gombkötô - J. Iváncsics:In
Page 28 and 29: 28Cs. Gombkötô - J. Iváncsics:Fi
Page 31 and 32: ACTA AGRONOMICA ÓVÁRIENSIS VOL. 5
Page 33 and 34: Fehér busából (Hypophthalmichthy
Page 41 and 42: A zona pellucidában vitrifikáció
Page 53: Most frequent bovine diseases in ca
Page 57 and 58: Most frequent bovine diseases in ca
Page 61 and 62: A versenyképesség fogalma és mé
Page 69: The main issues of land consolidati
Page 72 and 73: 72J. Alvincz - K. Kacz - J. P. Kolt
Page 75 and 76: The main issues of land consolidati
Page 79 and 80: Problems of milk quota management i
Page 85: Problems of milk quota management i
Page 88 and 89: 88Marosán M.:kodás során figyele
Page 90 and 91: 90Marosán M.:korú mezei és erdei
Page 92 and 93: 92Marosán M.:KorszerkezetAz ôzál
Page 94 and 95: 94Marosán M.:Szerzôk(1)Vemhes sut
Page 96 and 97: 96Marosán M.:1. ábra Az ôz elüt
Page 98 and 99: 98Marosán M.:Az ôzállományokban
Page 100 and 101: 100Marosán M.:8. táblázat Az ôz
Page 102 and 103: 102Marosán M.:Andersen, J. (1953):
Page 104 and 105:
104
Page 106 and 107:
106KöszöntésÉrdeklôdése egyre
Page 108 and 109:
108Köszöntés2001. július 1-jév
Page 110 and 111:
1102.3. Az Irodalom után kérjük
Page 112:
112ISSN 1416-647xKiadásért felel
show all

teljes anyag - Nyugat-Magyarországi Egyetem Mezőgazdaság

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?